Apogee Weblog

google.com/chrome (browser) = mojo

2008-09-02T08:33:00.002-04:00

Google is launching Chrome, a new web browser (announced via comic book, no less). I think it's safe to say they haven't lost their mojo. See google.com/chrome later today. Here's what I currently see in my browser (Mozilla Firefox):

The Google Chrome Browser will, undoubtedly, be the big story on Techmeme today. Look, too, for insight from Google software engineer, Matt Cutts. Google must not be content with the state of Mozilla Firefox, despite the close partnership between Google and Mozilla.

While not a transformational event like the Netscape IPO in 1995, the development of a new browser by Google is a big deal. Google stock is up over $10 in pre-market trading. This is an important development for anyone that works on the web. More later...

Tags: google, chrome browser, mozilla, firefox

Do NOT Click Here

2008-08-26T11:38:00.002-04:00

Ads are NOT the new online tip jar, despite Seth Godin's assertion:

If every time you read a blog post or bit of online content you enjoyed you clicked on an ad to say thanks, the economics of the web would change immediately. You don't have to buy anything (though it's fine if you do). You just have to honor the writer by giving them a click.

Forget about the writer for a minute. Think about the advertiser. Since Seth Godin founded Squidoo, a site which is advertiser-funded via Google AdSense, his blog post was particularly troubling. Aside from inadvertently condoning click fraud, the idea doesn't even make sense since many ads are CPM- and not CPC-based. Just reading the content generates an impression which will help authors who use CPM ads. For advertisers, this is yet another reason to keep search ads completely separate from contextual ads.

To be fair to Seth Godin, he wrote a follow-up post, attempting to explain he wasn't suggesting click fraud. However, that explanation shows a lack of understanding of who is paying for clicks. He writes:

The irony is not lost on me. The people who so desperately interrupt everyone all the time are now squealing because I'm recommending that more people pay attention to their offers.

The problem with this logic is that the advertisers buying clicks are not necessarily the same ones buying traditional advertising. In fact, I suspect many of the companies paying for clicks are small businesses who buy search (and contextual) ads via Google AdWords or Yahoo Search Marketing instead of advertising which will, in Seth's words, "interrupt everyone all the time." The kind of click behavior he suggests will, indeed, change the economics of the web for these small businesses. So, getting to the title of this post, do NOT click here.

FYI, this post is my entry in the Killer Titles - Group Writing Project. If you are visiting from ProBlogger, take a break from reading the other entries and play a game of Squidoo TagMan. Think twice, though, about clicking on the ads on Seth Godin's Squidoo. ;-)

P.S. As a search engine marketer who came from an engineering background and a career in software development, I have a great deal to learn about advertising and marketing. That's why I read blogs like Seth Godin's. Despite my strong reaction to this particular topic, I find most of his posts very educational.

Tags: click here, seth godin, squidoo

AdWords Quality Score Overhaul: First Page Bids

2008-08-21T23:08:00.002-04:00

AdWords Quality Score is set for an overhaul that will introduce first page bids and remove minimum bids. This is a drastic move by Google. According to Inside AdWords:

As a result of migrating to per-query Quality Score, we are no longer showing minimum bids in your account. Instead, we're replacing minimum bids with a new, more meaningful metric: first page bids. First page bids are an estimate of the bid it would take for your ad to reach the first page of search results on Google web search. They're based on the exact match version of the keyword, the ad's Quality Score, and current advertiser competition on that keyword. Based on your feedback, we learned that knowing your minimum bid wasn't always helpful in getting the ad placement you wanted, so we hope that first page bids will give you better guidance on how to achieve your advertising goals.

Translation:

Quality Score was too restrictive. Google was leaving too much money on the table.
Google wants you to bid higher. Google doesn't want any minimum bids.

Think about #2 for a minute. Google could keep the minimum bid feature and simply add a new feature to show the first page bid. Instead, transparency into minimum bids will be eliminated entirely. No keywords will be marked inactive for search and no minimum bids will be visible via the AdWords interface. You won't see all of these values anymore:

Regarding point #1 about Google leaving money on the table, consider what Sergey Brin said during the Google Q2 2008 Earnings Call:

But clearly that’s not the ideal strategy indefinitely, because we don’t want to end up with no ads. And in fact from a quality point of view, we now find our ads are a significant addition quality-wise to our page. They are just a very important source of information. We’ve been actually re-examining some of that. There was some evidence internally that perhaps we were a little overly aggressive in decreasing coverage in this past quarter.

I do think the introduction of first page bid estimates is a useful feature for advertisers. However, I think it will also spur advertisers to dramatically increase bids. Short term, it will also create confusion - and angst. Long term, I wonder if this means Google will decide to show the bid necessary to achieve top of the page placement. That's been a hidden bid for a long time. Don't look for a "first page, top placement bid estimate" anytime soon, though. ;-)

Tags: adwords, quality score, first page, bids

AdWords Tracking Tip: Use Keyword Insertion in Destination URL

2008-08-01T10:25:00.002-04:00

The (Ad)Word of the Day is Keyword Insertion:

Keyword insertion is an advanced feature used to dynamically update your ad text with your chosen keywords. You insert a special modification tag into your ad text to enable this feature for your ads.

The {keyword} tag can also be used in the destination URL to see which actual keyword searches are being triggered by broad matches. For more details, see this answer I gave in an AdWords Help group. Here's an excerpt:

destination URL tracking: ?kw=purple%20flowers
referring search URL: google.com/search?q=pink+flowers

IOW, it's necessary to examine *both* the destination URL and the referring URL in order to understand how broad matches are working. BTW, this example is based on the following AdWords help page:

adwords.google.com/...?answer=68074

I should also point out that if the search query performance report had complete data, there'd be less of a need to track via other means.

For more commentary on that AdWords help page and the way broad match is implemented in the AdWords system, read Purple Flowers Are Not Pink Despite What Google Might Think. Also, those AdWords Help groups are a great resource. Look for my answers (and questions):

Apogee Tags: adwords tracking, keyword insertion, destination url

Google Domain Parking Class Action Lawsuit

2008-07-16T11:43:00.002-04:00

A few weeks ago, I was contacted via email by a law firm in San Francisco saying they were:

... researching AdWords distribution fraud, specifically as it relates to Google's actions relating to their AdSense for Domains and AdSense for Errors programs. Your blog posts have been very helpful in helping to uncover this problem. We are reviewing the possibility of a class action lawsuit against Google, and I would like to discuss this further with you.

Via Techmeme today, I see they did, indeed, file a class action lawsuit against Google related to domain parking. I had a conference call with a few people from the law firm and explained what I know about Google AdWords and parked domains. After hearing about the particular situation that prompted them to look into the lawsuit, I told them I thought they'd have difficulty with the case. I explained that Google now offers an opt out for the AdSense for Domains program. The problem with the opt out, though, is that most advertisers would not know to find it since it's not a setting in the campaign options. That's where most advertisers would expect to find this kind of option. What's confusing, too, is that the opt out applies to the search network but can only be set from the content network site exclusion tool:

Anyway, I'm not quite sure what to make of this lawsuit. The particular advertiser in question doesn't seem to have too much data to either prove or disprove fraud. Based on reactions I've seen from other blogs (like Domain Name Wire), I think that advertiser will be portrayed as ignorant. Then again, maybe that's the point - that Google is preying upon small advertisers and, in effect, charging an ignorance tax.

Apogee Tags: google, domain parking, class action

SEO Tool Update: inventory.overture.com Gone

2008-07-14T13:05:00.002-04:00

Because Yahoo officially dropped the inventory.overture.com tool, I've stopped linking to it from this SEO tool for keyword research. That SEO tool still sets up links for further research using the free versions of these SEO tools: Wordtracker + Keyword Discovery. Consider this output:

Notice the keyword phrase overture suggestion tool used in both the meta description and meta keywords tags. With the Overture suggestion tool now gone, Keyword Discovery will need to position itself to compete with Google's upgraded keyword tool.

So, what is Yahoo doing now with all of that inventory.overture.com traffic? Let's see:

First, they redirect inventory.overture.com to a searchmarketing.yahoo.com URL.

Then, they redirect to a sem.smallbusiness.yahoo.com URL. Eventually, that URL will likely redirect to either adwords.google.com or adcenter.microsoft.com, depending upon this outcome. ;-)

Apogee Tags: seo tool, keyword discovery, wordtracker, overture suggestion tool

Hypocrisy: How Google Profits from Webspam

2008-06-28T20:10:00.002-04:00

Any advertiser that uses Google AdWords is unwittingly funding webspam, except for those advertisers that follow step 2 of the 4 Steps to Avoid the Google AdWords Ignorance Tax. Google profits from webspam, at the expense of AdWords advertisers. Follow my logic. Yesterday, Matt Cutts posted about fighting webspam on the Google corporate blog. He said:

Webspam, in case you've never heard of it, is the junk you see in search results when websites successfully cheat their way into higher positions in search results or otherwise violate search engine quality guidelines.

Now, if you follow the link he posted to the Google quality guidelines, it says (emphasis mine):

These quality guidelines cover the most common forms of deceptive or manipulative behavior, but Google may respond negatively to other misleading practices not listed here (e.g. tricking users by registering misspellings of well-known websites).

So, Google's own definition asserts that typosquatting (registering misspellings of well-known websites) is webspam. Guess whose ads run on typosquatting sites? Yes, Google profits from typosquatting sites. So, Google profits from webspam. Here's an example to help illustrate the point (allinz.com is typosquatting on the allianz.com domain):

That's an example I included when writing Vulcan Golf v. Google Trial Will Tarnish Google Brand. See the other 5 examples from that post. I think Google has some explaining to do. Webspam isn't just a problem in the Google search index. No, Google's responsible for the webspam it enables across the AdWords advertising network.

Until Google blocks this kind of search engine spam, it's up to the advertisers themselves to block this traffic.

Related Post (from a year ago):
Is Google NOT Serious About Webspam?

Apogee Tags: webspam, google, hypocrisy, matt cutts, adwords, typosquatting

SCOR 1 for GOOG - Google Ad Planner Launches Today

2008-06-24T11:50:00.002-04:00

Google (GOOG) is launching a new product today called Google Ad Planner. Look at the impact this is having on comScore (SCOR) stock this morning:

I suspect the launch of Google Ad Planner will be a big story on Techmeme today. I've noticed some strong reactions to this new product already:

See the Google Ad Planner Help Center for more details.

Apogee Tags: scor, comscore, goog, google, ad planner

4 Steps to Avoid the Google AdWords Ignorance Tax

2008-06-14T10:34:00.003-04:00

After writing Automatic Match and the SEM Tax, I thought it would be helpful to explain how to avoid this tax. I like the term ignorance tax, described succinctly via seobook.com:

Yahoo! has the syndication that can't be opted out from, and by default Google opts advertisers into everything. And then there is broad match which might be a bit broad for some advertisers. It seems the networks almost have an "ignorance tax" which hurt many small advertisers who do not know any better.

Since Yahoo will be outsourcing paid search to Google, I'll limit the scope to AdWords only. Whether you're launching a new campaign using Google AdWords or editing an existing one, follow these 4 steps to avoid the ignorance tax:

1) Turn OFF the Content Network
Content advertising has its place but not blended with search advertising campaigns. Keep them separate. For any search advertising campaigns, turn off the content network at the campaign level:

Now, when you opt out of the content network, ignore any warning Google might issue to try to convince you to remain opted in:

2) Block Domain Parking Distribution
To avoid this tax, you'll need to use the site and category exclusion tool. You can't block this traffic via the campaign settings. Follow these directions to block parked domains for search advertising campaigns.

3) Bid by Match Type
To avoid the expanded broad matching tax, adopt a bidding strategy that employs multiple match types.

4) Turn OFF Automatic Matching
This is a new ignorance tax, currently in beta. If Google automatically opts you in, opt yourself out via the advanced options section when editing campaign settings:

That's it! Follow these 4 steps and you'll save your company a great deal of money. If you found these AdWords tips helpful, pass them on to someone else.

Apogee Tags: google adwords, ignorance tax, search advertising, content network

YHOO + GOOG - MSFT = GOOG

2008-06-13T15:00:00.002-04:00

So, Yahoo (YHOO) chose to do a deal with Google (GOOG) and rejected Microsoft (MSFT). Bottom line: Google extends their paid search hegemony. Today, the stock market seems to agree that GOOG is the winner:

While I don't think a deal with MSFT was a good idea, I'm not convinced that a deal with GOOG is the right move by YHOO. They're clearly throwing in the towel with paid search, despite Yahoo CEO Jerry Yang's statement:

Our strategy to fully realize Yahoo!’s potential is based on the convergence of search and display — the next big opportunity in the rapidly growing online ad industry. This agreement helps us capitalize on that... We’ve done something important today. We are directly addressing one key element in Yahoo!’s strategy to lead the way in search and display. I believe it puts us on a faster track to creating stockholder value and strengthening our advertising leadership.

How on earth does outsourcing paid search to Google help Yahoo lead the way in search and display?! I think they've given up on search and must have something else up their sleeve. I can see an argument that display advertising is their strong suit, but will that remain the case as Google integrates Doubleclick? I still think these 4 strategic alternatives for YHOO should be on the table.

Anyway, I suspect there'll be quite a bit more to say about this new deal. In the meantime, these posts are the best commentary I've seen so far (with widely varying opinions):

IsItMeOrIsEveryoneElseStupid.com: Googhoo - Bad News Bears
BronteMedia.com: Bravo Yahoo
GigaOM.com: Oow, Eew, Ouch…Yahoo!

Apogee Tags: yhoo, goog, msft

Client in Backpacker Magazine and Saveur Magazine

2008-06-12T15:45:00.002-04:00

I always get a kick out of seeing my search marketing clients mentioned in print. Maine Munchies was recently listed in 2 magazines:

Backpacker Magazine: The 10 Best Backpacking Foods
Saveur Magazine: 11 Regional Road Snacks

So, take a break and see for yourself why Maine Munchies is garnering some glossy, national attention.

Tags: saveur magazine, road snacks, backpacker magazine, backpacking foods

When We Left Earth

2008-06-09T00:26:00.002-04:00

When We Left Earth is a fascinating Discovery Channel documentary about NASA's early manned missions. I became aware of the series after noticing a spike in searches for when we left earth today while checking the TagTrends tool. This is the kind of search that Barack Obama or John McCain might want to target via AdWords (read 3 Secret Tools for Presidential Election Advertising Campaigns for more details on this strategy). People searching for this documentary are likely interested in the space program. If that's the case, they'd probably be interested in the presidential candidates' space policy. So, buying the exact match [when we left earth] would be an ideal way to reach voters with a specific message.

John McCain's site has an issues page about the space program. I didn't find anything about NASA or a space policy on Barack Obama's issues pages. Does he have a space policy? Knowing that a significant number of people are currently searching online for an offline TV show about the space program, now might be a good time to make sure Obama's space policy ideas are elucidated on the BarackObama.com site.

Related Links:
Which Presidential Candidates Have Mastered Google?
discovery.com/nasa

Apogee Tags: when we left earth, nasa, space policy, john mccain, barack obama, election advertising

Automatic Match and the SEM Tax

2008-06-02T17:23:00.002-04:00

If you advertise with Google AdWords, you'll need to be aware of automatic matching. The Omniture (OMTR) blog includes a recent post - Automatic Match, the Coming SEM Laziness Tax - that includes a clever analogy:

What would you think, though, if I told you that Visa was launching an opt-out feature whereby Visa’s algorithms would look across its customers’ credit card accounts to find customers with unspent credit limits? Visa would then automatically buy products and services for those customers (based on their previous buying habits) with the goal of spending the remainder of the credit?

Read the full post. It's a good one. Then, make sure this checkbox is NOT checked in your Google AdWords campaigns:

Apogee Tags: automatic match, sem, tax, omniture, omtr

AdSense for Domains Click Fraud Quotes from Google Employees

2008-05-29T14:45:00.002-04:00

I think Google employees (including executives) are starting to realize that distribution fraud is the real click fraud and that it is tarnishing the Google brand. Consider what Google's Strategic Partner Manager for AdSense for Domains, Hal Bailey, was overhead saying at a recent conference:

The session started off with a bang as Howard Neu told the audience that Google’s Hal Bailey had accused domainers of clicking on their own ads and for fraudulent traffic.

Wow. I've seen many instances of garbage traffic originating from Google's AdSense for Domains network, but I've never heard Google admit to the fraudulent traffic. Until they clean up the network, I recommend opting out. New advertisers shouldn't be forced to pay for this traffic. Parked domain traffic should be excluded by default and Google needs to be more transparent about the sources of their traffic on both the search and content networks.

Reading the Google Q1 2008 Earnings Call Transcript, Google's Senior Vice President of Product Management, Jonathan Rosenberg, refers to "the AdSense for domains cleanup" when answering a question about slowing sequential growth. So, even a Google executive is aware that this network needs to be cleaned up. Think about that. Even at the top level, Google knows it has a click fraud problem on its hands.

I know this blog is read by a diverse audience including advertisers, domainers, and investors. Do any of you know more about these quotes from either Jonathan Rosenberg or Hal Bailey concerning click fraud and AdSense for Domains?

Apogee Tags: google, click fraud, adsense, domains, hal bailey, jonathan rosenberg

Automatic Matching is a Dumb Idea for Google AdWords

2008-05-27T11:31:00.002-04:00

Automatic matching is a dumb idea. I try to be polite, but with all the existing flaws of expanded matching, why would Google push ahead with an even more aggressive matching algorithm? So, if you see this message in your Google AdWords account:

Run, do not walk, to edit your campaign(s) settings:

Make sure that checkbox for the "Show ads on more search queries without adding keywords" option is NOT checked. You don't want this. Heed the warnings from other others like SearchQuant and Dan Thies. Automatic matching is, simply put, a dumb idea.

BTW, while you're opting out of this new AdWords feature, you might want to also opt out of AdSense for Domains. I think that's another dumb idea by Google. Serving domain parking ads is a good idea, but not routing those clicks through the search network when no searches actually occur. IOW, the concept is good but the implementation is poor. As PPC advertisers become aware of the automatic matching beta and the liberties Google is taking with their ad spend, I think they'll pay a bit more attention to where all the clicks are coming from.

For those of you as concerned about the quality of your paid clicks as Google is about their organic search quality, here's my advice:

Opt out of automatic matching!
Opt out of AdSense for Domains (at least for pure search campaigns)!
Subscribe to Apogee Weblog so you'll know what to opt out of next. ;-)

Apogee Tags: automatic matching, google, adwords, dumb idea

4 Strategic Alternatives for YHOO

2008-05-19T00:01:00.002-04:00

Now that YHOO and MSFT are talking again, perhaps this scenario isn't so unlikely:

The wording of today's YHOO press release is peculiar:

Yahoo! has confirmed with Microsoft that it is not interested in pursuing an acquisition of all of Yahoo! at this time. Yahoo! and its Board of Directors continue to consider a number of value maximizing strategic alternatives for Yahoo!, and we remain open to pursuing any transaction which is in the best interest of our stockholders. Yahoo!'s Board of Directors will evaluate each of our alternatives, including any Microsoft proposal, consistent with its fiduciary duties, with a focus on maximizing stockholder value.

Stockholders interested in the long term might not want a deal with a company like Microsoft, or Google, for that matter. Short term, a deal might seem appealing but remember when Yahoo outsourced organic search to Google? Why make the same mistake with paid search? (BTW, why are so many eager to see YHOO outsource paid search?) Instead, I propose these 4 strategic alternatives for YHOO stockholders (none of these are new* but now seems like a good time to restate these options):

Buy the search.com domain from ~~CNET~~ CBS
Allow pure search advertising (no search syndication) via Yahoo! Search Marketing
Build a domain parking distribution channel separate from pure search advertising
Continue to innovate the core, organic search product

These strategic alternatives basically come down to improving the quantity and/or quality of search traffic. Improving those will have the side effect of attracting more advertisers, which will lead to a network effect. Part of the reason search advertising is so effective is because paid search ads are, in essence, content. Search ads *are* search results. Having a larger pool of advertisers will lead to higher quality ads which will improve the search results. That will, in turn, attract more searchers. That will attract more search advertisers. And so on...

Options #1 and #3 probably deserve their own posts. Options #2 and #4 have been covered.*

Regarding #1, Yahoo knows how many people search for search.com on their system. Imagine how many people go directly to search.com rather than look it up on a search engine. People who navigate directly to search.com are looking to, well, search. What about people who go to yahoo.com? Where do they want to go today? Google is synonymous with search. Yahoo is not. YHOO should buy search.com and rebrand search.yahoo.com as search.com, powered by Yahoo!

It might sound too simple, but getting people to switch from google.com to search.com will be much easier than getting them to switch from google.com to search.yahoo.com. People have become accustomed to going to "www dot [insert name here] dot com" or, more lately, to simply "[insert name here] dot com" rather than a subdomain like search.yahoo.com.

Plus, search.com could be used to brand Yahoo's search engine. Think about how effectively domains like hotels.com have become brands as well as domain names. Yahoo needs a search brand. Google *is* a search brand. A domain name like search.com could become that Yahoo brand name synonymous with search.

If YHOO implements #2 (pure search advertising), that could pave the way for #3 (pure domain advertising). Clearly, they'd have to change the sausage ingredients. If they were willing to do so, however, this could lead to a PPC advertising option more effective than search advertising. Think about that for a minute. As Google advertisers are starting to realize they're paying for garbage traffic via the AdSense for Domains product, YHOO could create a brand new alternative to search advertising by separating domain ads from their sponsored search product and keeping it clean (only generic keyword domain names). Now, that's a strategic alternative I'd support!

*Previous YHOO Suggestions on Apogee Weblog:

Apogee Tags: yhoo, yahoo, search marketing, ppc advertising, microsoft, msft

The Frontier of Search Syndication Is Not Efficient

2008-05-18T05:14:00.002-04:00

Efficient Frontier recently published some interesting conversion data on search syndication and traffic quality which conflicts with what they've said in the past about conversions from the domain parking subset of search syndication. I don't think both studies can be true, unless the quality of traffic from the Google network has diminished since Google and/or Efficient Frontier boldly claimed, "Efficient Frontier's automotive clients receive twice the conversion rate as search with domain ads." That's published on adwords.google.com:

The new study by Efficient Frontier paints quite a different picture:

If you believe these numbers, then:

You might want to stick to pure search by blocking Google domain parking syndication.
You will find the 250 limit on blocked domains on Yahoo Search Marketing is not sufficient!
You might want to read Aaron Wall's insightful post: How Click Arbitrage & Dirty Ad Syndication Killed Yahoo! Search Marketing.

Apogee Tags: efficient frontier, domain parking, traffic quality, search syndication

Google AdWords Auction Has Hidden Minimum Bids

2008-05-14T13:19:00.002-04:00

I wonder what prompted this statement on the Google Public Policy Blog:

Some people think that Google manually controls prices for the ads that appear on our site. But Google -- like all the major search engines -- actually uses auctions to price ads, meaning that prices are determined by advertisers.

They point to a post on the main Google blog, How auctions set ad prices, which reveals a fact about AdWords that I suspect most PPC advertisers are not aware of:

Google actually runs two auctions: one for ads at the top of the page, and one for ads on the side of the page. Only ads with particularly high quality are eligible to compete in the top-ad auction.

One big difference between these 2 auctions is that advertisers know the minimum bid necessary to be eligible for ads on the side. The other minimum bid is hidden. If you read "Did Google Kill the SEO Star?" on this blog last year, you would have been aware of this change and the 2 price hurdles advertisers must now jump:

Minimum bid to be active for search
Minimum bid to be eligible for top placement

I can understand why Google would not want to make it easy for advertisers to know the bid necessary to achieve top placement. However, I don't understand the explanation they give for determining that bid (emphasis mine):

First, your ad must pass our high quality threshold for eligibility to appear in top spots. If your ad is shown in a top spot, its price will be determined by the auction, but subject to a minimum price for top positions. This minimum price varies based on the quality of each ad per search query. For this reason, our system doesn't display the minimum price.

The min bid varies by quality for the other auction, so why is the top placement min bid hidden? BTW, you can see the min bid for the side ads auction via the Quality Score column in the AdWords interface:

So, why do you think Google hides the minimum bid for top placement? Hiding it certainly doesn't instill confidence that Google is not, in fact, manually controlling prices.

Apogee Tags: google, adwords, auction, ads

AdWords Agency Blog Response on Parked Domains

2008-05-09T15:38:00.002-04:00

Someone from Google's San Francisco office (based on the IP address) left this comment on my New Google AdWords Agency Blog post:

Hi there,

I thought you might be interested in a recent post on the AdWords Agency blog. We read your post about parked domains and it inspired us to publish this one: [link]

Hope you find it useful.

Nice to know that Google's paying attention. ;-)

In that post, they announce a new level of transparency for parked domains on AdWords:

If you're advertising on Google's search or content networks, your ads may be appearing on parked domains. Parked domains are sites using AdSense for Domains, which allows domain registrars to show relevant ads, rather than empty space, on parked pages. But which parked domains did your ads appear on?

We recently added a new level of detail to Placement Performance reports to answer this question. Placement Performance reports give site-by-site performance metrics for the sites where your ads appeared within Google’s content network. Now, rather than seeing one consolidated entry for all parked domains in your reports, you'll see separate rows displaying performance statistics for individual parked domains.

I am pleased to learn they are starting to include more details about parked domain traffic. However, since the Placement Performance reports only apply to the content network, this doesn't help advertisers track AdSense for Domains traffic on the search network. I think it would make more sense for Google to go back to the drawing board and simply split off the AdSense for Domains traffic onto its own network on the AdWords side. I'd like to see this additional ad distribution option:

That would avoid much of the confusion caused by the current, rather un-Googley design. Also, I still contend that Google has a miserable failure on its hands. Adding some reporting functionality doesn't solve that problem. Conceptually (yes I read Conceptualist), I do think parked domain ads have potential. The implementation in AdWords doesn't fulfill that potential for advertisers, however. Maybe someone at the Google San Francisco location will make sure this problem gets fixed in a Googley fashion rather than simply patching over the current, poorly designed system?

Apogee Tags: google, san francisco, adwords agency, parked domains

Mother's Day Flower Delivery for 23 Cents!

2008-05-07T15:32:00.002-04:00

Some of my clients are pretty funny. The owner of Plantrex Interior Landscaping Company & Flower Shop is a big sports fan. In light of the Papa John's to offer Cleveland residents 23-cent pizzas fiasco, he's decided to offer 23 cents for Mother's Day Flower Delivery. Use code PAPAJOHNS when checking out. This code is valid today only! Plantrex works with other florists around the nation so this offer is not limited to the Cleveland area.

Here are excerpts of the note he sent to his mailing list:

As a courtesy to everybody I know (feel free to pass onto EVERYBODY) and an opportunity to stick it to the genius that approved those shirts in DC, I have compiled a list of every Papa John’s with phone numbers and addresses that are honoring the 23 cent one topping large pizza on Thursday. I have called over 20 of these stores – they are all opening at 10 a.m. to start taking orders on Thursday. A few are taking orders ahead of time, most are saying you have to call that day.
...

As many of you know, this is my busiest week of the year due to Mother’s Day. I’m a huge Cavs fan so taking time away from my business to do this will cost me but I believe it’s worth it. With that in mind though I am going to plug my company and remind everybody that Mother’s Day is this Sunday and our website is www.plantrex.com.

I am offering a 23 cent delivery for any floral order placed on our website between now and midnight on Wednesday the 7th. To get this discounted delivery, log onto www.plantrex.com, select the item(s) you would like and on the first checkout page, enter the promotional code papajohns and click the submit button. Your delivery fee will be reduced from $7.95 to just 23 cents (your discount will most likely be shown as a reduction of $7.72 off your product – we’re not quite sure how to make it appear on the delivery but bottom line is, you will be paying just 23 cents for delivery).

So, don't procrastinate if you want to send Mother's Day Flowers. Also, keep Plantrex in mind for future floral needs. Their flat delivery fee of $7.95 is better than most online florists, anyway.

Tags: mothers day, flower delivery, papa johns

Berries for Mom

2008-05-01T16:40:00.002-04:00

If you're searching for berries for Mom, try these gourmet fruit gift boxes. (If you're reading this blog post looking for search engine advertising ideas, skip to the bottom*). I suggest a gift box that features Blue Loon Munch, a combination of dried wild blueberries, dark organic chocolate, and roasted almonds. Looking to spend less on berries for Mom? Try the gift tins.

*When is a Google search like a parked domain? Consider this recent berriesformom.com search:

Subscribe to Apogee Weblog for an explanation in a future post.

Tags: berries for mom, berriesformom

Google AdWords Design Flaw - Not So Googley?

2008-04-29T13:41:00.002-04:00

After reading What makes a design "Googley" on the Google blog and then an anonymous advertiser comment on my Vulcan Golf v. Google Trial Will Tarnish Google Brand post, I started thinking about an AdWords design flaw. Here's the comment:

when you opt out of the domain ads using the site and category exclusion tool, does it eliminate the ads coming through the search network from the parked domains? not clear here.

Since the site and category exclusion tool was designed for the AdWords content network, its impact on the search network doesn't seem like "Googley" design. I think it violates at least 3 of the 10 stated design principles:

Simplicity is powerful. (Do these instructions seem simple?)
Engage beginners and attract experts. (I think the way Google has implemented parked domains in AdWords takes advantage of beginners and frustrates experts.)
Be worthy of people's trust. (Google's lack of transparency leads to a loss of trust.)

Now, having said all of that, I am pleased Google has introduced this feature. I'm perplexed, though, as to why they haven't announced it on an official blog (maybe Matt Cutts will take care of that). At any rate, this is an important new feature and all AdWords advertisers need to be aware that some aspects of the site and category exclusion tool apply to the search network. So, here was my response:

Yes, anonymous advertiser, opting out of the parked domain page type via the site and category exclusion tool applies to the search network, as well. This is a confusing design by Google since that tool is a content network tool. The What page types can I exclude help page says:

"The AdSense for domains network is encompassed by both the content network and the search network. If you exclude this page type, you'll exclude all parked domain sites, including the ones on the search network."

Also, see the guest post I wrote over at Search Engine Journal, Google AdWords Feature: AdSense for Domains Opt Out. The screenshot in the example is for a campaign that's opted into the search network but not the content network.

Here's the screenshot (not very Googley, IMHO):

Apogee Tags: google, adwords, design, flaw, googley

Vulcan Golf v. Google Trial Will Tarnish Google Brand

2008-04-19T11:38:00.002-04:00

The Vulcan Golf, LLC v. Google Inc. et al lawsuit is going to shine lights in dark corners. For example, read the excellent update from Sarah Bird of SEOmoz:

Class Action Trademark and Anti-Cybersquatting Lawsuit Against Google and Domain Parkers Gets the Green Light

A trial will tarnish the Google brand. When you think of Google, do you think of cybersquatting or typosquatting? Are you even aware that Google derives revenue by partnering with squatters? I recently wrote a sarcastic post about TANG (Typo Advertising Network by Google). Despite being a joke, the screenshots and the example domain in that post are real.

It's also worth pointing out that Google uses the term squatter on their corporate site. Explaining why a user might see pop-ups, Google writes (emphasis mine):

You may have encountered a squatter with an address similar to Google's. Occasionally, individuals will register domain names that are one letter off from a well-known URL in hopes of attracting those who make mistakes in their typing. Please be sure to enter www.google.com into your browser and the pop-ups may go away.

So, on the one hand, Google's decrying the evils of squatters on their corporate site, while quietly making money from typosquatting. Sorry, Google, you can't play both sides. Either clean up the AdSense for Domains program or drop it entirely. The burden shouldn't be on your customers to somehow stumble across the information needed to block traffic from potential cybersquatters.

When I've found this kind of typosquatting traffic in clients' server logs, they've been shocked that the origin is Google AdWords. A few have contemplated taking legal action. Some have received click fraud refunds from Google. If the Vulcan Golf v. Google case progresses, more advertisers will start to sift through the obfuscated searchportal.information.com URLs to find Google earning money from typosquatting sites like these:

allinz.com (cybersquatting on allianz.com?)
babrie.com (cybersquatting on barbie.com?)
infopass.com (cybersquatting on infopass.uscis.gov?)
manullife.com (cybersquatting on manulife.com?)
travelgaurd.com (cybersquatting on travelguard.com?)
wwwbmg.com (cybersquatting on www.bmg.com?)

No, I'm not linking to the potential typosquatters. Cut-and-paste them into your browser and see for yourself. These are real examples I've found. I didn't want to post about them in the past because they might impact some clients. However, since it is now possible to opt out of AdSense for Domains traffic in an AdWords account, I can start to post more freely about these kinds of issues.

Does anybody have any examples of their own to share? ;-)

Apogee Tags: vulcan golf, google, trademark, lawsuit, cybersquatting, typosquatting, seomoz

Google Earnings (GOOG) Downside

2008-04-17T21:05:00.002-04:00

Google earnings (GOOG) beat estimates (via Silicon Alley Insider):

Gross revenue exactly in line with consensus--$5.2 billion, up 42%. Net revenue $3.7 billion, slightly ahead of consensus. Non-GAAP EPS of $4.84 blew away consensus of $4.52.

Before the closing bell, I had guessed net revenue of $3.74 billion and EPS of $4.92. A little high but not too far off. If you're in the search marketing business, you had to know GOOG was doing just fine. I think there's a downside, though, to future revenues. Here's the comment I left on the Silicon Alley Insider post, Google (GOOG) Q1 Game: Step Right Up and Place Your Bets:

Guesstimates:

* Net Revenue: $3.74 billion
* EPS: $4.92
* Friday Open: $489

Google makes quite a bit of money from a hidden network. It's neither search advertising nor contextual advertising. Google has only recently created an opt-out mechanism for this hidden network:

http://adwords.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?answer=86695

Note that a former SVP of SEM firm Efficient Frontier called this kind of traffic "distribution fraud" - it's not quite the same as click fraud. Google that. ;-)

Now, how much revenue will Google lose in future quarters as advertisers start opting out?

Hmm, seeing the $76 surge in GOOG after hours to $525, perhaps the intrinsic value of $1195 calculated by my client, Analytical Investing, is plausible:

That's still far below the $2000 GOOG target by Henry Blodget. Depending on the time horizon, I don't think that's unreasonable. However, I do wonder if there is some downside risk to GOOG over the next few quarters as they lose AdSense for Domains revenue (much of which they should never have had in the first place, IMHO). I suspect this is why Google hasn't made a public announcement about their new AdSense for Domains opt out. I haven't seen it on either the main Google blog, Inside AdWords or the AdWords Agency blog. Nor have I seen a press release about it. Hmm, does Google not want advertisers to know about it? ;-)

Apogee Tags: goog, google earnings, stock, silicon alley, henry blodget

Click Fraud: Yahoo + Click Forensics Deal is Not the Answer

2008-04-07T11:44:00.002-04:00

I'm not sure how serious Yahoo is about click fraud. Here's what they said on the Yahoo Search Marketing blog about their new partnership with Click Forensics:

We’ve teamed up with Click Forensics, a well-known click auditor that attempts to track click fraud numbers, including publishing quarterly discard rates. The obvious question is, why would we work with a company that has been a critic of search marketing? Because, frankly, we care so much about click quality that we’re willing to work with anybody who can help us—and our advertisers—drive a better return-on-investment.

No, if Yahoo really cared so much about click quality, they'd do one of two things:

Allow advertisers to distribute ads on *only* Yahoo search properties
Enforce better quality standards of the "hundreds of distribution partners and more than one million domains worldwide."

Yahoo knows they have some very, very low quality partners in the Yahoo Search Marketing ad distribution network. Why else would they have created pricing discounts? I think this is worth saying again, in bold:

A discount on low quality traffic is still a premium.

Note that it's possible to buy Google-only traffic via Google AdWords. These are the campaign level ad distribution options:

Knowing that click fraud occurs on their search network, Yahoo should give their customers the same type of ad distribution option. Why is there no Yahoo-only choice? These are the ad campaign options:

Doesn't it just make sense that advertisers have the option to run ads on just search.yahoo.com via Yahoo Search Marketing, if they want? Why is Yahoo reluctant to give advertisers this kind of control over their ad spend?

Apogee Tags: click fraud, yahoo, search marketing, click forensics, distribution fraud