|AOL /Yahoo and Looksmart|
any chance AOL or Yahoo will sign on with LOOK?
| 8:51 pm on May 16, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I know Google powers AOLs search results, but who provides paid inclusion? If they don't currently offer paid inclusion, what do people think about them signing on with Looksmart?
Same question on Yahoo. They've got Google for search and Overture for paid placement, but do they have anyone providing paid inclusion? I know they just bought Inktomi, but Inktomi just signed a multiyear deal with Looksmart. Might Yahoo jump on board with Looksmart too?
| 9:03 pm on May 16, 2003 (gmt 0)|
This is a bizarre question.
First, Google doesn't do 'paid for inclusion'
Second, LookSmart does NOT offer paid for inclusion. They used to. Now, they offer Pay Per Click or PPC listings.
Third, Inktomi just got bought by Yahoo in March, when the deal was officially closed. That will, more than likely, have huge impact on Inktomi's past, present, and future business relationships. Just look at the recent shake up of their resellers - many got dumped with no warning, really.
Yahoo of course, could buy LookSmart. But they could also buy Overture. However, Yahoo owns a percentage of Google.
Why on Earth would they want to devalue that purchase before the Google IPO?
Not saying your ideas are impossible, just very unlikely. :) Any counter to the above is more than welcome.
| 9:35 pm on May 16, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Ummm....maybe we're talking about different things. Looksmart's whole biz model is based on "paid inclusion" whereby advertisers submit listings to the Looksmart directory, which are then "included," according to relevancy, in search results on partner web sites like MSN.
I know Google doesn't provide paid inclusion, so if Yahoo signed up with Looksmart to include listings within Google search results, it wouldn't alter Yahoo's relationship with Google.
Anyone else have thoughts on the questions I posed at the top of the topic?
| 9:40 pm on May 16, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Hm, no - you are a bit confused on LookSmart.
They offer pay per click - if you stop paying, the traffic goes away. It's measured - and they charge you based on that measurement.
Yahoo is pay for inclusion. 299 per year.
Inktomi is pay for inclusion X per url, and x per extra url. There are NO per click charges. :)
Without agreement on what the individual terms mean, it gets impossible to discuss marketing strategy.
As yet, the only people I've seen talking about LookSmart as 'pay for inclusion' are those that work there - or that haven't yet been informed that they no longer offer directory inclusion based on an annual fee.
For reference, there is a great internet marketing & promotion glossary [webmasterworld.com] right here at WebmasterWorld.
Specifically, you might look at the definition for PFI or Pay For Inclusion [webmasterworld.com], Pay Per Click or PPC [webmasterworld.com] and finally, Cost Per Click or CPC [webmasterworld.com].
| 9:45 pm on May 16, 2003 (gmt 0)|
1st thing, are you talking about Looksmart UK or Looksmart USA.
2nd point, Yahoo already do a paid inclusion of a kind, their DIRECTORY listing.
3rd point, Looksmart USA is PPC, and Lookmsart UK is very much heading that way aswell, although, their £149 inclusion service is still active.
| 9:54 pm on May 16, 2003 (gmt 0)|
he he he, good point, Shak.
I always (ignorantly) remember the offerings for the market that I'm targetting. ;)
>>>their £149 inclusion service is still active.
And, let us not forget the advance warning they gave last time they pulled a switcheroo. :)
| 10:23 pm on May 16, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Thanks for the tip. Yeah we were talking about two different things. I guess the Looksmart people refer to themselves as paid inclusion because advertisers pay to be included in Looksmart's directory and appear in search results of that directory according to relevancy. They do operate on a PPC model, though, you're right.
So I guess my question becomes:
If looksmart has a really kick ass, relevant directory that they've built up manually, why wouldn't Yahoo and AOL want to include search results from that directory between the Pay for Placement ads that appear at the top and the algorithmic search results that appear at the bottom?
| 10:28 pm on May 16, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Well, Yahoo has a bigger directory -> so, they would be a big disservice to their advertisers (that still pay an annual $299 to be listed there).
So, you are referring to LS & the USA market, I take it?
AOL, on the other hand, has DMOZ -> they own it. That directory, if you are looking for relevance, is the best on the planet. Bar none.
So, the directory offering argument really doesn't hold water (imho).
Keep in mind, too - that if Yahoo, for example, did pull a similar switch - many would view it as the same kind of betrayel of trust that happened when LS switched their business model in the US.
For laughs, you might look up the site 'actdumb' in Google. Read that, and you get a very clear understanding of what might happen if Yahoo switched their directory (in the states) to LookSmart.
[edited by: jeremy_goodrich at 10:30 pm (utc) on May 16, 2003]
| 10:30 pm on May 16, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|Pay for Placement ads that appear at the top and the algorithmic search results that appear at the bottom? |
thats what MSN does, is it not?
1, Looksmart directory aint kick-ass by any means.
2, On MSN they are basically just another PPC player.
NOT really sure where you are going with this question?
| 10:24 am on May 22, 2003 (gmt 0)|
So how do i get on the msn directory? (USA one!)
| 4:20 pm on May 23, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|If looksmart has a really kick ass, relevant directory that they've built up manually |
They don't. Its hard to have a good directory when you sell out to anyone who wants to put thousands of pages from their site in your directory and you bury most anything without a big budget.
I can't see anyone else using LookSmart ever, aside from MSN.