« January 2005 |
Main
| March 2005 »
February 28, 2005
RSS and PPC: better contextual targetting?
The idea of putting PPC adverts into RSS feeds isn't new, but nobody is doing it on a large scale, yet.
Overture have looked at it (and there's been some uninformed hype about what Overture are doing - RSS search engine Feedster's blog corrects this). Overture and Feedburner are trailing PPC ads in some RSS feeds.
Now Kanoodle are launching (CNET coverage) a RSS PPC advert network (BrightAds RSS) in conjunction with Moreover. The challenges for Kanoodle and publishers are:
- making sure adverts are relevant to location of the reader (the country they are in)
- making sure the advert matches the content of the individual article (so an article on iPods should have an iPod advert, or a MP3 download service ad)
- making sure there is no unfortunate matching of adverts and articles that could cause offence, (like the unfortunate AdSense "body in a suitcase" incident
And of course the ads need to deliver ROI.
Some content sites are already putting PPC adverts into their RSS feeds including BoingBoing. Powered by Overture in the feeds - but Kanoodle on the HTML pages.
I'd like to hear hear from anybody who has seen their ads in RSS feeds or even better seen clicks from them in their tracking/log files. I suspect RSS conversion rates will mirror normal contextual advertising rates; lower than search, but sometimes profitable dependent on a) the advertiser's offering and b) the sites showing the ads.
Email duncanp at payperclickanalyst.com or leave a comment...
Posted by duncan at 05:54 PM
| Comments (0)
Snap.com officially launches "Cost-Per-Action" Search Advertising
I've been watching Snap.com for a while - they are aiming to offer CPA advertising (cost per acquisition) direct to advertisers; the idea is you only pay the engine for actual conversions (sales, enquiery leads etc):
"With Snap's CPA system, advertisers pay only when a customer completes an action tied to precise revenue, eliminating this risk [of click fraud]. Furthermore, because Snap does not syndicate its results to third parties, advertisers have added confidence that they will receive high-quality traffic."
(Press release here).
They offer standard PPC ads too - the full advert range available is:
- Cost-Per-Click (CPC)
You pay only when a user clicks on your listings on Snap.
Bid-per-click: $0.05 (5 cents) minimum per click
- Fixed-Cost-Per-Action (FCPA)
You choose a fixed amount and pay only when a consumer completes the specific action(s) you want: purchases a product, registers for a service, etc.
Fixed bid-per-action: $1.00 minimum per action
- Variable-Cost-Per-Action (VCPA)
You choose a fixed percentage of purchase price and pay only when the item is sold to a customer from Snap.
Variable bid-per-action: 5.0% minimum per sale
More info here
They are aiming to develop a user base of broadband-enabled "web savvy" users. The real obstacle for them will be convincing users to be loyal to them as their first search destination, not Google, Yahoo or the shopping search sites.
They are trying to offer users more, with logos, product images, and longer descriptions and interactive forms with deep-linking on offer to advertisers: so a mix of some of the best bits of PPC (logos like Espotting), longer descripitions (like directories, or Overture compared to Google AdWords) and product images (Froogle, Shopping.com, Kelkoo etc.).
But most notable of all, Snap.com displays how many users have clicked each listing, the average number of pages viewed on that site by Snap.com visitors, the cost to the advertiser and the conversion rate.
Example for "car buying guide"
The idea is more clicks/conversions indicates a better site and so more relevant result - so the more clicks/conversions, the higher your position.
Paid listings are mixed with natural listings - a high bid does not guarantee #1 ranking. Google's AdWords currently rewards good ad copy; Snap.com aims to reward good sites (those that are good at selling, anyway). They have their own crawler too (submit your URL here).
No doubt some of you will be worrying about sharing conversion data with your competitors. It'll be interesting to hear how they persuade advertisers to part with data - for example, can you see eBay, Amazon and Barnes and Noble making that data public? More likely they will use standard PPC, IMO.
(Note: Conversion data is only shown for paid listings where the advertisers are paying on an action basis and have put Snap.com's tracking code on their confirmation page.)
And their backers? IdeaLab - who just happened to back a certain company called GoTo*
*For the unitiated, you know them as Overture.
Posted by duncan at 03:02 PM
| Comments (0)
February 26, 2005
Rebranding mania in the UK
There sems to be a rebranding virus spreading amongst UK online marketing firms.
WSPS and Corporem Global caught it and both rebranded on the same day (bet the PR people were happy with that coincidence).
Now ValueClick has sneezed out a rebrand too as VCMedia.
Joy.
Posted by duncan at 05:43 PM
| Comments (0)
Impression Fraud
What is it?
Causing an advert (PPC, banner or indeed any online advert) to be served many more times than normal. E.g. by clicking refresh in IE.
Why?
On Google PPC ads are positioned based on bid and click through rate. Lots of servings (i.e. displayes) of the advert with no clicks leads to a low click through rate, and can therefore lower the position of the advert in Google results, to the advantage of competitors.
A low click through rate can also lead to Overture adverts being penalised.
How to combat it?
Aside from the efforts of Google and Overture themsleves, watch out for sudden decreases in the performance of keywords - does the number of impressions for the keyword seem to have suddenly spiked upwards?
Related blog post from Search Engine Watch.
Posted by duncan at 05:33 PM
| Comments (0)
SuperPages.com PPC Advertising: One Year On
A year ago I wrote about the PPC advertising programme launched by Internet Yellow Pages website SuperPages.com ("A Preview of SuperPages.com's Pay Per Click Advertising").
The company has made public details of their achievements in the last 12 months (their PR people have been sending out cup cakes with candles - and went so far as to arrange for one to reach me in the UK. 10/10 for persistence).
Some facts:
- 16 million unique visitors in December 2004 (31% increase from November 2004)
- 9 million business profiles on the site (57% increase since March '04)
- According to the The Buying Power Index, SuperPages.com's network visitors spend 112% more than the "average" Internet user
- They have also added a self service centre to allow advertisers to manage their own campaigns; if memory serves, when first launched advertisers had to request changes and SuperPages staff then made them.
(Details of their PPC program and other advertising options here).
Now where are the matches for that candle...
Posted by duncan at 02:44 PM
| Comments (1)
February 18, 2005
Should you share data with Overture and Google
People have asked me (and I've seen asked on forums) if advertisers should share data with Overture, Google etc. by using their free (for now) conversion tracking options.
My answer is: no.
Let me qualify that: no if you have anything approaching a significant budget for your sector.
Why?
Whilst I don't beleive in some of the more, umm, rabid conspiracies that float around the web about big commpanies, I'm certainly not providing the engines with data that tells them what keywords work for me and which don't.
What's to stop them introudicng sector specific minimum CPCs? That would be a rewind to Google's CPM pricing structure from before they "got" PPC and developed AdWords (later than Overture etc. BTW).
I'm not the only one who thinks this way, and there may be an example of this happening in shopping comparisons...
Posted by duncan at 02:12 PM
| Comments (0)
February 16, 2005
Ask Jeeves and Enhance (aka Ah-Ha)
There have been rumours Ask would start serving Ehnace PPC ads above Google's on their sites.
Not true - Enhance sent an email out offering to sell their advertisers space on Ask above Google; but anybody (with deep enough pockets) can buy these spots direct from Ask - Premier Listings.
Posted by duncan at 09:00 PM
| Comments (0)
February 09, 2005
Overture making Ads live with minimal checking?
It seems to be my day for finding dodgy listings on Overture UK:
"UK Sales Lead Provider Lead-in Research
A top UK sales leads provider, lead-in research ltd, delivers the latest sales leads from expanding companies who need products and services now. FREE TRIAL.
www. [Removed] .co.uk (sponsored listing)"
Since when did Overture allow ALL CAPS in ads?
Then I found:
"None
Company XYZ Managed Backup automatically archives data to UK data centres. Used by City Councils, solicitors, accountants and consultants. Resilient, quick data recovery. 30 Day Trial.
www. [Removed] .co.uk (sponsored listing)"
Sorry? Title "None" and the Editor didn't notice and made it live anyway?
Oh dear. Looks like Overture's editors are very busy and rushing - or quality control has been relaxed. I suspect the former; they removed another bad listing I spotted very quickly, so that is a good sign.
This highlights a key difference between Google and Overture. Overture check ads before they go live and use human editors whilst Google don't check them as closely and rely on technology.
Overture have to check because Yahoo! demand it for their own editorial and relevancy rules (they did before they bought them, I know for fact).
Personally I see too many irrelevant ads in Google triggered by keywords setup on broadmatch without sufficient negative keywords. I know friends of mine do too - and some have said they now ignore all AdWords results "the ones on the coloured background" as they are always described.
Whilst I don't expect to see a decline in CTRs on AdWords, you have to wonder about the long term impact on CTRs and Google's image of providing relevant results (not to mention the problems of spam in the main results). Technology can only do so much; it can't replace humans - Google's own engineers have been the first to admit that.
Posted by duncan at 04:51 PM
| Comments (0)
February 07, 2005
AdWords 2004: a review
Want to know what developments happened with AdWords in 2004? Let Google's staff tell you (movie-slideshow-thingy).
A bit advertorial, but what the hell.
Posted by duncan at 03:15 PM
| Comments (0)
February 01, 2005
Overture "Ghost" advertisers manipulating bids
There's an interesting thread over in the SEM 2.0 group (members only - SEM2.0).
"Ford" who started the thread suggests some advertisers using Overture are running multiple accounts to manipulate bids on certain keywords by forcing them high but receiving lower-cost traffic.
I'm not going to say how here - and I've not seen evidence of this myself - but it sounds like a conspiracy theory, a way for Overture to make more money, right?
I'm not so sure. If this is happening - and as I said, I've not tested it - it could simply be that Overture hasn't thought about this scenario. It's too easy to see conspiring PPC engine staff behind every anomaly, when it simply could be a situation they hadn't planned for or don't have the resources to fix right now, because it's not a major issue affecting most advertisers.
Suffice to say I'll be watching out for this in future, and will blog any solid evidence here.
Posted by duncan at 01:40 PM
| Comments (3)
|
