| This 45 message thread spans 2 pages: 45 (  2 ) > > || |
|Google and Affiliate Marketing|
What holds in store for the Small commercial guy on Google
| 9:44 am on Oct 11, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Ok.. lets get one thing said.. Google is scary! Their is no doubt google is becoming a monopoly ( I say that word loosely) Their will be many to contest the word monopoly.. What I am saying is they feed AOL, Yahoo, Dog pile, Netscape umm.. I am sure I am missing some. Right now for a commercial site ranking well in Google means alot of good things for them.. small businesses are doing well.
I for one in no way or form will get into the OV thing.. I sell inexpensive widgets and refust to pay 50 cents a click when you make 8 bucks to 20 bucks profit a widget. To many competitors click the heck out of ya and drain your money and I just cant get into that whole scene.. not for me.. I would rather advertise on a specialized directory or site and will do better their.
Ok.. with some of this said.. You all mention Googles affiliate marketing for commercial sites.. what holds in store for this do you feel? Google can easily make or break the small commercial guy by doing something like this.. their getting to big IMO that they neeed to be tamed. So what do you see in googles future for the commercial guy? Will they do a LookSmart deal? Will they find a way for the commercial guy to have to pay to be in their? Whats your ideas? Will it then degrade the reputation google has if they start making people pay? Afterall thats what we all like about Google right? You dont have to be the big huncho fortune 500 to be in their.. the give quality results for the small guy and the big guy and we know that so use them, right?
| 9:52 am on Oct 11, 2002 (gmt 0)|
|I for one in no way or form will get into the OV thing |
What is the OV thing?
| 9:54 am on Oct 11, 2002 (gmt 0)|
| 10:01 am on Oct 11, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Jakpot, that would have to be Overture's PPC.
Helpmebe1, so far all Google's said is that there isn't anything now about paying to be included in search. Adwords is there now for PPC and it works well for people who choose their keywords right.
I'm not sure what you're referring to about affiliate marketing, but there really isn't much that's different about a site done on an affiliate basis from one that's directly selling, except that it may be harder to get good links to an affiliate site.
| 10:51 am on Oct 11, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Marcia is right, Ad Words is perfect, you can set you maximum to for example $0.05 per click.
| 4:31 pm on Oct 11, 2002 (gmt 0)|
No no.. I dont understand what is going on with that I mean.. what are they up to?
And will they turn into a Looksmart where for the small guy who has alot of product it is impossible for them to pay 20 or 30 dollars to list each page. All this talk about the big guys taking over the web with their huge spending budgets puts some worry out their.
I for one dont have the cash to pay to list a couple thousand pages x 29 dollars per page or what have ya. I was lucky enough to sneak into ink and such for free with links. I just hear google doing something with affiliate marketing and dont know what to think of it if anything?
Is google going to go sour like LS did? Will they to make it hard for the small guy to be seen?
| 7:46 pm on Oct 11, 2002 (gmt 0)|
>>what are they up to?
The only thing Google is up to is building and expanding their business in the best way possible. That means constantly developing new partners and trying to present users with the most relevant results they can.
So how does affiliate marketing fit into that? It doesn't. If I am searching for a book title, I don't want to land on a cheesy site with no real content that happens to have a link to Amazon. I want to land on the Amazon page where I can click and buy the book.
Until the little guy is contributing to the costs involved with operating a search engine the size of Google, he doesn't have the right to complain.
No one has a right to free traffic simply because they chose to start a business without sufficent funding in place to market that business.
| 8:37 pm on Oct 11, 2002 (gmt 0)|
that is not my point.. I am not complaining.. and yes INk and MSN do give me free traffic because I have a large site apparently with links to it...
I am curious as to what googles plans are..that is what I am asking.. not complaining
| 8:59 am on Oct 12, 2002 (gmt 0)|
"I want to land on the Amazon page where I can click and buy the book."
If I'm looking for a book, I'm limited to sites that Google can spider and find. The only other option is searching through directories or affilliate sites that are also returned in the serps.
Affiliates are not always a bad thing and specialist directories can be a gold mine of information, funded by the odd affilliate.
If a webmaster has an affilliate on his site, there is the probability that he has checked out the site (after all, he wants to make sure he will get paid for sales) and he has done a 'human quality control'. He may care about the quality of sites he advertises and have a superb selection of specialist sites.
Affilliate sites provide more choice and often better prices.
The affilliate site is providing a good service to Google users..... more choice. The site with the affilliate scheme may have the best books in town, but their only practical exposure to Google traffic is via an affilliate site working on commission.
A good affilliate site can help Google provide their users access to all the sites thay have been unable to index properly.
I would like to see Google put more 'quality affilliate sites' in their serps. These 'human reviewed' listings could provide the doorway to real quality, rather than have serps full of big brand names who can afford to employ SEO's.
If google can weed out the 'get rich quick wannabe's' affilliate sites but keep the focused and quality ones where the links have been researched, this will provide better serps than just the limited number of brand name book stores who could eventually dominate.
| 9:24 am on Oct 12, 2002 (gmt 0)|
ok.. what i was asking is I have a good content site.. several thousand pages.. all content and products... no links to amazon or crap like that.. its me selling my products..i wanted to know if google was going to team up with the walmarts, kmarts, best buys, amazons, cdnows and really just list their stuff... because i would need to plan other things and to be quit honest as a website owner factor put aside.. i would not be a fan of googles.. if i want to buy a cd lets say i would jump in the car and go shop walmart in person, why bother to shop them online if thats what is going to be thrown in my face? I want to see the mom and pop and see my alternatives to kmart or best buy.. ya know what i am saying?
If that is what you mean by google going affiliate I think it would hurt them in the long run... sure theyll make money off them but the amount of searchers that would use google would go down i would think.. because who wants to see amazon and such? we all know they exist and would go straight to their site if we wanted to... we dont is the reason we are searching...
well whatever... time will tell... good thing i am in ink and such cause google is getting toooooo dominant on the web.. one left turn and you knocked on your as= .. thats kinda scary...
| 12:27 pm on Oct 12, 2002 (gmt 0)|
If google does what it did with Google Catalogs, I wouldn't worry about it. A very small frozen dinner/home delivery web site I was working on had a catalog and I mailed it off to Google Catalogs. It got included in about 2 weeks.
I firmly believe that IF (and it's a gigundous IF) google is working on a product search feature, it'll work similarly to the main search - only it'll list product pages exclusively. You'll be able to submit your product pages to it for regular crawling. True, the big guys tend to have higher results in the SERPS for many products now, and that's not likely to change, a lot, but if the SERPS are only for products, you might move up from somewhere on the third page to somewhere deep on the first page - which, IMHO, is still an improvement. (People do tend to comparison shop online, and this type of search would only make that even easier to do - and filter out all the third party reviews, press releases, comentary, and other things that a search for a product on Google now produces).
In the end, I think it'll just make us have to optimize our product pages against other product pages rather than optimizing them against all the other related, but non-commercial fluff pages that show up now.
This could also help in Google's desire to truly categorize a web page and make searches better for surfers. Think of it... If Google knows it's a commercial product page, it can easily filter all of those out of the primary search results and just put a link to the "Product Search" results at the top of each page. That would truly help information based sites get higher in the SERPS, would help to qualify your traffic and show a strong increase in your conversion ratios, and, in general would be a very good thing.
In the end, true, we'd have to do two types of optimization for our sites if we provide both products AND information, but (on the "products side" anyway, it'd be nice to know that I'm battling for position with the likes of Amazon, E-Bay, and such rather than all of those, plus the "warez" sites and "naked pictures of blue widgets" sites.
| 12:31 pm on Oct 12, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Sounds pretty smart Grumpus. Thanks for the insightful post. If people want to search for products on the web, they should have an alternative with a Google brand, and not to have to look at information pages which are not actually selling. It would help both information sites AND retail sites, by focusing on two different kinds of users.
| 12:41 pm on Oct 12, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Ever get the feeling the moderators are slightly biased in favour of Google?
I don't think this forum should be a Google <snip> contest. It should be an assessment, good and bad of what's happening at Google. And shutting the small guy out is definately bad - for choice and for entrepreneurial spirit, which is after all what the internet used to be about.
There's nothing wrong with an affiliate site who makes a good selection on his topic and links to several different content providers. These providers may well provide differing products.
I don't buy the argument that people not contributing financially to Google's wealth cannot have a say either. Plenty of people have something to say about Microsoft's domination of the software market, but they're not all buying their products. When a monster is created in any business sector it needs to be regulated once it is able to control its own market. Otherwise the only winner will be the fat cat owner.
Google is the best search engine. But it is cornering the search market and needs to be watched.
[edited by: Marcia at 8:10 pm (utc) on Oct. 12, 2002]
[edit reason] deleted semantically inappropriate expletive [/edit]
| 12:50 pm on Oct 12, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I think the relationship between google and us is symbiotic - they provide us with traffic and we provide them with content... just think for a second how expensive it would be to build 2 billion web pages? Lets just say that on average you have 100 pages per domain... so that would be 20 Million domain names... ok an average cost of $20.00 to register each domain... $400 million dollars to register the domains.... and lets say it cost about $2,000 to build each site (some a whole lot more and some free)... so (2,000*20 = 40,000) - so $40 Billion dollars.... and not lets not forget hosting fees.... ok 20 million sites paying about $400 a year... ok.... that would be $8 Billion .... add it all up = $48.4 Billion dollars is the value of what we provide to google. (BTW all that was off the top of my head... if anyone has hard facts please lets us know)
What asset does google have? In my opinion it is the common belief by the net generation that you can find what you want in google. Plus there is a level of trust for google. If they start charging for inclusion I can see that level of trust eroding... who wants to see information from the highest bidder? I certainly do not search overture, iwon.com, msn.com, yahoo.com, and so on... in fact my back-up to google is copernic... if I cannot find it either of the two I assume it is not out there....
| 12:57 pm on Oct 12, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Slydog.. I could not of said it better! You literally took the words out of my mouth.. no it is not good.. not at all! I want to see my choices when I look to buy something.. from everyone! If I want to see the giants.. well I live in NY.. I will drive anywhere and go to any giant store I want.. I search the web because I dont want the giants!
Grumpus, I have enormous respect for you.. You seem like a very likeable guy, and knowledgable too.. and you just keep your cool.. I picture you one of the guys from that grumpy old movie.. was it with McCaully McKaulkin (probably mispelled his name) The reason, even if my catalog pages are all in their isnt good..? is it will cause to much competing.. if one can just click a price button or something to that nature and list things in price order, thats not good.. things could be worse but thats not good.. their are to many people who throw a site up, list a price but cant produce the item because its a part time job for them on top of their real job.. gives things a bad name.. also, people pull tricks with their shipping.. handling fees, as we all know ecost.com does.. I provide good, quality products, and yes, I expect to make some money. Their is theft in retail, their are people who play games on the web.. Such as not that this has happened to me but talking to one of my suppliers today I found out one of my competitors is getting people pulling a ton of chargebacks on him.. well you have to figure this in to your cost in case it happens. Well getting off the subject.. their are places like pricegrabber, cnet.com and many others i suspect to search for a product and the best price.. I dont feel a straight search engine should really have that, ESPECIALLY if it will cater to the likes of Amazon, Ebay, Best Buy and the many other giants.. I truly wouldnt use google when buyign something then.. I almost get the feeling they see yahoo shopping and want to turn google into that but then again.. yahoo only collect 4 percent of a sale.. I have a feeling google might get greedier. Well this is just my rant.. Google can cause to much damage to, too many people with the size they are.. this could have devistating effects on oh so many people.. I wouldnt want to see that.. it just worries me when I hear all this talk about this affiliate program talk.. someone needs to tame Google IMO if they go this route.
| 1:04 pm on Oct 12, 2002 (gmt 0)|
jp.. rather then use copernic.. just use alltheweb because that seems to be the dominant place they grab their results from.. as far as the integrity of google going if they go that route.. Im all with ya.. Google is unbiased, so we say, and that is why we use them. I totally stay away from overture and all that.. lets just say.. it wouldnt be good if google did something like this.. it would affect way to many people... and yes.. Slydog.. the moderators do totally back google.. could it be because GG and they dont want to offend or loose him from posting? I am sure theirs other reasons as well...
| 1:07 pm on Oct 12, 2002 (gmt 0)|
|I want to see my choices when I look to buy something.. from everyone! If I want to see the giants.. well I live in NY.. I will drive anywhere and go to any giant store I want.. I search the web because I dont want the giants! |
Since i'm not a native english i'm really happy that you found the right words for me! I think one should travel to NY to get a better understanding about what's IMHO wrong at the moment. I remember a commercial claim at time square: "Too much is not enough". I'd say "It is!"
| 1:12 pm on Oct 12, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Again, I don't think Google will charge for inclusion. (I'm assuming this thread spawned off the "Google Product Search" thread - feel free to correct me if I'm wrong).
#1) That is all just a rumor and someone broke a non-disclosure agreement to bring that rumor to light, if it is a fact, at all. Someone who breaks a non-disclosure agreement is unhappy about something (and I don't care what it is that you do in life, SOMEONE will ALWAYS be unhappy about it). Until we know more, it's tough to make assumptions.
#2) Nothing in that post says anything at all about paying for inclusion. It simply says that Google has invited some of the Big Guys to list their products there during development. Google did the same thing with Google Catalogs - and it makes sense. In order to develop something, you need a nice pool of data to work on in order to get the results you want. Why on earth would they ask 500 small companies with a handful of products to help populate the data when you can get a much smaller number of people involved and get the same sized database? Once the whole thing moves out of Pre-Alpha where it most likely is now and into Beta, I'm sure Google will quietly invite others to add their own product lines (content) just as they have done with Catalogs, Answers, News, and so forth.
Will there be Adwords style things in those product results? Yup, I would certainly suspect so, but there are Adwords style things in the regular search results now - I think they call them Adwords.
Finally, for those of you upset about the Monopoly Google is getting on the whole search thing - they wouldn't have that monopoly if someone else came in and provided some competition. It never ceases to amaze me how people get so upset over success. Come up with a concept, implement it, and in 4 years people will be steamed at you for having the monopoly. (Google didn't suddenly say, I'm THE Search Solution, they said, "We are going to be the search solution" and then they worked at making that happen. It wasn't an accident.
| 1:24 pm on Oct 12, 2002 (gmt 0)|
|is it will cause to much competing.. if one can just click a price button or something to that nature and list things in price order, thats not good |
Personally, I'm a big advocate of competition. :)
As far as lising things in price order, that might help the lowballers in the short run, but in the long run, it won't do much. I don't think the consumers of the world are so naive that they will simply go for the lowest price, if they did, "Sam's Club" cola would be outselling Coke and Pepsi. Sure, those lowballers might fool someone once, but once burned, the consumer base is going to skip over the listings for that person the next time. You've still got your own company's reputation at hand.
Don't get me wrong, I understand your worries here, I really do. But exactly 100% of how Google is going about this (if they're going about it at all) is pure speculation. You know those smiley faces in your Google Toolbar? Maybe those (or something similar) are used as "customer satisfaction" ratings which are then included in the ranking algos.
Who knows? Time will tell.
| 1:24 pm on Oct 12, 2002 (gmt 0)|
|Finally, for those of you upset about the Monopoly Google is getting on the whole search thing - they wouldn't have that monopoly if someone else came in and provided some competition. It never ceases to amaze me how people get so upset over success. Come up with a concept, implement it, and in 4 years people will be steamed at you for having the monopoly. (Google didn't suddenly say, I'm THE Search Solution, they said, "We are going to be the search solution" and then they worked at making that happen. It wasn't an accident. |
I'm not upset Grumpus. It's just plain textbook economics. Less than 5 players in a market allows collusion. Concentration of power is bad whether it is political, economic or in this case, otherwise.
There is a point where too much competition is bad because the players are too small to deliver the best price, but we are at the other end of the scale now where Google holds all the cards. At the moment, Google is "flying under the regulatory radar" because search engines are not seen as product providors, but at some point when the money involved gets large enough the Trust department will get interested.
| 6:05 pm on Oct 12, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I'm not a moderator, but I play one on my own site;)
I do not think the moderators are trying an any way to suck up to google. I jut think they have a better understanding about the reality of how google operates than the majority of the people who come and go in this forum.
Having a monopoly is not bad, nor is it any way illegal. It is the abuse of your monopoly power that will get you in trouble.
Yes, we should keep an eye on google, but until they actually do something wrong, don't go accusing them of something you imagine in your head. So far they are still the good guys.
This all reminds me of the "redhat is becoming the microsoft of linux" argument of a couple of years ago. People were encouraging you to go out and buy from a whole host of competitors, because we just can't have redhat controlling that much of the market.
Well of the big names, RedHat was the only on to keep true to the spirit of open source, and the others compare to AV, OV, LS etc, and they sold out.
I truly believe that those at the top at google "get it" and will do all they can to keep their value. I am just glad that the people here that are coming up with the accusations aren't running google.
Watch google, but at least let them screw up before you accuse them of something.
And also be polite to the moderators (and everyone else for that matter), you are the guest at their site. So whether you like it or not, their opinion really does matter more than yours does. You can still disagree, but be polite about it.
| 7:43 pm on Oct 12, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Thanks dad. I guess you are right and I was talking a load of rubbish :)
Get real man. Once Google does its IPO it won't really matter what ideals were used to form it. The only motivation will be the profit for the shareholders.
You are right about 1 thing. Power is not bad. It's how you use it. Let's just think of all those good souls out there benefiting mankind....
The British Empire
The Coal Mining Unions
Well, I suppose Ghandi used his power for good, but it earned him a bullet in the head.
Apologies to the Moderators.
[edited by: SlyOldDog at 8:25 pm (utc) on Oct. 12, 2002]
| 8:21 pm on Oct 12, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Come to think of it, I've never seen a moderator say a single negative word about Google. Is that objective?
Being objective means seeing something from both sides.
| 8:27 pm on Oct 12, 2002 (gmt 0)|
|It's how you use it. Let's just think of all those good souls out there benefiting mankind.... |
Yes, I am quite impress with how much good the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is doing. It's quite impressive what they have been able to accomplish in such a short time.
But I still won't buy any M$ products.
I will stick with believeing in good, thank you very much. And I also believe in giving anyone, including those in power, the benefit of the doubt till they prove me wrong.
| 8:32 pm on Oct 12, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Yes, you are right. I actually removed Bill Gates before you posted your reply, because the real culprit is not the man - it's his company. Google will go down the same road if they have to answer to independent shareholders.
|I will stick with believeing in good, thank you very much. And I also believe in giving anyone, including those in power, the benefit of the doubt till they prove me wrong. |
It's not much use believing in good until it's too late. Most bad things can be avoided with a little foresight.
| 9:06 pm on Oct 12, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Don't think for one minute that there might not just possibly be a Moderator who in their real life just so happens to work on SOHO sites for Mr. or Ms. Small_Guy. Or be one. It just may be a possibility. ;)
<==== takes off Moderator hat.
When I first accidentally came across an SEO message board I thought they were nutzoid, spending all their time at search engines. I'd never be like that, didn't find it at all interesting. Then I did a site as a favor for a friend who was counting out pocket change for gas money and food. It hit the charts in top spots at every search engine, got an instantaneous *free* Yahoo listing; there were daily orders and in a few months that site was supporting her household and feeding her children.
Somehow it had hit some magic sweet spot. Not having a clue how it happened, I set out to discover how, found Brett Tabke and the word "themes," tracked him down to this site, and read an old thread on Term Vector Databases. That was the day of enlightenment, the day when another SEO message board whackazoid was born.
There are countless small guys - men and women alike - who are unemployed due to downsizing, or maybe just want to stay home and be with their families. Spending hundreds a month for PPC cuts into profit margin enough so that it makes ecommerce an unfeasible source of income for them. And when the budget stops, the clicks stop, leaving nothing but hosting bills. Good search engine rankings, on the other hand, are enduring and while volume of clicks may be lower, the increased margin of profitability, even after figuring in the cost of achieving the rankings as opposed to temporal PPC, makes it a very feasible source of at least a second, supplemental income, particularly if it's a high conversion or expendable product line.
Any owner of one of those sites, or anyone who does work for those people, HAS to love Google. It might not be easy, but Mr. or Ms. Small_Guy most certainly can whup the big boys out there. As long as they know the boundaries they have to stay within, they've at least got a fighting chance. There is not another internet venue that's provided an equal opportunity so great for the individual small entrepreneur as Google. They've accomplished democratization of internet marketing that's unrivaled.
<=== Loves Google, gets off soap box and puts hat back on.
>>Apologies to the Moderators
It's a dynamic world we live in. Change is inevitable; when it happens we just have to do the best we can to adapt to it, and sometimes adapting can't happen overnight.
| 10:59 pm on Oct 12, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I find you to be one of the unbiased people.. I really do! And I think your story is a cool one.. it is somewhat similiar to mine.. I started my whole company by accident doing some stuff on ebay. I worked in the medical field and was looking to switch jobs and lets just say ebay led to a website which drop shipped some products to a new website and the whole thing just spiraled.. I know have hundreds of hundreds of hundreds of products stocked and a 2500 page website that is off to a good start, thanks to google, ink as well as some other sources which i dont so much wish to list. Google is not my everything but is helping for sure! A change from them in the negative could probably leave me high and dry - totally in debt and really big time screwed! I guess like Grumpus said, perhaps its all rumors how to it will be implemented but if this is their plan, I would like to know rather then finding out at the last minute. Like Grumpus for one said, he saw the yahoo change coming, so if their is someone who sees this rolling out in the negative style and supporting the huge giants of the world, well I would like to know so that I can sell everything off, fire the few employees and go find a job myself. Google has been kind to me, dont get me wrong, as of today I really like google.. it is the one and only search engine I use and have no problems with them at all. It is just with the talk, I wonder what holds in store for them. Google cant be overlooked, their to powerful to be ignored and one must stay on top of their plans so they can forecast their own future.
On a non business note, I would hate to see google change... the reason why I DO use them all the time is they are relatively unbiased.. the small guys can rank in the top as well as the big guys.. it all depends on how much work they are willing to put in and not how much money they have. Afterall every company started somewhere.. take Michael Bloomberg for example, when he started he was sitting their day and night with a screwdriver putting together his information boxes.. why? Because he was small and now look.. he is many times over a billionaire.. did he have the budget to compete with big dogs? Nope.. did he offer a quality product with a quality company.. obviously, right? Otherwise he wouldnt be successful. My point is I like google because it dosent judge websites by how much money they have, everyone can gain exposure if they are dedicated.
<edit> Slydog.. if they go public.. you know they will be kissing a-s to the stockholders and changing.. thats the way the business world is. In my opinion- a company that goes public on the market goes totally sour, usually in the employees eyes as well as the publics, well atleast in to us. Ive seen billion dollar companies go public and get ruined first hand - thats why I was looking to switch my job in first place </edit>
| 10:57 am on Oct 13, 2002 (gmt 0)|
While Google is always cryptic and likes to surprise folks with changes to their algo and all of that, they've always been pretty good about letting folks (folk who are interested, that is) in on their new stuff. Google Answers was up off one of the deeper "About us" pages (I forget which one) for months before they started promoting it. Google news was the same way. It was there for those who looked for it, but the casual surfer would never know.
I highly doubt that any new thing (as major as a product listing) would be any different. Watch their site and, if it ever comes about, there will be a nice little (quiet) link to it and a page on how to get your stuff listed. Then, a few months later, there'll be another tab on the bar and the thing will go live.
| 12:08 pm on Oct 13, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Thanks.. and like I said.. I have alot of respect for you.. you are one of the cool, I think very educated ones in this field. Where do I keep an eye out for this though? I wouldnt know where to look to keep a watch on this, if you can, can you please let me know, by sticky mail or by posting it here?
| 8:55 pm on Oct 13, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Go to the Google homepage and click on "Services and Tools" that's where they usually show up first.
| This 45 message thread spans 2 pages: 45 (  2 ) > > |