May 12, 2008

PPC Advice, Podcast Style

If you're interested in pay-per-click marketing, you've no doubt checked out our Content Advertising column by SEW Expert David Szetela, founder and CEO of Clix Marketing. If you're looking for more advice from David, you can find it via his brand-spanking-new podcast airing on Webmasterradio.fm beginning today, "PPC Rockstars."

The show will be broadcast live on Mondays at 4:00 PM EDT, 1 PM PDT, 21:00 GMT, and available for download soon after. In each week’s show, David will feature a current or future PPC Rock Star, and have a discussion about one particular aspect of PPC advertising. David's first guest is one of PPC’s brightest stars, Matt Van Wagner of FindMeFaster.

Posted by Kevin Newcomb at 10:29 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

March 17, 2008

Craigslist Ruling: Does This Extend To Our Paid Ads?

A recent ruling in Craigslist's favor may let our paid ad suppliers rest a bit easier, as they are all advertising conduits. Google already states that it's not liable for ads it serves, and this ruling provides ancillary support.

On Friday, a long-standing case against Craigslist came to a close when the U.S. Appellate Court ruled they aren't liable for discrimination as an advertising conduit. Two years ago, the Chicago Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law filed a suit which accused Craigslist of posting discriminatory ads under the Fair Housing Act.

According to the ruling, “Doubtless Craigslist plays a causal role in the sense that no one could post a discriminatory ad if Craigslist did not offer a forum. That is not, however, a useful definition of cause….it cannot sue the messenger just because the message reveals a third party’s plan to engage in unlawful discrimination.”

If some ad seems objectionable, we can flag it and Craigslist will respond and remove the ad. They cannot, however, be held responsible for the classifieds themselves and are not equipped to review all ads before they are posted.

Perhaps Google and Yahoo attorneys are pleased with this ruling, too. As ad networks, they cannot be expected to review all ads through their systems either. They do have some complaint systems in place, especially for trademarks. There’s no external flagging system for ads which have been purchased through them.

One level removed, publishers who use ad feeds should look at their fine print. Google and Yahoo say they are not liable for the ads they show. In turn, this means publishers are not liable either. Try telling that to a complaining visitor who doesn’t like a particular ad that shows up on your site? Well, that’s for another day.

Posted by Deborah Richman at 10:16 AM | Permalink

January 11, 2008

Is the AdWords Competitor-bidding Party Over?

1-800-Contacts is trying to force a legal ruling that could put a chill on the widespread practice of PPC advertisers bidding on competitors' trademarks.

According to this article in MediaPost:

IN THE LATEST EXAMPLE OF a marketer suing about search ads, 1-800-Contacts this week filed a lawsuit in federal court against LensWorld for purchasing search links triggered by the term "1-800-contacts." The company, which has brought several other similar cases, says it's trying to guard against confusion. "The worry that they have is that these advertising methods will make consumers think there's an affiliation between these other companies and our client," said 1-800-Contacts' lawyer, Bryan G. Pratt.

Many advertisers experience great conversion results bidding on competitor terms, so the impact on the search advertising community as a whole could be huge.

Posted by David Szetela at 8:17 AM | Permalink

January 2, 2008

Which Industries Really Like Sponsored Links

When advertising on destination sites, some industries prefer sponsored text links while others are less focused on them. For text links, about 18% of all ad impressions are from Retailers while another 47% come from Web Media advertisers -- and that makes sense.

However, straight reporting of text link placements doesn’t tell the whole story for industries who participate at lower levels. To understand all industry results better, we compared each industry’s sponsored text link activity to all online ad units. Here are top-level findings, based on Nielsen Online monthly data:

* HIGHER than median ad levels: Business-to-Business; Entertainment; Public Services; Retail; Web Media * MEDIAN ad levels: Health; Software; Travel * LOWER than median ad levels: Automotive; Consumer Goods; Financial; Hardware; Telecom

The pecking order of industries may seem a bit surprising, because it’s all volume based -- and without CPC/CPM rates or click throughs entering the picture. While it's true that companies control their overall activity levels, no company or industry controls match rates per se. Those with higher text impressions may simply be "better matched" to the 2,000 destinations tracked by Nielsen.

At this point, the lion's share of text links are served across the whole Google network. It's possible that industry participation levels could shift, especially when advertisers are able to make more placements based on verticals or destinations (i.e. through Quigo, Pulse 360, others).

Other explanations? You could chalk up the preferences due to the nature of these industries and the types of products/services sold, but that’s a reach. Or you could say these industries are more “direct marketing” driven, but that doesn’t work too well for Entertainment.

Let's start looking at these industry relationships over time. We would like to understand if industry activity levels are stable, dynamic or beginning to change -- based on new text link ad opportunities or other factors.

For those interested in "drilling down" to actual industry percentages, please see the spreadsheet and calculation details below.

How the calculations work: Nielsen Online reports ad placements monthly, based on over 2,000 sites and subsites. They track impressions for five different ad units, namely sponsored text links, flash, rich media, standard images, and standard images with text links. For each type of ad unit, we divided each industry’s volume by total volume. Then we calculated industry medians across the five types of ad units.

Posted by Deborah Richman at 5:45 PM | Permalink

November 2, 2007

When Business Mags Venture Beyond Wall Street

When the well-known business magazines venture beyond Wall Street and even Main Street to find stories, don’t be surprised to see your contextual and search ads running on their august domains.

There’s a battle currently waging among publications hungry for larger online audiences. They acknowledge the need to reach site visitors who are distinct from their print readers, and are positioning themselves in different ways to grow online revenues.

At the recent Future of Business Media conference, we heard a wide range of plans and tactics discussed by Forbes and others. Magazine publishers are deciding how much to invest in more web-only content and resources, including video and other multimedia options. Like other web publishers, they are actively exploring social elements both on and off their domains.

For advertisers, all of these plans translate into more opportunities to reach responsive audiences. Publishers say they will attract more dollars from travel, tech, shopping -- pretty much all the productive ad categories.

See more below, including my take on what the publishers shared this week.

Forbes: CEO/President Jim Spanfeller, Board Member Roger McNamee They aim for “wide aperture versus narrow aperture” as the web audience is much larger with completely different demographics. People don’t have much free time, so they seek sites with a broad range of news, features, interpretative elements, etc. The brand is fully separate and distinct online. Forbes produces a mix of articles, images and video for the web. My Take: One of the earliest players in online multimedia and web-only content. We all know them for their highly-promoted Forbes slide shows related to lifestyles of the rich and famous. Let’s see how they grow from here. Text Ads: Quigo/AdSonar contextual ads; No search ads seen.

Time Inc: Chairman/CEO Ann Moore

Digital revenues are finally growing much faster than print. They still have “lots of work” to do on their digital offerings in the U.S. and are also pushing internationally. Video will be part of their focus and investment online. The crown jewel is CNN Money, which appeals to the wider audience. It gets “glorious CPMs” and is profitable. My Take: They are riding the Main Street coverage approach. The well-known Fortune brand isn’t mentioned much at all, nor getting leveraged online. Also, they decided to shutter Business 2.0 due to low performance. It will be interesting to see how their video plans pan out. Text Ads: Quigo/AdSonar contextual ads; Google search ads.

Business Week: Group President Keith Fox

They are a “liquid brand” where print content flows to online version. In addition, they include or link to content from other places. Business Week has a profitable business model, with strengths in auto, tech and finance ads. The magazine was recently redesigned, keeping in mind the multiple channels. However, they aren’t “bullish on video” right now. My Take: This brand stays relatively small, because it is sticking more closely to what we know as business news. They aren’t investing much in original web content. It’s a tough battlefield, as BW directly competes with Yahoo and other news outlets. Text Ads: Google and Industry Brains contextual ads; Business.com search ads.

The Economist: Publisher and Global Marketing Director Susan Clark

This brand reaches a high-end, global audience with a wide range of international news. The magazine is a ritual pleasure. The Economist offers the same content online, with additional news and columns to keep things fresh. While the first year of content is freely accessible, you have to pay (or be a print subscriber) to access archives and audio. Interestingly, they keep tabs on their online reputation and see Facebook communities which are self-forming about their brand -- but stay away from them. My Take: This brand has a true identity. They aren't doing anything revolutionary online, but will continue to appeal to advertisers who want to reach their small but well-heeled niche. Text Ads: Economist classifieds; No search ads seen.

Conde Nast Portfolio: Publisher David Carey

This well-funded Conde magazine is “challenging the legacy titles” with a long-term commitment. The print version covers forward thinking content, while the site is about immediate news. About 85% of content is created for the Portfolio site. The publisher says, “Advertisers like productive customers…and you’ll see good pickings from readers.” They aim for category diversity -- including business, luxury, travel and lifestyles. My Take: Great out-of-the-block effort, achieving 1mm uniques on site already. Like Forbes, they threaten the status quo by re-defining business news and establishing their niche. Text Ads: No contextual or search ads seen.

Mansueto Ventures: Publisher John Koten

Better known as Inc. and Fast Company, the publisher reports a 15% increase in revenue this year, described as a turnaround. “Our success is not dependent on [the] business category,” and is not trying to be all things to all people. They are pursuing lifestyle coverage, and want to appeal to their two defined communities. Today there are Facebook efforts for Inc. and blogs for Fast Company. My Take: These brands seem more participatory than the others titles. With consistent targeting both off-line and online, they have strong prospects based on growth of their social networks. Text Ads: Google contextual ads for both; Google search for Inc; Fast Company's own links appear on search and other pages.

Posted by Deborah Richman at 3:44 PM | Permalink

October 3, 2007

Search Ads Fared Poorly in Trust Study

We're disappointed to learn that search ads fared poorly in Nielsen's survey of over 26,000 internet users worldwide. Just 34% of these respondents trusted search ads!

Let’s see how well the remaining online vehicles performed. Only banners were judged more harshly, with 26% saying they trusted them. These other ad sources did far better:

* Emails I signed up for - 49% * Brand websites - 60% * Consumer opinions posted - 61%

Most likely, these results reflect the degree of user control. When you decide to check out products or services directly, you have some faith in the messages. When your fellow consumers weigh in, that's what you believe the most. However, when unknown or unwanted services are targeted online to you, that trust can start eroding.

It’s a plausible explanation, anyway.

Posted by Deborah Richman at 12:15 AM | Permalink

August 6, 2007

SEW Experts: Microsoft adCenter Could Win the Search Battle

In today's Search Ads column, "Microsoft adCenter Could Win the Search Battle," Tony Wright explains why he thinks Microsoft adCenter can win the search wars -- if it can scale the audience.

Posted by Kevin Newcomb at 12:00 AM | Permalink

June 28, 2007

Search Ad Sellers Should Help CTRs More

Where are Google, Yahoo, MSN, Ask and others when you really need them? We think that they ought to be helping their customers even more actively. Right now, it’s mostly up to the advertisers and their SEM agencies to improve clickthrough rates and buying efficiency.

Of course, creating strong paid search systems is not a trivial matter. There are, however, a variety of ways in which the ad sellers can provide incremental boosts for both advertisers and themselves.

1. Show ads when you know they work. Currently, advertisers buy keywords and ads are delivered to them. This seems fair and creates a smoothly functioning marketplace…or does it?

MSN example: I searched “chocolate” and saw that Godiva showed up in organic results and suggested searches, but not in ads. Some sponsored ads seemed appropriate while others appeared to be backfill. Of course, Godiva ads showed up when searching for “Godiva chocolate” directly.

There seem to be missed opportunities for advertisers. Perhaps Godiva advertisers only bought their brand name. Still, the suggested searches alone could help trigger and serve more appropriate Godiva ads, even without any refinements to user queries. We're sure these placements would be welcomed.

2. Prevent unnecessary buys. The ad sellers know what gets searched actively and how those terms are connected to the query tails. Maybe there is a way to share this intelligence, and bridge the gap between broad match and backfill buys.

Yahoo example: I searched "running" and found many appropriate sites to learn about it. Most ads were tied directly to the sport, such as running shoes. One exception came from Art.com, which featured "running" pictures; it linked to people or animals in motion.

Another Yahoo example: I clicked on one of the “top searches” shown about puppy names. There were plenty of great sites to find names for my future Fido. At the bottom were two sponsored ads, including a classic eBay backfiller: Puppy Name For Less.

Imagine if advertisers could eliminate less productive (or pointless) placements and clicks, via new performance models. In addition, advertisers might be attracted to different backfill tiers if they became more refined and reliable low-end buys.

3. Help with contextual buys. We’re fond of the snafus that are easy to uncover while checking out ads shown on content pages. There are real disconnects, even when the subjects or terms seem quite clear.

Google example: I clicked on a Washington Post article about religious pilgrimages and saw two ads -- one about Catholic pilgrimages and another about Pike’s Peak. By the second page of the article, there were unrelated backfills for accident lawyers.

There should be enough logic (and inventory) to show ads for other religious information or similar travel locations, right? Buyers would welcome this kind of opportunity, if their ads were connected to related interests. We're looking forward to improved matching algorithms.

4. Consider portfolio cooperation. The largest buyers and agencies are lucky -- they have sufficient resources to create portfolios and get coveted keywords. It's the smaller advertisers who can get stuck in the middle.

Ask example: I searched for “DVRs” and appreciated the mix of commercial and non-commercial organic results. The ads were predictably from big spenders including TIVO and NexTag.

Additional marketplace opportunities are already getting created. For local advertisers, geocoding makes these kinds of buys possible now. What about specific products that seem limited in scope but are related to a broader topic or search? For these advertisers, there should be new mechanisms that power cooperative buying.

5. Offer related searches for ads. Today, search providers create active coaching for end-users based on their queries. In their role as sellers, they leave it up to the advertisers to come up with their own approaches to inserting dynamic keywords. Perhaps there is a better way to help advertisers, rather than letting them "sink or swim".

The search engines have all the capabilities to suggest a term or two for each of the sponsored ads. These terms can connect what was searched to what was shown in sponsored results. It seems like a natural fit -- helping the advertisers and even the end-users who click on ads.

The marketplace won’t be in this hyper growth mode forever. Even with a handful of major ad sellers, it’s a matter of time before they will need to provide more than just the standard inventories being offered today. Servicing customers and helping them succeed isn’t revolutionary thinking. It's generally the next evolutionary phase in differentiating your business, once certain processes have become commonplace.

Posted by Deborah Richman at 3:10 AM | Permalink

May 21, 2007

SEW Experts: Ego Bidding Gone Wild

In today's Search Ads column, "Ego Bidding Gone Wild," Tony Wright talks about the danger of ego-bidding and how to stop a client from bidding their business into the ground.

Besides being bad business in general to spend money that can't be shown to bring a return, Wright points out that "in a world where relevancy criteria is in play, number 1 is somewhat nebulous."

Personalized search, quality scores, geotargeting, behavioral targeting, and other factors can make the concept of a "top result" that everyone sees a quaint memory. Wright says it's better to focus on the return, and not to let ego drive you to make bad decisions.

Posted by Kevin Newcomb at 3:45 PM | Permalink

April 26, 2007

DoubleClick Takes Ad Exchange on the Road

Apparently DoubleClick's new ad exchange is a bit more than vaporware, or a pretty bow to put on the package to entice potential acquirers. DoubleClick announced plans for the exchange in April, shortly before Google announced its plans to acquire DoubleClick.

The product is apparently still in the works, as it was trotted out this week at Ad:tech in San Francisco, according to DMNews. According to the report, "DoubleClick would not mention which publishers are using the exchange, but there are 35 combined publishers and advertisers currently using the service."

If the exchange does get built, and Google does acquire DoubleClick, that will make one more way for Google and Yahoo to compete head-to-head. Yahoo put its money behind Right Media, and announced plans to participate in the Right Media Exchange, last October.

Posted by Kevin Newcomb at 12:27 PM | Permalink

April 17, 2007

AdWords Announces Preferred Bidding Feature

A new feature at Google AdWords has just been released globally, and will be known as 'preferred cost bidding' or 'preferred CPC bids'. This new feature allows advertisers to specify the average cost per click or CPM (cost per thousand impressions) they want to pay within their AdWords campaigns.

Google says the feature was added in response to "advertiser demand for greater control over how they manage their bids and costs", and expects that advertisers will be better able to maximize ROI.

The AdWords algorithm will work constantly to achieve the target price set by the advertiser. The average price model is designed as an alternative to the existing maximum bid system, which often forces advertisers to pay more up front, based on the competition, and aim for an average cost per conversion instead.

By agreeing to an average cost per click or impression, advertisers should be able to feel more confident in their CPA targets. However, this could potentially mean advertisers will have slightly less control over positioning, which may also affect conversion rates.

Only time and testing will tell for many advertisers.

Posted by Elisabeth Osmeloski at 12:00 PM | Permalink

Today's Featured Expert Columns

In case any of you missed it, we recently launched a new series of daily columns, with expert writers covering several topics in search marketing. You can sign up to receive the latest SEW Experts headlines via XML/RSS feeds, or subscribe to each column individually to receive email newsletters. We will send these as each column publishes, beginning May 1.

Today's featured columns are:

Organic Search by Mark Jackson of Vizion Interactive Compliance Continued: Creating Internal Links for Organic Success Considering internal link structure and keyword rich anchor text makes your Web site more accessible to users and search engines, and lead to strong rankings naturally.

Little Biz by Carrie Hill of Blizzard Internet Marketing Branding Isn't Just for Big Businesses Search advertising can be intimidating to small businesses, but buying your company name in PPC ad programs can be both affordable and profitable.

Posted by Elisabeth Osmeloski at 2:28 AM | Permalink

April 5, 2007

Introducing: Weekly Columns by Search Marketing Experts

This week, you will see a new navigation scheme here on Search Engine Watch. Not only is it an effort to help readers to find critical content more easily, but you will see a new section labeled "SEW Experts". All this week, we're launching a new series of weekly columns, written by several familiar names in the search industry, and a few fresh faces offering new perspectives.

Today's featured column is Link Love, with starting with Engaging Customers to Say I Love You Back, by Justilien Gaspard, who discusses ways to use current customers to gain valuable inbound links and market your Web site at the same time.

You can now sign up for the daily feed of all Experts articles! Click the link or the images below to subscribe to the Search Engine Watch Experts Feed

You may also opt-in to each column individually by updating your subscription options via our Newsletters & Feeds management page.

Wednesday's Article: When Clicks Don't Get Credit for the Sale Analytics & ROI expert Eric Enge explains the common problems associated with tracking pay per click campaigns through to the final conversion points. Get tips on how to investigate conversion tracking problems on your Web site and within your online marketing campaigns, and find methods to get more accurate data.

Every Tuesday will feature two new stories: au Natural - focusing on organic search issues. Two columns will publish on alternate Tuesdays: Little Biz and Big Biz , will cover SEM issues for both small businesses and large enterprises.

Tuesday's featured columnists:

Mark Jackson, of Vizion Interactive, with: A Plea to Stop Treating SEO as an Afterthought

Carrie Hill, of Blizzard Internet Marketing, with: Time and Money: Small Businesses Have Little of Each

Monday, we started out with our Paid Search columnist, Tony Wright of Dexterity Media. Tony is a long-time speaker at Search Engine Strategies conferences on paid search advertising, and has written several articles for Search Day. The Search Ads column will publish every Monday, and you will also be able to subscribe to our experts columns via email and RSS feeds shortly.

Read Tony's first article, Desperately Seeking Stats to Prove the Value of Branded Keywords, a rebuttal of sorts to recent commentary on the incremental value of bidding on brand names and branded search terms in paid campaigns.

Posted by Elisabeth Osmeloski at 10:27 AM | Permalink

March 9, 2007

PPC Wish Lists, Part 3

Kevin Lee wraps up his PPC advertisers' wishlist for search engines in his ClickZ column today. Included in the final installment are a way to bid-boost Google's ads that appear on AOL, more click-specific data passed by URL, and better customer communications.

Posted by Kevin Newcomb at 10:02 AM | Permalink

March 2, 2007

More Search Engine Wishes

In his ClickZ column today, Kevin Lee continues his look at Search Engine Wish Lists, with requests for search engines for things that would help search advertisers. This week's list includes requests related to video ads (short pre- and post-roll video ads targeted against geography, daypart, user profile, or content channel), geotargeting (more accurate), campaign management (network opt-outs, campaign cloning), and some Yahoo-specific wishes (like merging its display and search ad sales and support teams).

Posted by Kevin Newcomb at 11:27 AM | Permalink

February 23, 2007

Search Engine Advertisers' Wish List

In his latest ClickZ column, Kevin Lee has compiled a Search Engine Wish List -- changes that search engines could implement to make PPC search advertisers' lives easier. The first installment includes requests for ad-click tracking in Yahoo, CPC behavioral search ads in all engines, and PPC video ads. He's compiling more requests, so feel free to add yours in the SEW Forums.

Posted by Kevin Newcomb at 1:07 AM | Permalink

February 20, 2007

Ask.com Renews Deal with LookSmart

Ask.com and IAC Advertising Solutions announced today that it would renew its license with LookSmart AdCenter for Publishers through 2009. The LookSmart service provides an auction platform, algorithmic based ad server and reporting engine, as well as an API for agencies and large advertiers. Ask uses LookSmart's AdCenter product as part of its Sponsored Listings program.

The automated open-auction system allows search marketers to purchase, manage and optimize campaigns on Ask.com and its publisher network. Ask.com Sponsored Listings currently process more than five billion queries each month, and supports over 30,000 advertisers bidding on more than 10 million keywords.

Posted by Elisabeth Osmeloski at 1:33 PM | Permalink

December 21, 2006

NYTimes.com hires former Yahoo executive

Leon Lazaroff of Bloomberg reports that The New York Times has named Murray Gaylord, a former Yahoo executive, to oversee marketing of the NYTimes.com web site.

"The move is part of New York Times's efforts to increase sales at its digital operations as advertisers spend more on the Internet and less on print publications," writes Lazaroff.

Posted by Greg Jarboe at 10:20 AM | Permalink

November 7, 2006

Use Of AdWords In US Senate Campaigns

The Rimm-Kaufman Group conducted a small study on how the US Senate candidates and campaigns used Google AdWords this weekend to "swing Senate races" in the last minute hustle and bustle. Here is a quick punch list of 'take aways' they sent me from the study:

* "Red" ads (pro-Republican or anti-Democrat) outnumbered "blue" Ads (pro-Democrat or anti-Republican) two-to-one.

* Blue ads were three times more likely to be negative than red ads.

* The most prevalent advertisers within this query set were Accoona (search engine ), Gather.com (social networking), CafePress (retailer), and GOPSenators.com (National Republican Senatorial Committee).

* No campaign ads referenced President Bush. Iraq and Al-Qaeda were only mentioned only twice (stopidioticforeignpolicy.com, against Jim Webb)

* Only two ads linked directly to videos (against George Allen: "macaca" and prescription drugs).

* Blue ads were more likely to include an exclamation point. Red ads were more likely to contain a question mark. * What struck Rimm-Kaufman Group most was how few political organizations are using Google.... And Yahoo, practically zip.

Posted by Barry Schwartz at 10:11 AM | Permalink

November 2, 2006

ClickRiver New Pay Per Click Program from Amazon

Ever wanted to put your ads right on the product page of your competitor's product at Amazon.com, or wanted your product advertised with something related to it? Now with Amazon's new pay per click program ClickRiver, now you can. The program is in beta at the moment and through Amazon's A9 department.

You can find out more about the program here and apply to participate in the beta at ClickRiver.com

Posted by Jennifer Slegg at 10:02 AM | Permalink

In UK, Google To Surpass Channel 4's Ad Dollars

The Independent reports that Google UK is expected to earn "£900m from the UK ad market in 2006." When compared to Channel 4's "£800m at the TV group" this year, Google is expected to beat this TV player in ad dollars. Channel 4's Andy Duncan said, "Some broadcasters have been very slow to realise this. The industry as a whole is frankly rather backward-looking and is perhaps underestimating the scale of change that is going on and the pace of change."

Posted by Barry Schwartz at 8:59 AM | Permalink

October 18, 2006

Google To Own 25% Of 2006 Online Ad Revenue

An eMarketer.com report estimates that Google will account for twenty-five percent of all online ad revenue. Google's share continues to increase (65% increase YoY) while Yahoo's growth continues to decrease, eMarketer says. Google first surpassed Yahoo in ad revenue back in 2005, but barely. Google in 2006 is expected to earn over $4 billion in ad revenue but Yahoo has just $2.9 billion according to eMarketer.com.

Posted by Barry Schwartz at 9:24 AM | Permalink

September 28, 2006

The Click Quality Council Formed By ClickForensics

ClickZ reports that ClickForensics announced that they will be leading a new group named The Click Quality Council to "discuss Pay Per Click (PPC) quality issues and to ensure their interests are represented in the development of PPC measurement standards." The Click Quality Council has 20 advertisers including names such as VISA and LendingTree and agencies such as Carat Fusion and Agency.com. There were hints that this group would be formed in the BusinessWeek's Good Look At Click Fraud. It is important to note that the IAB seems to be setting up a similar organization, but the IAB will have both advertisers/agencies and search engines involved, whereas the Click Quality Council will only have advertisers and agencies.

Postscript: Some corrections were made to this article.

(1) The Click Quality Council has 20 advertisers. (2) The CQC wants to make it clear that they are not setting up a "similar or competing organization" to the IAB or to SEMPO.

Posted by Barry Schwartz at 9:26 AM | Permalink

Fun and Profit with Search Ad Arbitrage

Clever (some would say evil) search advertisers are taking advantage of price differences in search advertising programs by buying comparatively inexpensive paid links in search results that drive users to pages with contextual ads with higher payoffs. While this search arbitrage is profitable for those who do it properly, it also aggravates other advertisers who complain that it drives costs up. And searchers aren't always happy with the practice either. The subject of search arbitrage was the focus of a lively debate at a recent SES panel, and guest writer Cat Seda covered the fireworks in today's SearchDay article, Search Arbitrage: Good or Evil? .

Posted by Chris Sherman at 2:53 AM | Permalink

September 26, 2006

Exploiting the Differences in Search Ad Programs

The major search engines pay-per-click programs all have similarities, but also have their own unique features and nuances. Crafting your campaigns to take maximum advantage of each program requires understanding the subtle differences in each program. At a recent SES conference, a panel explored the different programs and offered suggestions based on experience using them. Read on for more on these differences in today's SearchDay article, Compare & Contrast: Search Ad Program Strategies.

Posted by Chris Sherman at 12:27 AM | Permalink

September 20, 2006

Again, The Need For Search Ad Revenue To Stand Alone

Has the search bubble popped, given Yahoo's warning yesterday about declining ad revenue? That warning generated a stock plunge that has hit both Yahoo and Google. No, it's probably not a search bubble. Instead, it's a lesson in the danger of not breaking out search ad revenue from other forms.

Exactly as Robert Scoble notes here, the ad slip at Yahoo is not necessarily a search ad problem. What Robert calls "banner ads" is more specifically display advertising, graphical ads that are not pay-per-click text ads that show up in response to a search. Yahoo has a much bigger display advertising effort than Google. The downturn could be impacting just that side of their ad house.

In fact, the Wall Street Journal article about Yahoo's warning suggests this may be the case:

Yahoo's total revenue last year was $5.3 billion and an unspecified, but significant percentage of that was from so-called branded advertising, which includes graphical display ads as opposed to the small text ads placed beside search results.

Analysts say the two sectors Yahoo singled out generally spend heavily on such display ads. John Aiken, head of equity research at research firm Majestic Research Corp. in New York, said data about Internet activity suggest that search advertising for Yahoo and the broader industry appeared to be growing around expected levels. "Branded [advertising] is going to be a bumpier road for growth than people expected," said Mr. Aiken.

Of course, Google's not necessarily immune. A significant amount of Google's income is from non-search advertising -- contextual ads, some of which are graphical in nature. This is one reason why I'd asked Eric Schmidt at SES last month about breaking out search ad income from other forms. From the transcript of our talk:

Danny: Somewhat related: my understanding is that I still can't go to Google's financials and know how much money is going into content ads versus search – and I care about the search. I mean, to me search is a different intention and contextual. And so when people say, "we're going to measure the health of the search market," I want to know how the health of the search market is from a leader like Google. But I've always felt like when those figures are mixed together, it pollutes the data. For all I know, your contextual network is suddenly tanking, a whole bubble is about to burst out there, but search will be healthy. But the whole search industry might go down with it.

Eric: None of that is going to happen.

Danny: None of that is happening. And I was going to say, alternatively, everything has been doing great.

Eric: Since we're on the record, since we're on the record and it's a public company, I want to make sure that what you just said [that the contextual network is "suddenly tanking"] is not true.

Danny: Right. But that's the opposite to what could be happening. But contextual might be doing wonderfully, and search might be [tanking] …

Eric: They're both doing well. Again, we have a whole bunch of people who are trying to reverse-engineer the economics of Google. And we have historically not wanted to give out the detailed information that you're describing. These are clickthrough rates, CPCs, RPMs, and so forth. There are a number of reasons [not to split these out]. One of course is competitive. But there's a more fundamental reason, which is that anybody who looks at how Google actually runs the ad network makes simplifying assumptions that are not in fact true. And it's important that we, Google, not give out information that can be misused or is essentially false. So we've chosen, to the frustration of many, to not reveal the underlying economics of the ad box. Partly because it's changing so quickly. And all of the estimates that you see are based on smart people making estimates without our assistance. We think for numerous reasons that's the right decision. It's how we run the business.

Perhaps now we'll see some change happen. The failure to do good breakouts, the pollution of other ad revenues mixed in with search, directly causes search to perhaps be seen as in trouble when it might be completely healthy.

In fact, as I told a reporter yesterday, I think search will be just fine given its history. Search was booming during the ad downturn of 1999-2001. It was booming because of its highly measurable, highly converting nature. Born from a downturn, I expect it will continue to ride out any future ones, if not benefit from them.

Posted by Danny Sullivan at 9:06 AM | Permalink

August 17, 2006

Seevast: It's Kanoodle & More

Catching up on some industry news earlier this month, Kanoodle has done some restructuring. Previously, Kanoodle offered both search and contextual ads. Now, Kanoodle only offers search ads. Contextual ads are being sold through a sister business unit, Pulse 360. Meanwhile, the Moniker domain traffic service has been acquired and will run as a third sister business. Above all of these is a new operating company, Seevast. For more, see this ClickZ story: Kanoodle Makes Acquisition, Becomes Seevast.

Posted by Danny Sullivan at 1:36 PM | Permalink

August 15, 2006

103 Links About SES San Jose 2006 (AKA The Big Recap)

Couldn't make it to last week's monster Search Engine Strategies show in San Jose? Well, maybe next time! In the meantime, I've compiled a list of coverage from across the web, even somewhat organized into topic areas.

Our San Jose show is always tough for me, as I arrive a week earlier to visit with the various major search engines out there. That means two weeks of news and email to dig out from, since you can never get it all done on the road. All that digging out means I know I don't have everything listed below. But you'll find plenty to keep you entertained.

General Recaps

Eric Schmidt Appearance

Eric Schmidt & Search Privacy

Click Fraud Panel & Related Coverage

Yahoo's Panama Ad Platform Preview

Social Search & Related Topics

Organic Listings Sessions

Search Advertising Sessions

Issues Sessions

News, Blogs & Public Relations

Big Sites/Budget Sessions

Small Sites/Budget Sessions

Conversion & Metrics

Other Sessions

Google Dance & Parties & Pictures

Posted by Danny Sullivan at 4:50 PM | Permalink

July 3, 2006

Ending Click Fraud with Pay-Per-Percentage

In Pay-Per-Percentage vs. PPC, Shimon Sandler points out an interesting new paper from the folks at Microsoft Research - Pay-Per-Percentage of Impressions: An Advertising Method that is Highly Robust to Fraud (pdf)

As Shimon notes, the idea is that this type of advertising approach would be "immune to both click fraud and impression fraud," and would use something called "pre-fix match" instead of broad match.

The author of the paper is Joshua Goodman, who is a Principal Researcher, and the head of the Microsoft Learning for Messaging and Adversarial Problems (LMAP) team, and who has an impressive page of other publications listed on the Microsoft domain, including a recent one on Finding Advertising Keywords on Web Pages (pdf).

What does pay-per-impressions mean? Simply, someone can can for a percentage of all impressions for certain keywords or keyword phrases over a period of time.

In this system, an advertiser picks a keyword, e.g. cameras and purchases, perhaps through bidding, a certain percentage of all impressions for that keyword. For instance, an advertiser might pay $1.00 to MSN Search. In return, the advertiser might receive 10% of all impressions for camera for 1 week. What does this mean? It means that for 1 week, one out of ten times that someone searches for the word camera, they will see the ad.

The number of real impressions that an advertiser receives would not be affected by the number of fake impressions. The paper describes how this mechanism would need to work to avoid impression fraud, and how a broad match-type of system could function under a pay-per-percentage type system.

The paper points out that if an pay-per-percentage system is adopted, that it wouldn't replace pay-per-click or pay-per-impression, but would rather be another choice that an advertiser can make. A method is described in the paper that would allow these types of systems to function side-by-side.

It also looks at something that the author calls "misinformation fraud" which is when a competitor performs searches to boost the apparent rate of search volume that an advertising system might display as indicative of how popular a word or phrase is, and affiliate fraud.

It's an interesting and thoughful paper, well worth a read if you use paid search to attract visitors to you web site. Thanks for pointing it out, Shimon.

Postscript: Donna Bogatin, from Digital Micro-Market also pointed this paper out on July 1st, and has an interesting post from yesterday asking Google to show that they are taking a stand against click-fraud in Click fraud prevention: The next great search engine differentiator?.

The Microsoft paper was published as part of a workshop last year sponsored by Yahoo, but really doesn't seem to have received much attention at the time, though Dr. Garcia (Orion) wrote about it at the Search Engine Watch Forums, along with other papers from the same workshop in December, in a post titled Searcher Perceptions & Paid Links.

Posted by Bill Slawski at 12:49 PM | Permalink

Ending Click Fraud with Pay-Per-Percentage

In Pay-Per-Percentage vs. PPC, Shimon Sandler points out an interesting new paper from the folks at Microsoft Research - Pay-Per-Percentage of Impressions: An Advertising Method that is Highly Robust to Fraud (pdf)

As Shimon notes, the idea is that this type of advertising approach would be "immune to both click fraud and impression fraud," and would use something called "pre-fix match" instead of broad match.

The author of the paper is Joshua Goodman, who is a Principal Researcher, and the head of the Microsoft Learning for Messaging and Adversarial Problems (LMAP) team, and who has an impressive page of other publications listed on the Microsoft domain, including a recent one on Finding Advertising Keywords on Web Pages (pdf).

What does pay-per-impressions mean? Simply, someone can can for a percentage of all impressions for certain keywords or keyword phrases over a period of time.

In this system, an advertiser picks a keyword, e.g. cameras and purchases, perhaps through bidding, a certain percentage of all impressions for that keyword. For instance, an advertiser might pay $1.00 to MSN Search. In return, the advertiser might receive 10% of all impressions for camera for 1 week. What does this mean? It means that for 1 week, one out of ten times that someone searches for the word camera, they will see the ad.

The number of real impressions that an advertiser receives would not be affected by the number of fake impressions. The paper describes how this mechanism would need to work to avoid impression fraud, and how a broad match-type of system could function under a pay-per-percentage type system.

The paper points out that if an pay-per-percentage system is adopted, that it wouldn't replace pay-per-click or pay-per-impression, but would rather be another choice that an advertiser can make. A method is described in the paper that would allow these types of systems to function side-by-side.

It also looks at something that the author calls "misinformation fraud" which is when a competitor performs searches to boost the apparent rate of search volume that an advertising system might display as indicative of how popular a word or phrase is, and affiliate fraud.

It's an interesting and thoughful paper, well worth a read if you use paid search to attract visitors to you web site. Thanks for pointing it out, Shimon.

Postscript: Donna Bogatin, from Digital Micro-Market also pointed this paper out on July 1st, and has an interesting post from yesterday asking Google to show that they are taking a stand against click-fraud in Click fraud prevention: The next great search engine differentiator?.

The Microsoft paper was published as part of a workshop last year sponsored by Yahoo, but really doesn't seem to have received much attention at the time, though Dr. Garcia (Orion) wrote about it at the Search Engine Watch Forums, along with other papers from the same workshop in December, in a post titled Searcher Perceptions & Paid Links.

Posted by Kevin Heisler at 12:49 PM | Permalink

Ending Click Fraud with Pay-Per-Percentage

In Pay-Per-Percentage vs. PPC, Shimon Sandler points out an interesting new paper from the folks at Microsoft Research - Pay-Per-Percentage of Impressions: An Advertising Method that is Highly Robust to Fraud (pdf)

As Shimon notes, the idea is that this type of advertising approach would be "immune to both click fraud and impression fraud," and would use something called "pre-fix match" instead of broad match.

The author of the paper is Joshua Goodman, who is a Principal Researcher, and the head of the Microsoft Learning for Messaging and Adversarial Problems (LMAP) team, and who has an impressive page of other publications listed on the Microsoft domain, including a recent one on Finding Advertising Keywords on Web Pages (pdf).

What does pay-per-impressions mean? Simply, someone can can for a percentage of all impressions for certain keywords or keyword phrases over a period of time.

In this system, an advertiser picks a keyword, e.g. cameras and purchases, perhaps through bidding, a certain percentage of all impressions for that keyword. For instance, an advertiser might pay $1.00 to MSN Search. In return, the advertiser might receive 10% of all impressions for camera for 1 week. What does this mean? It means that for 1 week, one out of ten times that someone searches for the word camera, they will see the ad.

The number of real impressions that an advertiser receives would not be affected by the number of fake impressions. The paper describes how this mechanism would need to work to avoid impression fraud, and how a broad match-type of system could function under a pay-per-percentage type system.

The paper points out that if an pay-per-percentage system is adopted, that it wouldn't replace pay-per-click or pay-per-impression, but would rather be another choice that an advertiser can make. A method is described in the paper that would allow these types of systems to function side-by-side.

It also looks at something that the author calls "misinformation fraud" which is when a competitor performs searches to boost the apparent rate of search volume that an advertising system might display as indicative of how popular a word or phrase is, and affiliate fraud.

It's an interesting and thoughful paper, well worth a read if you use paid search to attract visitors to you web site. Thanks for pointing it out, Shimon.

Postscript: Donna Bogatin, from Digital Micro-Market also pointed this paper out on July 1st, and has an interesting post from yesterday asking Google to show that they are taking a stand against click-fraud in Click fraud prevention: The next great search engine differentiator?.

The Microsoft paper was published as part of a workshop last year sponsored by Yahoo, but really doesn't seem to have received much attention at the time, though Dr. Garcia (Orion) wrote about it at the Search Engine Watch Forums, along with other papers from the same workshop in December, in a post titled Searcher Perceptions & Paid Links.

Posted by Kevin Heisler at 12:49 PM | Permalink

Ending Click Fraud with Pay-Per-Percentage

In Pay-Per-Percentage vs. PPC, Shimon Sandler points out an interesting new paper from the folks at Microsoft Research - Pay-Per-Percentage of Impressions: An Advertising Method that is Highly Robust to Fraud (pdf)

As Shimon notes, the idea is that this type of advertising approach would be "immune to both click fraud and impression fraud," and would use something called "pre-fix match" instead of broad match.

The author of the paper is Joshua Goodman, who is a Principal Researcher, and the head of the Microsoft Learning for Messaging and Adversarial Problems (LMAP) team, and who has an impressive page of other publications listed on the Microsoft domain, including a recent one on Finding Advertising Keywords on Web Pages (pdf).

What does pay-per-impressions mean? Simply, someone can can for a percentage of all impressions for certain keywords or keyword phrases over a period of time.

In this system, an advertiser picks a keyword, e.g. cameras and purchases, perhaps through bidding, a certain percentage of all impressions for that keyword. For instance, an advertiser might pay $1.00 to MSN Search. In return, the advertiser might receive 10% of all impressions for camera for 1 week. What does this mean? It means that for 1 week, one out of ten times that someone searches for the word camera, they will see the ad.

The number of real impressions that an advertiser receives would not be affected by the number of fake impressions. The paper describes how this mechanism would need to work to avoid impression fraud, and how a broad match-type of system could function under a pay-per-percentage type system.

The paper points out that if an pay-per-percentage system is adopted, that it wouldn't replace pay-per-click or pay-per-impression, but would rather be another choice that an advertiser can make. A method is described in the paper that would allow these types of systems to function side-by-side.

It also looks at something that the author calls "misinformation fraud" which is when a competitor performs searches to boost the apparent rate of search volume that an advertising system might display as indicative of how popular a word or phrase is, and affiliate fraud.

It's an interesting and thoughful paper, well worth a read if you use paid search to attract visitors to you web site. Thanks for pointing it out, Shimon.

Postscript: Donna Bogatin, from Digital Micro-Market also pointed this paper out on July 1st, and has an interesting post from yesterday asking Google to show that they are taking a stand against click-fraud in Click fraud prevention: The next great search engine differentiator?.

The Microsoft paper was published as part of a workshop last year sponsored by Yahoo, but really doesn't seem to have received much attention at the time, though Dr. Garcia (Orion) wrote about it at the Search Engine Watch Forums, along with other papers from the same workshop in December, in a post titled Searcher Perceptions & Paid Links.

Posted by Kevin Heisler at 12:49 PM | Permalink

June 15, 2006

Yahoo Sued For Trademark Infringement Using Google AdWords

DenverPost.com reports that Yahoo was sued by lovecity.com for bidding on the lovecity.com trademark in Google AdWords. Reportedly, Yahoo placed bids on "www.lovecity" and "lovecity.com," so when someone searches on those phrases, Yahoo Personals would come up in the search ads on Google and Google's search ad network. I tried a search on www.lovecity and saw two competing dating services but not Yahoo, come up in the sponsored listings section. I actually find it humorous that Yahoo would go this far, only because the left hand does not talk to the right hand.

Posted by Barry Schwartz at 9:03 AM | Permalink

Yahoo Sued For Trademark Infringement Using Google AdWords

DenverPost.com reports that Yahoo was sued by lovecity.com for bidding on the lovecity.com trademark in Google AdWords. Reportedly, Yahoo placed bids on "www.lovecity" and "lovecity.com," so when someone searches on those phrases, Yahoo Personals would come up in the search ads on Google and Google's search ad network. I tried a search on www.lovecity and saw two competing dating services but not Yahoo, come up in the sponsored listings section. I actually find it humorous that Yahoo would go this far, only because the left hand does not talk to the right hand.

Posted by Kevin Heisler at 9:03 AM | Permalink

Yahoo Sued For Trademark Infringement Using Google AdWords

DenverPost.com reports that Yahoo was sued by lovecity.com for bidding on the lovecity.com trademark in Google AdWords. Reportedly, Yahoo placed bids on "www.lovecity" and "lovecity.com," so when someone searches on those phrases, Yahoo Personals would come up in the search ads on Google and Google's search ad network. I tried a search on www.lovecity and saw two competing dating services but not Yahoo, come up in the sponsored listings section. I actually find it humorous that Yahoo would go this far, only because the left hand does not talk to the right hand.

Posted by Kevin Heisler at 9:03 AM | Permalink

Yahoo Sued For Trademark Infringement Using Google AdWords

DenverPost.com reports that Yahoo was sued by lovecity.com for bidding on the lovecity.com trademark in Google AdWords. Reportedly, Yahoo placed bids on "www.lovecity" and "lovecity.com," so when someone searches on those phrases, Yahoo Personals would come up in the search ads on Google and Google's search ad network. I tried a search on www.lovecity and saw two competing dating services but not Yahoo, come up in the sponsored listings section. I actually find it humorous that Yahoo would go this far, only because the left hand does not talk to the right hand.

Posted by Kevin Heisler at 9:03 AM | Permalink

May 24, 2006

Search Engines Using Search Ads To Promote Themselves

In the past week or so, I have been reporting on the different ways search engines use search ads to promote their own search engine. I have spotted Ask.com bidding on Google for "pimped out search engine," which is part of their marketing speak of the TV commercials. I have also spotted Yahoo using Google AdSense to promote Yahoo Search products.

Search engines like MSN come up in Google AdWords for a search on search engine, MSN and Google come up in Yahoo Search for a query on search engine also. But at this time, none of the search engines are paying MSN or Ask.com for ads on their networks for the keyword phrase "search engine." It is also interesting to note that Google and MSN do not rank themselves in the number one position organically for the keyword phrase "search engine," only Ask.com and Yahoo do that.

Posted by Barry Schwartz at 9:20 AM | Permalink

Search Engines Using Search Ads To Promote Themselves

In the past week or so, I have been reporting on the different ways search engines use search ads to promote their own search engine. I have spotted Ask.com bidding on Google for "pimped out search engine," which is part of their marketing speak of the TV commercials. I have also spotted Yahoo using Google AdSense to promote Yahoo Search products.

Search engines like MSN come up in Google AdWords for a search on search engine, MSN and Google come up in Yahoo Search for a query on search engine also. But at this time, none of the search engines are paying MSN or Ask.com for ads on their networks for the keyword phrase "search engine." It is also interesting to note that Google and MSN do not rank themselves in the number one position organically for the keyword phrase "search engine," only Ask.com and Yahoo do that.

Posted by Kevin Heisler at 9:20 AM | Permalink

Search Engines Using Search Ads To Promote Themselves

In the past week or so, I have been reporting on the different ways search engines use search ads to promote their own search engine. I have spotted Ask.com bidding on Google for "pimped out search engine," which is part of their marketing speak of the TV commercials. I have also spotted Yahoo using Google AdSense to promote Yahoo Search products.

Search engines like MSN come up in Google AdWords for a search on search engine, MSN and Google come up in Yahoo Search for a query on search engine also. But at this time, none of the search engines are paying MSN or Ask.com for ads on their networks for the keyword phrase "search engine." It is also interesting to note that Google and MSN do not rank themselves in the number one position organically for the keyword phrase "search engine," only Ask.com and Yahoo do that.

Posted by Kevin Heisler at 9:20 AM | Permalink

Search Engines Using Search Ads To Promote Themselves

In the past week or so, I have been reporting on the different ways search engines use search ads to promote their own search engine. I have spotted Ask.com bidding on Google for "pimped out search engine," which is part of their marketing speak of the TV commercials. I have also spotted Yahoo using Google AdSense to promote Yahoo Search products.

Search engines like MSN come up in Google AdWords for a search on search engine, MSN and Google come up in Yahoo Search for a query on search engine also. But at this time, none of the search engines are paying MSN or Ask.com for ads on their networks for the keyword phrase "search engine." It is also interesting to note that Google and MSN do not rank themselves in the number one position organically for the keyword phrase "search engine," only Ask.com and Yahoo do that.

Posted by Kevin Heisler at 9:20 AM | Permalink

May 15, 2006

Indeed Job Search Moves Ads Out Of Beta & Q&A With CEO, Paul Forster

Indeed, a job search engine, announced last week that it officially launched its pay per click network (the system had been in beta since mid-2005).

CEO Paul Forster sat down with me for an introduction to the company: "The job search market is very fragmented. There are 1000s of different places to search which makes it very difficult for seekers to do a comprehensive search. Indeed saves people time, enables people to find unique jobs, and also to find sources of jobs that they normally wouldnt have heard of. Weve put a lot of work into the search algorithm."

Read the full interview at VerticalSearch.

Posted by Brian Smith at 1:01 PM | Permalink

Indeed Job Search Moves Ads Out Of Beta & Q&A With CEO, Paul Forster

Indeed, a job search engine, announced last week that it officially launched its pay per click network (the system had been in beta since mid-2005).

CEO Paul Forster sat down with me for an introduction to the company: "The job search market is very fragmented. There are 1000s of different places to search which makes it very difficult for seekers to do a comprehensive search. Indeed saves people time, enables people to find unique jobs, and also to find sources of jobs that they normally wouldnt have heard of. Weve put a lot of work into the search algorithm."

Read the full interview at VerticalSearch.

Posted by Kevin Heisler at 1:01 PM | Permalink

Indeed Job Search Moves Ads Out Of Beta & Q&A With CEO, Paul Forster

Indeed, a job search engine, announced last week that it officially launched its pay per click network (the system had been in beta since mid-2005).

CEO Paul Forster sat down with me for an introduction to the company: "The job search market is very fragmented. There are 1000s of different places to search which makes it very difficult for seekers to do a comprehensive search. Indeed saves people time, enables people to find unique jobs, and also to find sources of jobs that they normally wouldnt have heard of. Weve put a lot of work into the search algorithm."

Read the full interview at VerticalSearch.

Posted by Kevin Heisler at 1:01 PM | Permalink

Indeed Job Search Moves Ads Out Of Beta & Q&A With CEO, Paul Forster

Indeed, a job search engine, announced last week that it officially launched its pay per click network (the system had been in beta since mid-2005).

CEO Paul Forster sat down with me for an introduction to the company: "The job search market is very fragmented. There are 1000s of different places to search which makes it very difficult for seekers to do a comprehensive search. Indeed saves people time, enables people to find unique jobs, and also to find sources of jobs that they normally wouldnt have heard of. Weve put a lot of work into the search algorithm."

Read the full interview at VerticalSearch.

Posted by Kevin Heisler at 1:01 PM | Permalink

April 27, 2006

Revisiting Search Engine Ad Breaks

Originally, the news of Google's broad matching change had me thinking that Google was adding more ad positions to their search results pages. I've since talked with Google and understand now this isn't the case. I've broken what is happening into a new story. Meanwhile, I think this story is still a useful reminder on the number of ad positions each search engine offers across the board.

Here's the rundown I did from June 2004:

2004

Paid Links

Free Links

Total

% Free

Yahoo

8

20

28

71%

AOL

8

10

18

56%

MSN

9

11

20

55%

Google

10

10

20

50%

Ask

11

10

21

48%

Average

9

12

21

56%

And the situation today?

2006

Paid Links

Free Links

Total

% Free

Change

AOL

8

10

18

56%

0%

MSN

8

10

18

56%

1%

Ask

8

10

18

56%

8%

Google

11

10

21

48%

-2%

Yahoo

14

10

24

42%

-30%

Average

10

10

20

51%

-5%

Google*

14

10

24

42%

-13%

The two big players -- Google and Yahoo -- have decreased the percentage of free listings shown. To be clear, on Google, you still have the same ten free listings shown since Google began, but they've added another paid spot. On Yahoo, you have 10 less free listings than they used to show, plus they've added more paid spots.

Aside from number of ads, the positioning is an issue. Google's long had many ads running down the side of its page, something the other major players have all largely imitated. To me, that's not been irritating, because plenty of editorial listings were still "above the fold" or visible without scrolling.

In contrast, dumping ads on the top of pages might drive users away. Ask used to do this quite aggressively, as Ads On Ask & Could Paid Listings Take Prime Position? from last year covers in more detail. Ask Jeeves to Reduce Paid Ads covers how Ask pulled back on the ads because it found fewer ads boosted user retention -- at least in the US. In the UK, they'll still run up to four ads at the top of the page and five below.

FYI, Google did increase from two to three ads at the top of results last August (it also has been testing ads at the bottom of pages since November).

For the record, here's the current top-bottom-side breakdown in chart form:

2006

Top

Bottom

Side

Paid Links

% Top

AOL

4

4

0

8

50%

MSN

3

0

5

8

38%

Ask

3

5

0

8

38%

Yahoo

4

2

8

14

29%

Google

3

0

8

11

27%

Average

3

1

5

10

36%

Posted by Danny Sullivan at 1:51 PM | Permalink

Revisiting Search Engine Ad Breaks

Originally, the news of Google's broad matching change had me thinking that Google was adding more ad positions to their search results pages. I've since talked with Google and understand now this isn't the case. I've broken what is happening into a new story. Meanwhile, I think this story is still a useful reminder on the number of ad positions each search engine offers across the board.

Here's the rundown I did from June 2004:

2004

Paid Links

Free Links

Total

% Free

Yahoo

8

20

28

71%

AOL

8

10

18

56%

MSN

9

11

20

55%

Google

10

10

20

50%

Ask

11

10

21

48%

Average

9

12

21

56%

And the situation today?

2006

Paid Links

Free Links

Total

% Free

Change

AOL

8

10

18

56%

0%

MSN

8

10

18

56%

1%

Ask

8

10

18

56%

8%

Google

11

10

21

48%

-2%

Yahoo

14

10

24

42%

-30%

Average

10

10

20

51%

-5%

Google*

14

10

24

42%

-13%

The two big players -- Google and Yahoo -- have decreased the percentage of free listings shown. To be clear, on Google, you still have the same ten free listings shown since Google began, but they've added another paid spot. On Yahoo, you have 10 less free listings than they used to show, plus they've added more paid spots.

Aside from number of ads, the positioning is an issue. Google's long had many ads running down the side of its page, something the other major players have all largely imitated. To me, that's not been irritating, because plenty of editorial listings were still "above the fold" or visible without scrolling.

In contrast, dumping ads on the top of pages might drive users away. Ask used to do this quite aggressively, as Ads On Ask & Could Paid Listings Take Prime Position? from last year covers in more detail. Ask Jeeves to Reduce Paid Ads covers how Ask pulled back on the ads because it found fewer ads boosted user retention -- at least in the US. In the UK, they'll still run up to four ads at the top of the page and five below.

FYI, Google did increase from two to three ads at the top of results last August (it also has been testing ads at the bottom of pages since November).

For the record, here's the current top-bottom-side breakdown in chart form:

2006

Top

Bottom

Side

Paid Links

% Top

AOL

4

4

0

8

50%

MSN

3

0

5

8

38%

Ask

3

5

0

8

38%

Yahoo

4

2

8

14

29%

Google

3

0

8

11

27%

Average

3

1

5

10

36%

Posted by Kevin Heisler at 1:51 PM | Permalink

Revisiting Search Engine Ad Breaks

Originally, the news of Google's broad matching change had me thinking that Google was adding more ad positions to their search results pages. I've since talked with Google and understand now this isn't the case. I've broken what is happening into a new story. Meanwhile, I think this story is still a useful reminder on the number of ad positions each search engine offers across the board.

Here's the rundown I did from June 2004:

2004

Paid Links

Free Links

Total

% Free

Yahoo

8

20

28

71%

AOL

8

10

18

56%

MSN

9

11

20

55%

Google

10

10

20

50%

Ask

11

10

21

48%

Average

9

12

21

56%

And the situation today?

2006

Paid Links

Free Links

Total

% Free

Change

AOL

8

10

18

56%

0%

MSN

8

10

18

56%

1%

Ask

8

10

18

56%

8%

Google

11

10

21

48%

-2%

Yahoo

14

10

24

42%

-30%

Average

10

10

20

51%

-5%

Google*

14

10

24

42%

-13%

The two big players -- Google and Yahoo -- have decreased the percentage of free listings shown. To be clear, on Google, you still have the same ten free listings shown since Google began, but they've added another paid spot. On Yahoo, you have 10 less free listings than they used to show, plus they've added more paid spots.

Aside from number of ads, the positioning is an issue. Google's long had many ads running down the side of its page, something the other major players have all largely imitated. To me, that's not been irritating, because plenty of editorial listings were still "above the fold" or visible without scrolling.

In contrast, dumping ads on the top of pages might drive users away. Ask used to do this quite aggressively, as Ads On Ask & Could Paid Listings Take Prime Position? from last year covers in more detail. Ask Jeeves to Reduce Paid Ads covers how Ask pulled back on the ads because it found fewer ads boosted user retention -- at least in the US. In the UK, they'll still run up to four ads at the top of the page and five below.

FYI, Google did increase from two to three ads at the top of results last August (it also has been