Archive for the 'Industry News' Category

admin

Twitter Advertising

Twitter has advertising? I just started seeing a small graphic icon labeled “Promoted” on my new Twitter dashboard under the “Who to Follow” section and the advertiser that I saw was Rockstar Games promoting a new game title.

Twitter Ad

They had a link to this Twitter Advertising information page that has a information request form at the bottom of it.

How much does it cost to promote your content on Twitter? Is it a cost-per-click (CPC) model?

Some Promoted Products offerings, such as Promoted Trends, are a fixed rate. Others use a simple impression-based (CPM) pricing model. Twitter is still developing that model with a small group of beta advertising partners and are measuring multiple indicators of engagement, such as: retweets, @replies, use of #hashtags, avatar clicks, in-Tweet link clicks, views after re-tweets, and more. They are calling these indicators “Resonance” and they believe that over time, a pricing model based on resonance will be better for promoting a Twitter account than a CPC or CPA model on followers.

Here is the response when I asked to be signed up on the Twitter Advertising Beta.

screen-shot-2010-10-28-at-103909-am

2/11/11 – Post follow up: I just found this “Promoted Tweets” page on the Twitter Business section. They explain both promoted Tweets and promoted Trends offerings.

Promoted Tweets Explained:
* Send a Tweet to your followers first, then promote that Tweet
* The Tweets then appear as content in Twitter search results, not alongside them
* The Promoted Tweets can be interacted with just like normal Tweets

MSN Yahoo Search Partnership

Bada-Bing-a-hoo. As crazy as this sounds it is true. MSN or as we now should refer to it as Bing.com has signed a 10-year deal with Yahoo to power its searches for an initial 88% share of search revenue. What does this mean to you? Well if you have ever ranked high with MSN search in the past then get ready to get about 4 times more natural search traffic from this partnership. I have always optimized SEO around Google and have never really gotten much love from Yahoo and have stumbled on great placements on MSN over the years with no real math behind the results.

In a lengthy interview on Friday before departing for a vacation, Carol Bartz, CEO of Yahoo, said she sold the search business because Yahoo could no longer continue to match the level of investment Google and Microsoft were making in searching, one of the Web’s most lucrative and technologically complex businesses.

“My first reaction when I got here was that I wouldn’t even do a search deal,” she said, “until I looked at our expense structure and our actual options and looked at what our prime job was, which is to grow audience.” Yahoo will lose some of its most talented engineers to Microsoft and as many as 400 employees through layoffs. The deal also undercuts years of investment around search technology.

Microsoft will now power Yahoo! search while Yahoo! will become the exclusive worldwide relationship sales force for both companies premium search advertisers. Read the below bullet points from the press release. It is a bit lengthy but good information:

  • Microsoft will acquire an exclusive 10 year license to Yahoo!’s core search technologies, and Microsoft will have the ability to integrate Yahoo! search technologies into its existing Web search platforms;
  • Microsoft’s Bing will be the exclusive algorithmic search and paid search platform for Yahoo! sites. Yahoo! will continue to use its technology and data in other areas of its business such as enhancing display advertising technology;
  • Yahoo! will become the exclusive worldwide relationship sales force for both companies’ premium search advertisers. Self-serve advertising for both companies will be fulfilled by Microsoft’s AdCenter platform, and prices for all search ads will continue to be set by AdCenter’s automated auction process;
  • Each company will maintain its own separate display advertising business and sales force;
  • Yahoo! will innovate and “own” the user experience on Yahoo! properties, including the user experience for search, even though it will be powered by Microsoft technology;
  • Microsoft will compensate Yahoo! through a revenue sharing agreement on traffic generated on Yahoo!’s network of both owned and operated (O&O) and affiliate sites;
  • Microsoft will pay traffic acquisition costs (TAC) to Yahoo! at an initial rate of 88 percent of search revenue generated on Yahoo!’s O&O sites during the first five years of the agreement; and Yahoo! will continue to syndicate its existing search affiliate partnerships
  • Microsoft will guarantee Yahoo!’s O&O revenue per search (RPS) in each country for the first 18 months following initial implementation in that country;
  • At full implementation (expected to occur within 24 months following regulatory approval), Yahoo! estimates, based on current levels of revenue and current operating expenses, that this agreement will provide a benefit to annual GAAP operating income of approximately $500 million and capital expenditure savings of approximately $200 million. Yahoo! also estimates that this agreement will provide a benefit to annual operating cash flow of approximately $275 million; and
  • The agreement protects consumer privacy by limiting the data shared between the companies to the minimum necessary to operate and improve the combined search platform, and restricts the use of search data shared between the companies. The agreement maintains the industry-leading privacy practices that each company follows today.

This announcement could be one of the biggest game changers in the brief history of Internet as we like to call it.

ad:tech logo

Here is a discount code for the ad:tech San Francisco event 2009 from April 21st – 23rd. If you’re planning on attending, visit the registration page and use the code SFCONF4 for a 40% discount on the conference price. This event is attended by 1,000s of interactive advertising professionals on the buying and selling side of the biz. If you are looking to make contact with an ad network or major portal publisher then you should definitely make the trip down to ad:tech while it is on the West Coast. Visit the official website at: ad:tech

From Silicon Alley Insider:

If Google and Yahoo go forward with their search partnership, they’ll have to sign a consent decree. Which will mean, that Google might have US government inspectors digging around in its books, business practices and contracts. The measly Yahoo partnership certainly don’t seem to be worth the government snooping around.

Jessica Vascellaro of the WSJ says Google’s close to walking from the deal. This means Yahoo’s board members might want to get back on the phone with Microsoft about selling the search business to them. The likelihood that Google Inc. and Yahoo Inc. will walk away from their planned search partnership has risen, say people close to the contract negotiations.

The two Internet search portals have so far failed to reach an agreement on their partnership with the US Justice Department, which has been building a lawsuit to block the deal. Following a meeting Thursday with the Justice Department, the companies could announce a decision to back away from the partnership — or a last-minute resolution, if one is reached — by the middle of next week, according to these sources.

The option to just scrap the deal has been on the table before, but Google in particular has begun considering it more seriously recently as talks with the Justice Department haven’t progressed. One sticking point has been the Justice Department’s discussion of having the companies sign a consent decree enforcing the terms of the search partnership. By doing so, the parties would be subjecting their compliance with the agreement to ongoing oversight by a judge.

Kara Swisher intelligently guesses what the reason Google gave the WSJ some of this story is to ramp up pressure on the Justice Department to cave. Google doesn’t need this deal, but Yahoo does (and if it doesn’t get it, it’s leverage to draw Microsoft into an alternative deal is very small.)

If that’s the strategy, though, it’s unlikely to work. Who, exactly, is going to complain to the Justice Department about blocking the Google-Yahoo deal? Yahoo shareholders? Not a particularly powerful constituency nowadays.

Related Article: rent a car bulgariaNo Search Deal for Google, Yahoo?
-Brian R.

admin

Google AdWords and Politics

I got a nice surprise message from Google reminding me to vote on Tuesday. Does Google really think they are driving votes by messaging all of their Google AdWords advertisers to vote? I felt spammed for some reason. That space is usually reserved for important messages regarding your account and not for public service announcements.

I wonder if Google will release data on how much they made on this year’s elections from advertisers. At least the people behind each campaign have good ads with strong call to actions on them and best practices applied.

Google has recently taken a stance publicly opposing California’s Prop 8 that seeks to amend the state’s constitution and undo the California Supreme Court’s legalization of same-sex marriage, leading co-founder Sergey Brin to release a statement on behalf of Google. “It is the chilling and discriminatory effect of the proposition on many of our employees that brings Google to publicly oppose Proposition 8,” commented Brin, “While we respect the strongly-held beliefs that people have on both sides of this argument, we see this fundamentally as an issue of equality. We hope that California voters will vote ‘no’ on Proposition 8 — we should not eliminate anyone’s fundamental rights, whatever their sexuality, to marry the person they love.” I applaud Mr. Brin on showing support to his Gay employees and for supporting same sex marriage rights.

Here is the two political camp’s ads on Google:

admin

Boo to Yahoo-Google Deal

I think that there is huge anti-trust issues with the proposed Yahoo-Google advertising partnership. Google says they will backfill their advertisers into areas where Yahoo doesn’t have any advertisers.

Yahoo President Sue Decker recently wrote on a Yahoo company blog that the nonexclusive Google deal is simply a way of “backfilling” search queries with relevant ads that Yahoo doesn’t have in its network. The idea is that with millions Yahoo users making so many search queries, it is simply not possible for any one company to maintain a large enough repository of ads to make a relevant match with every query. “Not even Google,” she wrote.

As an advertiser and agency that represents several paid search clients we are concerned that Google will apply its muscle to popular terms that they have decided should cost more to advertisers which will raise our costs across the board if we are now buying them from Google via Yahoo.

How could the Department of Justice not see this as anti-trust where Google already commands somewhere around 70 percent of the search market and pairing up with Yahoo will mean that we will be forced to play by their rules and algorithm changes that will favor squeezing more and more out of their already upset advertising community. Google is already exhibiting unfair advertising practices by conveniently protecting large branded searches and letting large brands buy the “trademarked” search terms of their smaller competitors. It is a one-way street where big business is protecting big business and the giant just gets bigger and bigger.

Google has even launched their own “Advocacy” website:
http://www.google.com/yahoogooglefacts/

Doesn’t this look like what you usually see when politicians are sending out slander campaigns against each other. The simple fact is that Yahoo should get their game up and not sell out to Google but maybe team up with Facebook or MSN and try to get some marketshare from Google. Getting in bed with Google at this stage in the game only makes them more powerful on all fronts and reduces Yahoo’s value proposition as a brand. Yahoo is expected to make an additional $800 Million a year from this partnership. Short sighted gain for longer term losses in my eyes. Yahoo, you are bigger than this. Step away from the 800lb. gorilla, roll up your sleeves and make your damn search results better and don’t do it by listing “Wikipedia” at the top of the page like Google and MSN. Try to find a small but popular brand on large search queries in Google and you’ll only see site the large brands, newspaper, .gov links and wiki-sites. (example: travel). Why does Tripadvisor.com have to buy that keyword? Answer that and you might have the answer to what is wrong with Google’s so-called “Algorithm”.

-Brian R.

admin

Google’s AdWords Downfall

Google has been making some very poor business decisions lately mostly in the way they handle their advertisers in Google AdWords. When I first bought an ad on Google (I believe I was the 3rd person to do so) it was presented to me in a 3-ring binder with a list of keywords that I had to purchase. There was no cherry picking or keyword negatives. I met with my sales executive in their old Mountain View offices and I believe there was about 120 people back then mostly PHD engineers and only a handful of sales people.

I believe the CPM was around $55 initially and we purchased our block of keywords for a one-year contract in order to block out any other competitors in the dating space from appearing on those keywords. Remember that this is pre-AdWords and there was only two ad spots on the page that were both highlighted in pale green and blue. The sponsored ads appeared above the natural results and never to the right side of the page.

We enjoyed this position for quite sometime and the traffic was great and converted well for us. Eventually we were able to refine our keyword lists and the internal estimation system got more accurate in projecting our spend for the next year.

Then came Google AdWords, this meant that we could no longer protect our positions and that the entire marketplace was going to open up in a bid environment. I fought this hard with David Scocco, who I believe was the head of vertical markets at the time. I didn’t understand how they could or would cancel our contract and allow all of our competitors to now come in and fish in our waters when we had build out the opportunity with Google and now our keyword lists were getting shared by other Google sales groups to our competitors.

The sharks then filled in the tank and all of the ad spots were occupied instantly in our category. I then began to understand why Google had introduced this model to let the best advertiser and ads trickle to the top and that we wouldn’t be bullied out of our positions as long as we had a strong CTR and bid. It started out as a bull fight with some of the companies fighting for top position on several keywords but then everyone settled into where the CPA’s were working for them.

Now let’s fast forward to Google’s operations today and how tons of media companies are laying off employees and losing face with their clients because Google has decided to put strict guidelines on trying to increase their dying CTR’s by arbitrarily raising bids to $5, $10 and in some cases $100 levels making them impossible to buy anymore. Most of these keywords are directional searches like “Dell”, “Kayak” or “Match”. There is no longer a landscape of advertisers on those keywords.

Look at the keyword “Dell” a little closer. Don’t you remember searching for this keyword at one point in time and seeing advertisers for Dell accessories, re-furbished Dell’s, Dell coupon codes, Dell printer ink cartridges or even a competing Sony Laptop ad. Do the search today to only yield an official “Dell.com” ad and also Dell.com in the first natural result spot.

How does this benefit the consumer at all? Google is now deciding for us what we were looking for when we did this search instead of letting the marketplace compete with each other to offer us other options. Obviously if I was just looking for Dell.com’s website then I could have easily navigated to it directly or clicked on the top natural result. Google is bleeding money that they used to make on these searches because not-so relevant advertisers had to pay a premium to be on these keywords before. Now they are only making money from the brand itself and the CTR on branded terms is usually in the 0.10 – 0.25 CPC range as they are relevant and click well.

You can do this search across a bunch of different brands and verticals including online education. Do a search for “University of Phoenix” and you’ll see the same thing. The Official UoP ad and UoP listed in the #1 position in natural search. What happened to the competitors of University of Phoenix ads? If I was investigating going to an online university and only knew of UoP then I would like to see other competitors ads in the “Marketplace” area but instead Google has made the decision to protect this brand.

University of Phoenix Google Search

Do a search for “Plenty of Fish” in Google and you’ll see that no one is advertising on that keyword. That is because it will cost you $10 / click to buy a free dating service keyword where your acquisition costs for a user are around $6 which means that if every single click converted you would still be under water.

Plenty of Fish Google Search

This keyword gets searched well over a million times a month and Google isn’t making ANY money off of the term but there are plenty of dating companies that would love to “fish” in these waters and buy the term from them.

Plenty of Fish Keyword

Now here is where I really think there is a larger issue that needs to be brought to the federal level. Google is protecting a lot of the large brands terms but not vice versa. Do a search for Match.com and then do a search for Perfectmatch.com. Why is there no advertisers on Match.com but there is a full marketplace of advertisers on the Perfectmatch.com trade keyword. How can their “Algorithm” determine that advertisers shouldn’t be able to buy Match.com because it hasn’t historically performed well for advertisers which is what they told me.

Google is intentionally hurting the value of their advertising business to any shareholder by placing these new rules on their paid advertisers and leaving tons of money just sitting on the table. They are bullying small brands and protecting the large brands that don’t need the protection by protecting their trade names and not that of the smaller brands. I have told many of my banker friends to short their stock until they change their evil ways.

-Brian R.

Alexa recently released news that they have “better rankings,” and “improved methodology” and have moved past using their Alexa Toolbar as one of the main sources for its rankings. I have always called Alexa the CEO’s site meter tool as the toolbar itself wasn’t even available for MACs. I think every CEO or marketing manager has installed the toolbar at one point in time to check their ranking and it has been used widely by marketing professionals as a research tool for competitive intelligence.

Alexa Ratingsкомпютри втора употреба

I haven’t used the site or toolbar in over a year and for comparative site reporting I usually frequent sites like Compete.com and Quantcast.com which the industry and website owners have implemented and are using in great numbers to report on their own demographics and to share information to their vertical or category for ranking. These two services have free features and provide pretty detailed information for general comparison reporting or trending. If you have the cash to pay for yearly access to Hitwise, comScore or Nielsen’s net ratings then let me know so you can run a few reports for me too. Those subscriptions are costly and I haven’t seen much value in them unless you are in an interesting vertical and are looking for websites to advertise on that you might not have realized were in your demographic.

I wish sites like 100Hot.com still existed and MediaMetrix still published their top 100 website report online for free. I think I’ll give Alexa another try and see if they are delivering something worthwhile now.

Why would Google be wasting their time trying to block the Microsoft / Yahoo deal? We as consumers need another search solution and another good PPC search option other then Google. Google has been buying up companies left and right and there hasn’t be any issues with that. I was really excited about this news since I have been a little dissappointed with both providers lately. Microsoft needs more search volume and Yahoo needs more eyeballs for their portal.

It has been interesting seeing both portals grow over the past 5 or so years with two different strategies. Yahoo has opted to buy companies like Flickr, Blue Lithium, del.icio.us, Overture, Musicmatch and other websites that offer complimentary services that Yahoo decided not to build. MSN instead decided to partner with sites to offer products and services like CitySearch for City Guides, Match.com for Dating & Personals and Career Builder for their Jobs channel. MSN recently purchased aQuantive, Inc. for $6 billion to extend their ad network with Atlas, DrivePM and the Avenue A / Razorfish ad agency. They were already pretty aligned with aQuantive using them to serve up ads on their performance network. I hope that the Microsoft / Yahoo deal goes through as it will streamline a ton of inefficiencies that both Yahoo and Microsoft have had in Advertising. Yahoo has been a weak publisher to deal with on the display media side of things and MSN has been weak in the search side of the biz.

By ANDREW ROSS SORKIN AND MIGUEL HELFT THE NEW YORK TIMES

Standing between a marriage of Microsoft Corp. and Yahoo may be the technology giant that has continually outsmarted them: Google.

· What would stay, what would go if Yahoo takes Microsoft’s offer?
In an unusually aggressive effort to prevent Microsoft from moving forward with its $44.6 billion hostile bid for Yahoo, Google emerged over the weekend with plans to play the role of spoiler.

Publicly, Google came out against the deal, contending in a statement that the pairing, proposed by Microsoft on Friday in the form of a hostile offer, would pose potential threats to competition that need to be examined by policymakers around the world.

Privately, Google went much further. Its chief executive, Eric Schmidt, placed a call to Yahoo’s chief, Jerry Yang, offering the company’s help in fending off Microsoft, possibly in the form of a partnership between the companies, people briefed on the call said.

Yahoo declined to comment Sunday. Microsoft said, as it did Friday when it made the bid, that the merger would lead to more, not less, competition.

“The combination of Microsoft and Yahoo will create a more competitive marketplace by establishing a compelling No. 2 competitor for Internet search and online advertising,” Brad Smith, Microsoft’s general counsel, said in a statement. “The alternative scenarios only lead to less competition on the Internet.”