Maybe someone can clear this up for me.
I've been following the beta testing and launch of the MSN search engine for awhile now, but I'm still confused as to the PPC program they are running. I know they outsourced it to overture. So if you bid on keywords at yahoo/OV does your sponsored advertisement come up on msn?
I'm also interested to hear everyones ideas as to how MSN having a proprietary system will affect the PPC market - specifically its impact on affiliates.
|Microsoft will announce their PPC product on March 16th. |
I think MSN uses Overture. This can't be good news for Yahoo.
Kind of like Google losing AOL.
If MSN and YAHOO both enter the AdSense/AdWords fray we're gonna see our earnings plunge.
Supply and demand will go topsy turvey and $0.05 CPC will rule.
what makes you say that?
If companies are running profitable campaigns on Google and Yahoo!, they'll gladly expand their campaigns on other outlets at the same CPCs. An MSN launch shouldn't drive prices down but might make it necessary to choose between MSN and G, which might be tough choice if MSN pays more and they both have exlusivity agreements in the TOS.
The entry of new big players will dilute the market for a while and average cost per click will definitely go down. Whether cpc will go back to previous (today's) levels depends on how aggressive the fight is going to be, but Iam sure it will take a while no matter how the competetion shapes up.
I dont think it will necessarily dilute the market... this isnt a case where there is a limited demand for clicks. Most advertisers (including myself) want as many clicks as possible.
As skibum said, advertisers will still pay the same CPC on google and will expand their campaigns to the other companies if it is worth it... google should not be effected much on the advertiser end. The only issue would be choosing which network to put on your sites exlclusively... but that competition will only benefit the publishers because the ad companies want to provide as many clicks (supply) to advertisers as possible.
The only reason you should experience lower CPC as a publisher would be because the newer networks will not be as saturated as google and therefor will not have as many people competing for the keywords. This is an advantage to the advertisers and a hurdle for the networks... but I dont see the disadvantage to publishers who stick with google and use the other networks to fill PSAs until they catch up to google.
Well I guess MSN wanted to jump in before Yahoo does, and my expectations were that MSN would be the last one to jump into PPC game.
Not much of a MSN fan, and besides that I'm not expecting anything special, just a solid product.
Competition is always a good thing, we'll see what will turn from MSN. Less then 24hrs remaining :P
|... this isnt a case where there is a limited demand for clicks. Most advertisers (including myself) want as many clicks as possible. |
We all want clicks but the reality is probably 100% of all advertisers are working on a budget which is preset and in more ways than one, limited. Giving them more options where to put this budget is good for them. But for us publishers, with the existing "exclusivity" clauses in place, that is bad news. Of course, lower overall ad inventory in Google would not necessarily mean lower ad revenue for any particular publisher, its just that this lower ad inventory will cause lower market-wide publisher revenue.
On the brighter side, there is a good chance that more advertisers will jump on board the PPC market because of lower prices. If market expansion compensates for the expected price drops, then we wouldn't have any problems, market-wide.
Sorry for this stupid question but, is this new ppc program going to be "like" adsence?
This PPC news appears to be more like the program Overture, to gain income from advertising like G and Y! currently have.
It doesn't mention anything like Adsense, although we all know that it is an almost logic step for M$.
Perhaps we might see the launch of YPN, then M$'s PPC, then M$'s own Adsense program.
even if microsoft offers cheaper ads to advertisers, that won't matter much if advertisers don't find the traffic on msn (as a publisher, even after this recent msn blitz on tv, I don't see my referrals from msn increasing at all). IMO, msn sucks as a search engine and most web users feel the same.
also, if msn promotes a lower cost for advertisers, then wouldn't that equate to lower epc for advertisers? and if that's so, I doubt they'll get many publishers to stick with them. Which means a smaller content network and less traffic for advertisers. again, why would advertisers go for this.
yahoo is in the same position. The balancing act is: luring advertisers while at the same time luring publishers. and that may be easy enough in the beginning. the trick will be keeping both.
|even if microsoft offers cheaper ads to advertisers, that won't matter much if advertisers don't find the traffic on msn (as a publisher, even after this recent msn blitz on tv, I don't see my referrals from msn increasing at all). |
Actually it won't matter where the traffic comes from. If 100% of the traffic comes from Google but the visitors click on MSN contextual ads you get paid for the click (if the program works in a similar manner as AdSense).
|We all want clicks but the reality is probably 100% of all advertisers are working on a budget which is preset and in more ways than one, limited. |
That's just not true.
I just doubled my spending on Google a couple weeks ago. If I could spend 100 times as much, I would. Every $1 I spend on Google AdWords returns me about $2 in profit. I would be a fool to limit my spending there.
I believe there are more people like me using Google AdWords than people with set budgets.
I agree with movingonup.. the more I can spend, the more I can make. Most people that have a profitable campaign will not want to budget it. The only case in which most poeple I talk to budget their accounts is when they are testing out new campaigns.
"Actually it won't matter where the traffic comes from"
Yes, I just meant that advertisers won't have that much of an incentive to switch if msn can't deliver the traffic. And right now, it doesn't deliver that much. I just looked at my stats. I get 4 times as many referrals from google as I get from Yahoo. And I get close to twice as many from Yahoo as I get from MSN.
I honestly think that most web users just don't like MSN that much. And because of that I wonder how successful they'll be at luring advertisers away from yahoo or google. I don't think very.
>I just doubled my spending on Google a couple weeks >ago. If I could spend 100 times as much, I would. >Every $1 I spend on Google AdWords returns me about
>$2 in profit. I would be a fool to limit my spending >there.
I don't think this can be generalized.
Sure, you (me too) will spend on as much networks as much bucks as we can as long as ROI remains positive and margin doesn't dilute.
This week my campain made it in content network which trippled my clicks. Conversion rate is stable, so I won't complain :-)
But a big company will set a budget on everything it does. That's how these guys do business.
|...But a big company will set a budget on everything it does. That's how these guys do business. |
MovingOnUp's point is valid for enterprises which do not have do deal with "signatures" and/or "board approvals" (like a one-man operation like his and ours perhaps). But when it comes to big corporate-types, there's no way you cannot get away with that kind of un-planned expenditures. Advertising budgets are always a percentage of your sales forecasts. You revise your budget, you have to revise your sales forecast.