It was Sunday, Father’s Day. I woke up in my comfortable home, my kids and wife treated me to breakfast in bed (a tradition in our house). And then I did what I needed to do, but did not want to. At twelve noon, I left for the airport (I gave myself the bad dad award.). It was painful to leave the house where I am spoiled by my family.
But, I had to get to Miami to make it to the SES Latino Conference which started early Monday morning. The flight started out easy enough. We left on time and appeared to be moving at a good clip. Then the captain came on… we were diverted, but are now on our way back to Miami.
When we landed I said, “Not too late.”
Stupid… never say anything like that while your still on the plane.
Weather messed things up pretty badly. We sat just off the gates for about 2 hours. Things did not go so smoothly.
I arrive at the hotel late. Ordered some late night room service, popped open the computer and started to review emails, work on some database stuff and review some blogs. Eventually, I went to sleep.
When I woke up a few hours later the next morning, I looked out my window. Visible from my room, there were 11 skyscrapers under construction. The steel and concrete all looked virtually the same. Sure, there were some slight differences in shape to accommodate the façade or esthetics, but they were essentially similar. Once they are complete, I am sure they will be very distinct from each other. But, at their hearts, they all follow the same rules of architecture.
Well, as I was sitting in the sessions today, I realized that my trip here was very analogous to the road we travel when advertising to the Latino market place.
We know we have a comfortable market that treats us well and stepping away from it (leaving others to tend it), is hard. But, we’re going to do it because it is necessary.
We then start kidding ourselves into thinking maybe it’s not so difficult. Just take what I do, changed the language and I’m golden.
Then, the SNAFU fears come on. We don’t get the clicks, we don’t get the conversions, or worse, we forgot to have someone check the literal meaning in the native language of our product and blame that for our woes. We’ve all heard various versions of the same theme, a car named “Nova” (by the way, this one was an urban legend). Anyway, there are going to be some bumps. We may end up with different routes, getting there later or finding something we did not expect.
But, lest we forget, most of us went through bumps when launching in our own country or our own language. We were just less frightened by it because we could understand, and therefore adjust to the reasons. It is marketing 101. Learn and adapt to the markets.
This leads to the buildings I saws. At its core, marketing is marketing. All the strategies that were discussed were core and classic marketing. Just like every building has to follow similar architectural rules around the laws of physics, all marketing has to follow the same basic rules around the laws of communication. Then, when we get into market, the individual locale dictates the target action, words and esthetics of our campaigns, but core marketing practices don’t change.
There will be others covering the details of the presentations. The bottom line is that good search marketing is good search marketing anywhere in the world. The same core practices you use to create programs in English in the States need to set the framework for any other programs you run. .
Just for fun, I am going to poke at Gord Hotchkiss. Last week he went off on his fellow Canadians. The essential message: The Canadian people are online in droves and well adept at using search. Why aren’t the marketers well adept at search marketing?
Well, it appears the Latin American marketers have set the groundwork for developing well managed SEM. While content is still lacking, there is a VERY firm grasp of ROI measurement; SEM practices and the proper development of well structured content. I was hearing things from Latin American search marketers that I did not hear from many American SEMs until just this past year. The Latin American market is going to grow phenomenally and the marketers are well positioned to leverage that growth with well thought out metrics and measurement practices.
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
Yahoo!'s Terry Semel steps back, Susan and Jerry Step up
Today I am at the SES Latino Conference in Miami, FL (more on that later). During some of the sessions, the various representatives from Yahoo! spoke about the ‘innovation’ of Panama. I can overlook the fact that this is a conference on Latino marketing and the Yahoo contribution’s were predominantly about Yahoo Panama (at least it’s name is that of a Central American country), but I just heard similar ‘pitches’ at the SMX conference in Seattle a couple of weeks ago (am I allowed to mention SES and SMX in the same breath?!?) . Normally I don’t mind a company pitching its products. But, Yahoo!’s insistence on using adjectives like ‘innovative’ to describe Panama while Google is sitting on the stage with them is embarrassing.
So, along with all the financials and shareholder discontent that have come out lately, it is no surprise that Terry is stepping back and allowing Susan Decker and Jerry Yang to step up as President and CEO respectively. Press release.
Since the release of Panama I have held my words about Yahoo!’s aggrandizement of a product that merely mimics what has been in market for years. When Avenue A issued several verdicts, I simply cautioned that it was too soon to really tell what the impact will be, and it will be primarily up top the SEMs to decide. I then heard Terry Semel talk about the great improvements of Panama during the shareholder calls and I was further questioning their perspective. It is not that Panama is bad. It isn’t. It is a great improvement over the old Yahoo! / Overture system. However, it is now and only just now, catching up to the market.
I am not sure how a company can become a leader in the space when it believes it is ‘innovative’ with a product that is comparable to technology that has been in place for years. If Yahoo! wants to impress shareholders, then it must either develop something that advertisers OR users think is above Google’s offerings, or just plug away at search to keep up and find an area where it truly has a competitive advantage.
If I were even more arrogant than I am, I’d pretend to know what the competitive advantage is. Yahoo! has great properties, terrific traffic and really smart people. I hope the new leadership finds the magic that has eluded Terry, and the rest of us.
So, along with all the financials and shareholder discontent that have come out lately, it is no surprise that Terry is stepping back and allowing Susan Decker and Jerry Yang to step up as President and CEO respectively. Press release.
Since the release of Panama I have held my words about Yahoo!’s aggrandizement of a product that merely mimics what has been in market for years. When Avenue A issued several verdicts, I simply cautioned that it was too soon to really tell what the impact will be, and it will be primarily up top the SEMs to decide. I then heard Terry Semel talk about the great improvements of Panama during the shareholder calls and I was further questioning their perspective. It is not that Panama is bad. It isn’t. It is a great improvement over the old Yahoo! / Overture system. However, it is now and only just now, catching up to the market.
I am not sure how a company can become a leader in the space when it believes it is ‘innovative’ with a product that is comparable to technology that has been in place for years. If Yahoo! wants to impress shareholders, then it must either develop something that advertisers OR users think is above Google’s offerings, or just plug away at search to keep up and find an area where it truly has a competitive advantage.
If I were even more arrogant than I am, I’d pretend to know what the competitive advantage is. Yahoo! has great properties, terrific traffic and really smart people. I hope the new leadership finds the magic that has eluded Terry, and the rest of us.
Friday, June 15, 2007
Creative Testing – a full time affair
Okay, we looked at setting up the campaign, ad group, keywords, as well as the metrics, tracking and reporting. One of the often over looked opportunities with Google and now with Yahoo Panama is the ability to test creative. However, it is not just a matter of putting out a bunch of copy executions and seeing what happens with the CTR. You need to think these things out in advanced and develop a process or system to test these affectively relative to your ultimate online goals.
Whats this about
Before I go further, I want to be clear. This is not “how to write good copy.” This posting is about how to set your program up to find the optimal keyword, copy and experience combination. Too often, I hear about copy in terms of what drives the best CTR. When, in fact there are instances where you want users to self select out and effectively lower your CTR. Why? Because this is about the ROI…what happens post click. Getting to the best copy in terms of ROI / ROAS is what this post is about.
Identify the Consumers' Drivers and Your Control
As mentioned in previous post, associating subject matter / words in the ad copy with the landing page is very important to improving the quality score thereby lowering your CPC and improving your position. However, there is a lot more to it than that. If the whole theory of the quality score plays out, then a higher quality score should also improve your conversions. Whether this is true or not can only be tested by you (I have seen and read of many situations where the quality score was low, but conversions were high).
To assess your ability to manage quality score along with optimizing conversions, begin by identifying those things related to your site over which you have control. Ask:
1) Can you drive to any page you want and still have the tracking you need?
2) Can you control the content of any particular page?
3) Can you add pages?
4) Can you control offers or pricing?
Then ask about what drives the desired action. What are users looking for that will drive the actions you want (buying, requesting more info, signing up for newsletters, etc)?
1) price
2) selection / availability
3) easy of process
4) quality
5) actionable information
6) brands
7) attributes
8) Other?
You probably know what people talk about regarding your product or service and this is a good starting point. However, if you have not already tested other messaging subjects, don’t rule them out right off the bat. In other words, challenge what you “know.”
Okay, now the interesting part. Take a look at the list of what drives consumers and take a look at your site. This is where your level of control comes in. Worst case scenario is where you know that nothing on your site speaks directly to the consumers’ drivers and you can’t change that. Usually, it is slightly better than that. You have some sub-pages that have relevant subject matter, but over which you have no direct control. If you’re one of the fortunate few, you have actual content control. Where ever you are on the spectrum, be sure you understand it. It is important when mapping out the next steps.
Where to send the users
So, we’ve covered a fair bit, and I have not written one word about actual ad copy. Before you start writing ad copy, you must have a clear picture of your users’ drivers and your own control. You want to ensure that the users’ expectations pre-click match their experience post click. To do this, map out the drivers of behavior to the most appropriate place on your site.
If the productSelection.html page is the only one to which you can drive traffic, this may be good for some things but poor for others. This is where your control level comes in.
What you want to do is be able to have specific pages developed, either dynamically based on parameters, or with static HTML that you have the option to change quickly. So your matrix can look something like this:
In this scenario, the price driven users land on pages with well targeted subject matter geared toward promotions, rebates / price, quality, and others attributes. Its obvious; if there is a key driver that gets them to click on the ad, then why take them to a page that has nothing to do with it? Drive them to a well targeted page.
Once you’ve done this, ask yourself yet another question: “does the section of the site your users end up on really speak to the issue / subject you believe drives their behavior?” The answer ought to be yes. If not, can you exercise some control? For instance, with pricing driven shoppers, some may be moved by straight sales, others may be moved by “package” deals. So between, “25% off the pants”, or “buy these pants and get 50% of selected shirts,” which drives more revenue per ad dollar?
Copy Content Sources
Now, you have your “drivers,” your target pages and your tracking (or you will.) I don’t know what the desired event is for your site, so obviously I can’t give actual copy. But, what I can do is help you wrap some structure around your ad copy practices. For the copy itself, look to several sources:
1) The competition. Not to mimic them, but to see about points of differentiation. There may not be any (hard to tell a boss that, so come up with something), but it is good to stay aware.
2) The web site itself. What is on the page? Look at logs…what text or images drove clicks to your target page from within the site?
3) Off-line, POP, direct mail, print ads, etc. for you and the competition.
4) Marketing and advertising research / customer feedback.
You get the idea…you’re not isolated. There are many sources of information related to copy development. Now for each of the drivers, develop at least a few copy options.
Setting up Your Test Matrix
Then create a matrix that will allow you to start tracking results.
The above matrix is very basic. For each driver, you may have multiple test landing pages, or you may send the same driver to multiple landing pages, or have different metrics. Keep in mind that the value may be realized from an immediate sale, or from a sign up for a newsletter leading to a later sale. If your site has both, then the metrics are different for each. The point is, look at this as a starting point and mold it to your own situation.
Beyond that you should take this down to the keyword level. This is where the nuances play out that can lead to the epiphanies. You may find that the same drivers create great sales for one keyword and not well for another in the same ad copy / landing page combination. The poor performing keyword may however do well with different ad copy going to the same page, or same ad copy to a different page or…. The list can goes on. That is why you need the matrix and keyword level tracking.
Keep Testing
For the copy itself, keep testing. Consumers change, seasonality can move things on you, competitors may influence the market behavior. Always be willing to test what you think you know. Assume things have changed.
Whats this about
Before I go further, I want to be clear. This is not “how to write good copy.” This posting is about how to set your program up to find the optimal keyword, copy and experience combination. Too often, I hear about copy in terms of what drives the best CTR. When, in fact there are instances where you want users to self select out and effectively lower your CTR. Why? Because this is about the ROI…what happens post click. Getting to the best copy in terms of ROI / ROAS is what this post is about.
Identify the Consumers' Drivers and Your Control
As mentioned in previous post, associating subject matter / words in the ad copy with the landing page is very important to improving the quality score thereby lowering your CPC and improving your position. However, there is a lot more to it than that. If the whole theory of the quality score plays out, then a higher quality score should also improve your conversions. Whether this is true or not can only be tested by you (I have seen and read of many situations where the quality score was low, but conversions were high).
To assess your ability to manage quality score along with optimizing conversions, begin by identifying those things related to your site over which you have control. Ask:
1) Can you drive to any page you want and still have the tracking you need?
2) Can you control the content of any particular page?
3) Can you add pages?
4) Can you control offers or pricing?
Then ask about what drives the desired action. What are users looking for that will drive the actions you want (buying, requesting more info, signing up for newsletters, etc)?
1) price
2) selection / availability
3) easy of process
4) quality
5) actionable information
6) brands
7) attributes
8) Other?
You probably know what people talk about regarding your product or service and this is a good starting point. However, if you have not already tested other messaging subjects, don’t rule them out right off the bat. In other words, challenge what you “know.”
Okay, now the interesting part. Take a look at the list of what drives consumers and take a look at your site. This is where your level of control comes in. Worst case scenario is where you know that nothing on your site speaks directly to the consumers’ drivers and you can’t change that. Usually, it is slightly better than that. You have some sub-pages that have relevant subject matter, but over which you have no direct control. If you’re one of the fortunate few, you have actual content control. Where ever you are on the spectrum, be sure you understand it. It is important when mapping out the next steps.
Where to send the users
So, we’ve covered a fair bit, and I have not written one word about actual ad copy. Before you start writing ad copy, you must have a clear picture of your users’ drivers and your own control. You want to ensure that the users’ expectations pre-click match their experience post click. To do this, map out the drivers of behavior to the most appropriate place on your site.
If the productSelection.html page is the only one to which you can drive traffic, this may be good for some things but poor for others. This is where your control level comes in.
What you want to do is be able to have specific pages developed, either dynamically based on parameters, or with static HTML that you have the option to change quickly. So your matrix can look something like this:
In this scenario, the price driven users land on pages with well targeted subject matter geared toward promotions, rebates / price, quality, and others attributes. Its obvious; if there is a key driver that gets them to click on the ad, then why take them to a page that has nothing to do with it? Drive them to a well targeted page.
Once you’ve done this, ask yourself yet another question: “does the section of the site your users end up on really speak to the issue / subject you believe drives their behavior?” The answer ought to be yes. If not, can you exercise some control? For instance, with pricing driven shoppers, some may be moved by straight sales, others may be moved by “package” deals. So between, “25% off the pants”, or “buy these pants and get 50% of selected shirts,” which drives more revenue per ad dollar?
Copy Content Sources
Now, you have your “drivers,” your target pages and your tracking (or you will.) I don’t know what the desired event is for your site, so obviously I can’t give actual copy. But, what I can do is help you wrap some structure around your ad copy practices. For the copy itself, look to several sources:
1) The competition. Not to mimic them, but to see about points of differentiation. There may not be any (hard to tell a boss that, so come up with something), but it is good to stay aware.
2) The web site itself. What is on the page? Look at logs…what text or images drove clicks to your target page from within the site?
3) Off-line, POP, direct mail, print ads, etc. for you and the competition.
4) Marketing and advertising research / customer feedback.
You get the idea…you’re not isolated. There are many sources of information related to copy development. Now for each of the drivers, develop at least a few copy options.
Setting up Your Test Matrix
Then create a matrix that will allow you to start tracking results.
The above matrix is very basic. For each driver, you may have multiple test landing pages, or you may send the same driver to multiple landing pages, or have different metrics. Keep in mind that the value may be realized from an immediate sale, or from a sign up for a newsletter leading to a later sale. If your site has both, then the metrics are different for each. The point is, look at this as a starting point and mold it to your own situation.
Beyond that you should take this down to the keyword level. This is where the nuances play out that can lead to the epiphanies. You may find that the same drivers create great sales for one keyword and not well for another in the same ad copy / landing page combination. The poor performing keyword may however do well with different ad copy going to the same page, or same ad copy to a different page or…. The list can goes on. That is why you need the matrix and keyword level tracking.
Keep Testing
For the copy itself, keep testing. Consumers change, seasonality can move things on you, competitors may influence the market behavior. Always be willing to test what you think you know. Assume things have changed.
Monday, June 11, 2007
Privacy International Fumbles…Badly.
When I saw the article this morning in the paper, I had an initial reaction based on the fact that the article did little to help the user understand the issue. It merely reported that Google was the worst. I have since reviewed the study itself, and now understand why the article was so poor. The report itself was hardly an objective view of the complex issues surrounding internet privacy. In fact, I stated in my initial reaction that the problem with the media is that it does a generally poor job of helping people understand the issue and clarify it. So, you can imagine my chagrin when I read the following in the report itself.
The first source of information is ‘newspapers.’ Those of us in the industry are well aware of the inadequacies of the general media when reporting on internet issues. This is hardly a reliable source.
Then there is the ‘governmental inquires’. Sighting:
Okay, the studies “Assessment” process:
From a methodological perspective, this is absurd. Given that the source of the “data” for this study comes from public sources, this methodology overlooks two big issues. 1) By their very nature, larger or fast growing companies generate a disproportionate amount of ‘public’ information and 2) there tends to be a ‘pile on’ mentality regarding general media as well as blogs and other public sources of information. If you combine the methodology with the data source, you can reasonably expect stagnant companies to rate very highly on this scale.
When I got down to the “Why Google got the worst rating” section, I read that corporate “Ethos” was a factor. Ethos? This is hardly an objective measurement. Google stood up to the government to protect user data (and won) while others caved. You may knock Google on many accounts, but on Ethos? Google is pervasive, and I guard against opening up too much to them. However, I am glad to see that what I do share is defended by Google when they have it.
The privacy issue is real. Unfortunately Privacy International’s approach leaves too many gaps. It lacks objective data, uses openly subjective metrics and lacks a sound methodology. If this is the approach our industry takes on privacy, then the issue itself will not receive the proper scrutiny, the users will remain woefully ignorant and we will find ourselves victims of real privacy abuse.
While I fault PI for publishing this, I place equal fault on the media like Associate Press where I first picked up the story in my local paper. If there had been a proper review of the study, it either would not have made it into the press, or the article would have provided an object view. Our press used to challenge information. Now, unfortunately, it just passes it through.
Matt Cutt’s perspective
Danny Sullivan’s dissection.
The report was compiled using data derived from public sources (newspaper articles, blog entries, submissions to government inquiries, privacy policies etc), information provided by present and former company staff, technical analysis and interviews with company representatives.
The first source of information is ‘newspapers.’ Those of us in the industry are well aware of the inadequacies of the general media when reporting on internet issues. This is hardly a reliable source.
Then there is the ‘governmental inquires’. Sighting:
Generally poor track record of responding to customer complaints. Ambivalent attitude to privacy challenges (for example, complaints to EU privacy regulators over Gmail).Nothing in the summary or the “detail” of the report addresses relative size or normalization of data, or anything objective at all. It all appears too anecdotal, with no real data point such as % of users, or number of complaints. I am sorry, but having been involved in market research for nearly 20 years, I’d be hard pressed to assess any performance level on “Generally” anything.
Okay, the studies “Assessment” process:
Where possible we present data on specific privacy practices. It was not always possible to precisely assess a company's approach in each category. As a result, we erred on the side of caution and gave the company the benefit of the doubt and assessed it only for what we could actually identify.
From a methodological perspective, this is absurd. Given that the source of the “data” for this study comes from public sources, this methodology overlooks two big issues. 1) By their very nature, larger or fast growing companies generate a disproportionate amount of ‘public’ information and 2) there tends to be a ‘pile on’ mentality regarding general media as well as blogs and other public sources of information. If you combine the methodology with the data source, you can reasonably expect stagnant companies to rate very highly on this scale.
When I got down to the “Why Google got the worst rating” section, I read that corporate “Ethos” was a factor. Ethos? This is hardly an objective measurement. Google stood up to the government to protect user data (and won) while others caved. You may knock Google on many accounts, but on Ethos? Google is pervasive, and I guard against opening up too much to them. However, I am glad to see that what I do share is defended by Google when they have it.
The privacy issue is real. Unfortunately Privacy International’s approach leaves too many gaps. It lacks objective data, uses openly subjective metrics and lacks a sound methodology. If this is the approach our industry takes on privacy, then the issue itself will not receive the proper scrutiny, the users will remain woefully ignorant and we will find ourselves victims of real privacy abuse.
While I fault PI for publishing this, I place equal fault on the media like Associate Press where I first picked up the story in my local paper. If there had been a proper review of the study, it either would not have made it into the press, or the article would have provided an object view. Our press used to challenge information. Now, unfortunately, it just passes it through.
Matt Cutt’s perspective
Danny Sullivan’s dissection.
Sunday, June 10, 2007
Watchdog group gives Google an F for policies - AP news
It’s Sunday morning and I am on my deck enjoying coffee and reading the Sunday paper. Yes, the printed kind with ink left on my fingers and pages being inconveniently blown in the wind. This is my respite from online "stuff."
But, as we all know these retreats don't last long. My local paper picked up the Associated Press story (“Watchdog group gives Google an F for policies”) on how Google was given a failing grade by the London based Privacy International for its policies on personal information. As I spent a good part of last week at SMX Seattle and discussed this issue, as well as wrote a piece on it, I was compelled to drop the paper, pick up my handheld p.c. and jot down some thoughts.
First among my thoughts on this issue is that the article does nothing to help the reader understand it. From a layman perspective one might think that Google knows everything about you and you are at risk of being terribly exposed to the world. While Google does collect and save search history they can only tie it to you if you let them or there is a considerable effort involving far more than Google. The general media has to do a better job of laying out the issue.
Second, and related to the first, Google's programs involving pii are opt-in. If you use Google, you know what you give them, you have access to their policies and, hopefully you can make decisions. If you are not comfortable then don't give away any information about yourself.
Third, despite the market consolidators like Google, one of the neat things about the internet is the ease of executing choices. Unlike the OS debate where switching was too difficult for the vast majority and Microsoft had / has a virtual lock on the desktop, the URL could ultimately be thought of as the "User's Real-time Liberator." We have choice.
Don't get me wrong, I am fully aware of the potential for abuse. As Google expands its reach with acquisitions the potential increases for one company to gain access to all the pieces of our information and put them together. Permissions granted to an entity separately may be innocuous. But, when combined with that of another, can become very invasive. As consumers, we have to be vigilant about who we deal with and what we share. Perhaps I am too "American" but I do put a fair amount of responsibility on individuals to be aware of the companies to whom they give information.
Later that day... I had a chance to review the the study. PI did a poor job.
But, as we all know these retreats don't last long. My local paper picked up the Associated Press story (“Watchdog group gives Google an F for policies”) on how Google was given a failing grade by the London based Privacy International for its policies on personal information. As I spent a good part of last week at SMX Seattle and discussed this issue, as well as wrote a piece on it, I was compelled to drop the paper, pick up my handheld p.c. and jot down some thoughts.
First among my thoughts on this issue is that the article does nothing to help the reader understand it. From a layman perspective one might think that Google knows everything about you and you are at risk of being terribly exposed to the world. While Google does collect and save search history they can only tie it to you if you let them or there is a considerable effort involving far more than Google. The general media has to do a better job of laying out the issue.
Second, and related to the first, Google's programs involving pii are opt-in. If you use Google, you know what you give them, you have access to their policies and, hopefully you can make decisions. If you are not comfortable then don't give away any information about yourself.
Third, despite the market consolidators like Google, one of the neat things about the internet is the ease of executing choices. Unlike the OS debate where switching was too difficult for the vast majority and Microsoft had / has a virtual lock on the desktop, the URL could ultimately be thought of as the "User's Real-time Liberator." We have choice.
Don't get me wrong, I am fully aware of the potential for abuse. As Google expands its reach with acquisitions the potential increases for one company to gain access to all the pieces of our information and put them together. Permissions granted to an entity separately may be innocuous. But, when combined with that of another, can become very invasive. As consumers, we have to be vigilant about who we deal with and what we share. Perhaps I am too "American" but I do put a fair amount of responsibility on individuals to be aware of the companies to whom they give information.
Later that day... I had a chance to review the the study. PI did a poor job.
Wednesday, June 6, 2007
SMX Seattle Search Marketing Conference.
The past two days have been spent juggling the SMX Advanced Search conference, putting out campaign fires (2000 miles from home, and we can still do our job…the internet is great), phone calls and email via hand held. I will say that this event has been, on the whole, attended by truly more advanced search marketers. I tried to bounce between the paid and SEO tracks, so likely missed some good stuff on both sides. That said, here are some observations:
Q & A with Matt Cutts
I will say that this is the first open discussion where I found myself having to process the discussion. Normally, the dialogue simply triggers memories of past sessions with little or no new information. While the topics this time were similar, the direction was a bit different and deeper.
I was reminded of how mainstream Google has become for advertisers. There was a question related to the detailed implications of Google's notoriously vague guidelines from Patrick at feedthebot.com. Matt explained that there is a number theory in mathematics around the idea that if you can satisfy / explain four questions then you can derive virtually all answers to subsequence questions. Therefore, web masters could answer their own questions based on what Google does provide. Now, there is recognition that explicit answers are needed for the new breed of online marketers who are good at marketing, but not necessarily mathematics (you can tell by the way I butchered the premise on the number theory that I definitely fall into the ‘Marketing’ group).
Personalization
Personalization discussions brought some healthy banter between the MSN, Yahoo! and Google. However, the bottom line, and common theme: develop good content and relevant linking partnerships. What defines good content has expanded with universal search (though I think this may not be necessarily true for all SEO. I mean expanded…some are already there), but the base concept continues to be sound. I am often flustered by the comments that suggest the world has changed dramatically as a result of either personalization or universal search.
BTW…“&pws=0” at the end of the search URL in Google removes personalized search results for the particular query, leaving the general results that most people would see. So, if you’re in your Google account you don't need to log out.
Is Bid Management dead?
This discussion was formed as a debate. 2 people argued that is not dead, and 2 that it was not. The upshot, it is not dead. Both teams agreed that it is still used at some level. By definition, if it is playing a useful role, it is not dead. It has however evolved from its central point of SEM to a tool in a much broader effort.
Paid search
I did, to my chagrin, hear an audience member try to get one of the panelists on the paid search track to tell her if it was worth it for her bid to first position. No matter how he tried to get her to focus on ROI, She kept saying, "if I have budget left at the end of the month...". I was glad to hear him, and others, be so heavily focused on the post dick metrics. While a few people were stuck on the CPC / position metric most were well beyond that. I heavily advocate for ROI metrics, going so far as to suggest SEMs abandon budgets altogether.
The fact that so many were well beyond the standard, and some much more advanced, may present Danny with an issue for the paid side of SMX advanced. The engines didn't have the answers to many of the questions that were being asked. Either they don't know, or they won't say (I imagine for competitive reasons). At times it even went so far as attendees knowing more about how the engines worked than the representatives. Both on the floor and in the presenterions, the engines are going to need better informed representatives or just say up front, "we won't share that."
SEO
During one ask the expert session I was pleased to see that most of the panel members advocated the position that good results ultimately stemmed from hard work. We all face the same issues (on paid and SEO) most of which revolved around too much work, too little time. Thus, questions were around the theme of more efficiently gaining links. Overall, Good content, hard work will get results. Don't short cut it.
Bottom line
Well worth attending. However, the presenters and floor / expo participant will need to push themselves. The reality is that all the stuff we talked about these past two days will not be “advanced” for long. If the same information is regurgitated at the next advanced session, the value will be lost.
Q & A with Matt Cutts
I will say that this is the first open discussion where I found myself having to process the discussion. Normally, the dialogue simply triggers memories of past sessions with little or no new information. While the topics this time were similar, the direction was a bit different and deeper.
I was reminded of how mainstream Google has become for advertisers. There was a question related to the detailed implications of Google's notoriously vague guidelines from Patrick at feedthebot.com. Matt explained that there is a number theory in mathematics around the idea that if you can satisfy / explain four questions then you can derive virtually all answers to subsequence questions. Therefore, web masters could answer their own questions based on what Google does provide. Now, there is recognition that explicit answers are needed for the new breed of online marketers who are good at marketing, but not necessarily mathematics (you can tell by the way I butchered the premise on the number theory that I definitely fall into the ‘Marketing’ group).
Personalization
Personalization discussions brought some healthy banter between the MSN, Yahoo! and Google. However, the bottom line, and common theme: develop good content and relevant linking partnerships. What defines good content has expanded with universal search (though I think this may not be necessarily true for all SEO. I mean expanded…some are already there), but the base concept continues to be sound. I am often flustered by the comments that suggest the world has changed dramatically as a result of either personalization or universal search.
BTW…“&pws=0” at the end of the search URL in Google removes personalized search results for the particular query, leaving the general results that most people would see. So, if you’re in your Google account you don't need to log out.
Is Bid Management dead?
This discussion was formed as a debate. 2 people argued that is not dead, and 2 that it was not. The upshot, it is not dead. Both teams agreed that it is still used at some level. By definition, if it is playing a useful role, it is not dead. It has however evolved from its central point of SEM to a tool in a much broader effort.
Paid search
I did, to my chagrin, hear an audience member try to get one of the panelists on the paid search track to tell her if it was worth it for her bid to first position. No matter how he tried to get her to focus on ROI, She kept saying, "if I have budget left at the end of the month...". I was glad to hear him, and others, be so heavily focused on the post dick metrics. While a few people were stuck on the CPC / position metric most were well beyond that. I heavily advocate for ROI metrics, going so far as to suggest SEMs abandon budgets altogether.
The fact that so many were well beyond the standard, and some much more advanced, may present Danny with an issue for the paid side of SMX advanced. The engines didn't have the answers to many of the questions that were being asked. Either they don't know, or they won't say (I imagine for competitive reasons). At times it even went so far as attendees knowing more about how the engines worked than the representatives. Both on the floor and in the presenterions, the engines are going to need better informed representatives or just say up front, "we won't share that."
SEO
During one ask the expert session I was pleased to see that most of the panel members advocated the position that good results ultimately stemmed from hard work. We all face the same issues (on paid and SEO) most of which revolved around too much work, too little time. Thus, questions were around the theme of more efficiently gaining links. Overall, Good content, hard work will get results. Don't short cut it.
Bottom line
Well worth attending. However, the presenters and floor / expo participant will need to push themselves. The reality is that all the stuff we talked about these past two days will not be “advanced” for long. If the same information is regurgitated at the next advanced session, the value will be lost.
Friday, June 1, 2007
Google’s reach, information collection and use. Do you know how far it goes?
I have read, heard and seen a great deal regarding Google getting too deep into our information. Often, the article or discussion is focused on a single issue at a time. Today, it happens to be the FTC review of the Google / Double Click acquisition for privacy. But, if you take a look at the tendrils of the Google Machine, and see all the places it touches and wants to touch, even the most open minded would shudder at the potential (and it is just that, potential) abuse.
From ads, to website, to web surfers, Google has its hands in all of it. Consider:
1) Personalized search. By definition, personalized search requires the tracking and recording of individual actions. They know what sites you’re on (if you let them, and many do), what you do on those sites, time spent, when you’re there. They know what you search for, what interests you have and the connections based on search patterns. All the while, the complex algorithms are building a profile of you based on all this information.
2) Analytics. I am often surprised how so many web publishers do not ask, “Why is Google providing such robust analytics for free?” They are collecting a lot of data. What kind of sites are people on and what they are doing there even if the individuals do not give explicit permission; the site did. Google can see what people who searched on a keyword did on a given site, what other sites they came from, and even to what site they go. Pull this data together, and you can have yet another basis for profiling. Combine it with #1, and…wow, you can really build user profiles.Not to mention, Google gets to build extensive business profiles. They can see conversion rates buy product category, referring site, keyword, based on page content, site flow and, oh, user profile.
3) CPA ad model. This is a good model. You don’t pay Google until the user buys from you or take some other defined action. But, that is not all. To participate, you must put Google code on your pages. Google sees who converted form each keyword. But, because Google can view your site as well as all other sites, they can see what leads to conversions in a given industry. And, again, combine it with user profile.
4) Double Click…estimate 80% of ad delivery, users tracked. Take a look at the DART suite of tools. A lot of information is being captured.
5) Google Mobile. Where are you? What are you looking up? With GPS enable phones, you are tagged when you do a search, or access information.
6) Google Check out. On top of all that, they know how much you spend and on what.
7) Gmail – Google scans the content in order to determine what ad to deliver.
8) Google Docs. When do you start working; when do you stop; what type of documents do you use. From where do you access your documents. What is in your documents (yes, the get to look).
9) Google Maps: What are you looking up? Where are you going? What kinds of businesses do you frequent? Through your use of Maps, Google can gain insight into your off-line activities.
10) Google Adsense: Google’s ad delivery code spread across the net. Google sees when these ads (and therefore sites) get delivered, know the content of the site, and can see click through behavior.
Okay, so this is based on a few minutes of thought. There are more touch points, but I am not going to do an exhaustive list. Beyond that, if you read the privacy policy, you know Google will blend your information with third party data to add to its profile of you. While they will not share your PII, they will take information from outside and add it to their information.
Much of the discussion on privacy revolves around personal privacy. We, as Americans usually rail against this kind of overt data collection. However, we seem to have resigned ourselves to the reality of the ‘system.’ And, it can be beneficial. We can save time not weeding through bad search results, ads in email may actually be useful and websites might use this information to improve their web experiences.
But, from a business side, how much information do you really want to provide to any third party? If you take up Google on its offers, you will be giving them more insight into your customers and business than you will ever truly realize. Unfortunately while you are giving Google all this information, and they are marrying it with many other sources, it is difficult to see how much you are getting back in return; especially since your return is being calculated by Google.
Some, don’t see an issue, saying, “Google advertising is a market based program. We bid on the costs, so there is nothing there to negotiate. The market sets the price.” Actually, no, Google is no longer a market based system. The program allows you to bid as high as you like, but the floors, or minimums are set by Google. The minimum bids are not market-based, they are set by parameters established by Google.
Consider this: With all the information gathering technologies at its disposal, Google can know:
1) How much advertisers are paying for ads across a vast number of websites.
2) Inventory availability
3) What the customer conversation rates are for the sources in a vertical
4) Actual sales value
5) All the different sources of traffic for your particular site
6) The conversion rate for all those sources to your site
So, ask yourself, how much negotiation leverage do you have? Do you know how much real ad inventory is on the market? Do you know the value of that inventory to all the other advertisers? Do you know what the best negotiated CPM is? Through its analytics, CPA, adsense, adwords, Double Click / Performics connections, Google does, or can.
And, above all, if you have Google’s code resident on your site, Google also knows the value of all these things for you. How do you improve your ROI when the supplier on the other side knows the lowest and highest price you’ve paid on other properties, the conversion values and what the maximum you can pay and still make money? They hold all the cards. If ‘do no evil’ ever slips from the equation, Google can set it so they make (even) more money while you keep just enough to stay in business.
I am not saying the resource Google provides should not be leveraged. For most small organizations, this may work very well for a long time to come. But, for companies that plan meaningful ad spends online, think long and hard about how much you will reveal today to any third party. Tomorrow you may be wondering why they are always one step ahead of you at the negotiating table.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)