July 7, 2009

I'm with you, Frank. I don't agree with the article either. I wonder what Acquisio (article sponsor) thinks of it - not sure I'd pay for that if I were them.

Informative exaplanations Frank. Contrarian content has its uses I suppose, but the point/counter point makes it useful.

Abramovic's article, which is sponsored by Acquisio BTW, is up there with the "SEO is Not Rocket Science" articles on DMNews by that fellow from Didit.

There's a right place and time for any tool and smart marketers know that.

I'd be surprised and disappointed if someone that really needed bid management tools to handle large and/or complex PPC campaigns, would be swayed by the post on SEL.

At a minimum, companies should do their homework beyond reading a rant on a blog.

To be clear, we have sponsored columns, which doesn't mean that the sponsors approve what's in a column or have any sign-off. The two are completely separate. In fact, when Frank twittered this:

"guess SEL does not need those advertisers"

http://twitter.com/AussieWebmaster/status/2517238073

That's kind of correct. IE, we're not going to publish things just to please advertisers. I'd assumed the same was true for SEW, but maybe things have changed here.

As Frank points out, the columns are the opinions of the particular author. That's why we say that. Unlike here, where there is no disclaimer at all.

So when Frank makes this out to be "Search Engine Land Disses...," he knows that SEL itself isn't doing it. But that doesn't make for an attention-grabbing headline, not does it give SEW a chance to try and rank for our name. So let's not let accuracy get in the way of a rant ironically about feeling a particular column isn't accurate.

Bottom line. It's hardly news that you have some people who simply don't believe bid management tools are worth the time. Why, I know this debate comes up time and again at some search conferences I could name. Why, here's SES Toronto chair Andrew Goodman talking about it in another SEL post:

http://searchengineland.com/bid-management-automation-fraught-with-questionable-assumptions-16099

That went into a three part series, in depth, knowledgeable but apparently not worth a mention to the SEW readers here.

But Frank, if you want to publish an counterpoint to our piece, you know how to reach my managing editor Elisabeth. We might also ask for a specific counterpoint ourselves.

Danny you know I was just giving a counterpoint and yes it was a little sensational headline but it gets attention and opens lines of communication like yours.
I pointed out the article may not reflect SEL views.
I could have used Andrew's post as another reference - he discusses both points in varying detail.
I would love to write a counterpoint - seems the best way at times to start an earnest discussion of the state of various things in our industry.
Sorry for showing my old "yellow journalism" roots - those headline writing classes were aimed at getting attention which seems to be needed in this Twitter age.

"I know the editorial statements of guest contributors are not the opinions of Search Engine Land but someone should have read this one first. Bid management software is a money sink? Come on guys."

That makes it sound like you think we should have killed the article. And the headline makes it sound like Search Engine Land was putting its full editorial weight behind that particular opinion.

Why don't you change the headline to something clever and more accurate that doesn't come off like your attacking the publication? Easy to do. Still can be done. And can be done even in the Twitter age.

On the counterpoint, sure -- ping Elisabeth, I'm sure she'd love to work with you on it.

Bid Management is not for everyone.
As the OP says, if you have offline conversions, trying to connect your offline sales performance or CLV data to the MB tool is beyond the technical and financial means of many small businesses.

Your right Danny, this topic comes up time and again at "some" search conferences. I believe this is because there are so many companies that are right on the cusp of needing a BM tool. They feel the pain of manual management, but they don't have the volume or margins to make BM a financially feasible investment. So they come to conferences and continuously ask, do I really need one?

Personally, I have found the pitch attractive, but each time we evaluate we find that the cost, implementation and complexity to map our business rules into the system is too high to justify.

For sure, companies with large catalogues, numerous dem/geo targets and tactics would need BM. You simply can't scale your reach with such a complex set up.

Frank, Danny I suggest a bowling match the next time you two cross paths to settle this matter :-)

Jerry

"That's kind of correct. IE, we're not going to publish things just to please advertisers. I'd assumed the same was true for SEW, but maybe things have changed here."

@Danny Sullivan As a regular reader of SEW, you know as well as anyone else that things have not changed here. We uphold the highest level of editorial integrity, always have (thanks to you) and always will while under my watch (no pun intended).

While you have all the right in the world to challenge SEW contributor Frank Watson's (aka AussieWebMaster's) intent, I ask that you do not slander SEW with leading conjecture.

Otherwise... game on!

Oh great thanks Danny now my job is in jeopardy - the boss is watching. LOL

Matt, I'm not a regular reader. I also have no idea what has changed or not within your publication.

All I know is I got up this morning, saw both you and Frank tweeting about how "SEL" has dissed bid management. I figured I'd ignore that and the article as a baiting attempt. Better things to do.

Then there was another tweet from Frank about the advertising connection. With the implication that we should somehow change our coverage to please advertisers, I figured a comment was necessary and warranted. And if there's any conjecture, that's contained with what Frank tweeted, not with me.

Danny any comment on Twitter was in jest as Marc Poirier even joined in to. I really do not have that many followers and the ones I do generally know me and my sense of humor.

I wanted a conversation on both sides and a bunch of people are now doing that... many times there are two or more opinions and even some of the radical claims of people in our industry in the past have promoted good discussions.

I will get in touch with Elisabeth and do the counter point and hopefully further open the discussion.

I'll leave the debate over editorial control to the experts.

I feel a bit guilty about all this because Nick's piece ran in place of my own regular column which I submitted too late for publication (it's running this Wednesday instead).

While Andrew Goodman and I disagree a good bit about priorities and management strategies, I have a great deal of respect for his perspective, and he's a tremendous writer.

As with any publication, diversity of opinion is a good thing, but so are editorial standards. In a print publication even the letters to the editor are screened for factual inaccuracies. When we let obvious misstatements of fact go out under our banner we dilute our brand.

FWIW, here's my take on the Automation debate

To be honest, my immediate reaction to Nick's piece was pretty negative. Not that I merely disagreed with it, but it was precisely because it fell below the editorial standards of SEL. It was under-researched and accusatory. Opinion is nice, but this was too thin IMHO.

I'd feel pretty silly putting together a three part series on this (admittedly in my spare time, but taking many hours of research, working inside the product development processes of several automation vendors, and putting the article through an internal edit with my colleague in crime at Page Zero before also running it by SEL editorial) if one article came across to the readership as pretty much being like any other.

The fact that Frank (and quite a few others) caught the fact that Nick's article fell below standard is reassuring to me. And it speaks highly of SEL's (usually high) editorial standards.

Needless to say, you don't have to agree with a sponsor's viewpoint to qualify for publication in any of our industry's quality trade publications or blogs. That's a principle we all strive to maintain - and it is never easy.

I agree there is work to be done, but ultimately these tools are an essential growth in proper maintenance.

I agree there are some works we need to do but I don know yet what to do ?