You can logically say adwords and the organic serps have nothing to do with one another, but usually people do business where they feel comfortable, appreciated etc. It isn't always strictly based on ROI. We will NOT under any circumstances be bidding against competitors for our unique company name for example. We come in #1 for the unique name under all the other engines with the unique name url. People searching for that name will be able to easily know the serps links as well as now the adword links they click on aren't where they are intending to go. If anyone asks why we are harder to find on Google, I will recommend they try out the butterfly next time. The MSN big push could not have come at a better time had they scripted it this way. This will solve itself with time.
|ROI does not and should not have anything to do with your free traffic. A good PPC campaign can stand on it's own (isn;t that the whole reason for it?) |
Irritating reply coming from someone who has probably never tried PPC.
WebFusion, no one can entirely relay on PPC traffic to sustain his online business.
Even eBay are having problems with it. PPC is good for support. Add to that the fact that competition is furious for many keywords (prices per click are sky high) and there you have it. The average webmaster will not be able to run or relay on PPC traffic alone to sustain his business without having free traffic to compliment sales.
Having to pay $1-1.5 per click for my keywords per visitor is just unsustainable and Iím sure that many other webmasters are in such position. It will get way to expensive for my business to relay on paid ads alone. My budget would not allow more then 15-20 clicks per day and then only 0.02% of visitors (if your lucky) buy or do something.
The end results, youíll be buried/outbid by the big fish in no time resulting in your business being shut down.
Your statement is like saying (assuming we are talking about a brick and mortar business) "what do you need free word of mouth advertising. Simply use paid ads on papers and TV and that should do". Now YOU tell me whatís wrong with that statement.
If youíre a small developing business you will not be able to accommodate such expenses for too long. Not mentioning that it is 10 times harder to sell something online then it is in real world.
Wow, those two rogue IP blocks have just been brought into line by Google. Sure am glad they were up for a couple of days so that I could grab more evidence of Google's capacity problem. I'll bet this time they don't go back after an hour like they did last Friday.
Feb 14 20:47 (Chicago time):
terms: "domain.com" page: domain.com
number of zeros: 59
average of nonzeros: 0.0
all DCs updated now. Nowhere to be found
max - I agree FULLY. MAny business owners think advertising is used to build a brand. A brand is built through PR in which you create "ownership" of a "category" in a person's mind. Advertising is to help sustain a brand AFTER it is created and "owned". Yes you may be able to survive on advertising but you will have to spend alot of money to use it to build a brand. This is difficult for small time businesses and startups.
The Google brand was not built on advertising. It was built on PR. Yahoo was built on PR, Amazon was built on PR, Ebay was built on PR...
"If youíre a small developing business you will not be able to accommodate such expenses for too long. Not mentioning that it is 10 times harder to sell something online then it is in real world."
A so much agree with this statement. On the internet the visitor has much more control over their experience when visiting a web site. They don't have sales people helping them look for product. They can't hold, feel, and experienct the product first hand. They don't have this "real world" experience of being in a store: the smell, the look, the feel, and so on. They don't have a nice "themed" store to browse through just a 2 dimentional computer screen in which mall other sites share the same basic features, layouts, and such in which they can click away at anytime they feel like it. To leave a store you still got to walk through products and sales people. You still have the experience in leaving. This is why a building good solid well known brand should be a #1 priority.
max_mm - I dont know what industry you are in - but PPC at levels of $2.60 per click makes me a 200% return every month and has since AdWords first opened - so dont make asumptions based on just your inability to use the PPC model to it's fullest extent
|max_mm - I dont know what industry you are in - but PPC at levels of $2.60 per click makes me a 200% return every month and has since AdWords first opened - so dont make asumptions based on just your inability to use the PPC model to it's fullest extent |
Yes Iíve heard of such returns in the spyware, dating and sex industries.
Unfortunately my business is finance related.
And BTW Marval, why are you wasting your time on this thread (if you really get 200% return from PPC). What would YOU care about the recent Alegra update?
WOW 200% is a big number.....question asked? at the end of the month how many actual sales do you generate from ppc. Anyone Investing $100 and makes $300 sales at the end of the month can claim a 200% return. BUT are the number of sales enough to sustain your business long term. Do you get enough clicks/sales from PPC at the end of the day to realy make a difference. Thatís my question. I suspect that the vast majority of webmasters would answer NO to that.
|I still find statemnts like this puzzling. What does one have to do with the other? |
From what I've read on these threads, this is not the only thing you find puzzling.
"A monkey hand editing the serps might do nearly as well as MSN."
Steveb, LOL, I have to agree, every week I say to myself, OK, OK, I'll add msn to my search bar option list, I'll do some sample msn searches. I mean, I really try, I want to use it, but average time before giving up: 1 search. My site stats show the same patterns, msn referrals are down from when they were yahoo based. Other people seem to see different. But my sites were doing pretty well in msn for target keywords.
Scarecrow, interesting observations. I don't think the -asdf filter was giving just results from the second index, I think it was giving results from both, if that's what it was doing at all.
I still don't have a feel for this update, my sites are doing fine, traffic is rising, but I still can't really get what the change is, my first guess was they moved to a bigger index, merged the two indexes, imperfectly it looks like from what people are writing here and elsewhere. They have to go to something like a 40 bit index sometime, is it now?
> only 0.02% of visitors (if your lucky) buy or do something.
Unless that is a typing mistake, you definitely have a problem with a) the quality of the links by which your visitors came, b) the usability of your website, c) the products/services you offer or d) your products/services' prices.
It may be different for highly expensive objects like life-insurances or real estates, but in ordinary shops the rate for sales per visitor should range from 0,5% to 3% if the four factors given above are within normal corridors.
I found my keyword ranked top one this morning, after 8 hours later, it backed again, and now it is at page 7.
the keyword is down and up all the time from 3 page to 9 page in the last 4 month.
anyone could tell me, which filter hitted my site.
|The average webmaster will not be able to run or relay on PPC traffic alone to sustain his business without having free traffic to compliment sales. |
Max_mm, wheather you can sustain yor business on only one segment or not is not relevant.
If your PPC or any other campaign alone is not profitable you simply cut it off, regardless of overal business performance.
"I'll bet this time they don't go back after an hour like they did last Friday."
Bzzzt, wrong answer.
Five datacenters back with the "other results", just a few hours later.
|Max_mm, wheather you can sustain yor business on only one segment or not is not relevant. |
If your PPC or any other campaign alone is not profitable you simply cut it off, regardless of overal business performance.
Hasn't this gone on long enough? Can you please stop bickering and get back on topic? What has this thread got to do with the merits of PPC?
(Mods: Isn't it time this was wound up?)
Could you please start reading a bit back into the thread?
As always, a similar thread tries to explain major changes and majority of posters start complaining about "the major flaw in Google's algo", which is often coupled with anger. Some of them go so far to threaten stopping their paid campaign because they are not satisfied with the SERPs.
Don't you think it deserves some clearance?
Sorry, I still cannot see any connection to PPC, which is totally unrelated to your position in the organic results and hence to Allegra.
"If you've been spending hundreds (or even thousands) a month on purchased links from unrelated/semi-related high-PR sites solely for the reason of increasing your PR and artificially increasing your ranking in the serps"
I don't think that PR counts anymore, though during this confusing update with sites vanished ,as I can see from many messages here ,3 days ago I published about 500 new pages in my 5 years old domain that has 10 back links only and a PR 4).Since yesterday all of them are ranking #1 - #5 (in all Data Centers have been mentioned here) and in very competitive areas. That probably means that the new update does not care about how many inbound links you have as long as you are relevant to the serps ,in the contrary if you have unnatural links then probably you are sacrificed in the altar of Spam fighting.
My site's page rank of 6 has stayed the same yet the ranking of pages has dropped dramatically. The many backward links are still showing. The links are from quality sites. No link farms and no recips. Many pages with half the page rank mine have are ahead. Traffic from Google may be 8% of what it used to be. My site doesn't have any original content. It's public domain stuff. Maybe the duplicate content filter has been turned up again or it just finally got filtered.
Yet there are still sites ranking well that are almost identical to others. For some reason they are getting past the filter. They may, in time, also be be snagged. I'm surprised mine ranked well for as long as it did.
"Many pages with half the page rank mine have are ahead."
that supports my theory.
Yes it does. I wrote my post before I read yours. Wow!
And thinking about my incoming links ... the pages they are coming from have nothing to do with the subject of my pages.
Then maybe the Allegra update has nothing to do with dup content.
It seems to just keep getting worse for my site. Now it's at #236 when searching for its unique name, and a spam site that mentions my site in micro text that matches the page background is #46!
My site has gone down, the spam site is doing better.
It seems like whatever is going on is taking a very long time to fix, and people are asking me what's going on with Google, since they know I have a website. Seems a lot of people are taking notice new that Google has a problem...
I would really appreciate it if Brett, CIML or any of the old timers give us their considered opinion on what has happened to many sites. I guess they are already discussing it in Supporters', but some analyses would be really welcome.
Not to mention some explanation from Googleguy...
Here's another clue for you all ...
One of my sites which is on a very "niche" topic ranks at #1 in Google's SERP for the most logical key phrase ("key word" which matches the domain name, keyword.com). There are only a handful of other sites linking to the site's home page and all the links to the site are good ones - i.e. from pages discussion related topics.
It seems correct that my site would rank first in the results for that phrase, but Google displays the site's "site map" page at the top of the SERP instead of the site's home page. As far as I know there are no links from other sites to the site map. The only links to it are in the footer of each of the site's pages.
That just doesn't seem right. :-)
Goo goo ga joob.
"That probably means that the new update does not care about how many inbound links you have as long as you are relevant to the serps"
and that directory has more relevant inbound links? sorry but I don't buy it
Heres another example for bad G SERPs.
Search for "michael jackson trial" (without quotes).
Heres what you get in first position (a redirect page):
|"-Untitled Document- |
Your browser should redirect you automatically. If not, please ..."
And when you click the link it takes you to a redirect page which then redirects you to a google error page (404).
CNN comes at position number 2.
[edited by: max_mm at 2:16 pm (utc) on Feb. 15, 2005]
My 2 cents...
1) Google.com just spits out raw spider data (the page in question displays a fresh cache date) before the data actually went via the algo check, filtering, PR and what have you process.
2) Major hiccup at googleplex. They are probably currently working on the problem and hopefully everything should return to normal soon.
I also noticed very little spider activity recently on the sites i lost rank on. Not sure it is related though. I think that what we are seeing is not a major algo update. It is just a matter of too much data to process or a major failure of some G components. The ones responsible for the algo, spam filters and PR crunching.
"I also noticed very little spider activity recently on the sites i lost rank on."
On my sites also, Googlebot/2.1 (+http://www.google.com/bot.html) is only spidering my index pages, not spidering deep into my sites that got hit by this update.
My missing site is being spidered every single day. It does not seem to be helping it return though...
Hey guys - get back to the real world!
64.233.189.X results WON'T propagate because they are threatening google business model!
Googleguy will NOT answer any of your queries - he just won't get a permission to do that from shareholders!
Why on Earth should he teach you how to get your a**e out of this - he's not paid to do that. He and those 50 PH.D's are paid to devise elaborate methods to strangle SEO as a viable business!
You don't like SERPs - who gives a rat's ass as long as Joe Dow finds what he wants through adwords and not organic SERPs.
It took them years to captivate Joe Dow and they are NOT going to lose him as long as Joe finds what he want and Joe is not bothered if he clicks on the links below the search field or the links to the right and finds what he wants. Google does bother though...
Just wait until Billie integrates MSN into the Longhorn and then there's a chance of changing Joe Dow's behaviour. New MSN is old sweet pre-florida google that we all loved to bits.
|Irritating reply coming from someone who has probably never tried PPC. |
WRONG. PPC is a valuable part of our overall marketing strategy. To date (as I've previously stated), I make roughly $6 for every $1 I spend.
|The average webmaster will not be able to run or relay on PPC traffic alone to sustain his business without having free traffic to compliment sales |
Our business did it for probably the first 18 months or so of it's existence. The key is to stop chasing the "marquee" keywords, and go after the lesser trafficed (and therfore much cheaper) keywords. With a great deal of research, it's not that hard to create keywrod lists in the high 5 digits. In an area where I know my competitors are paying upwords of $.70-$.80 a click, I average $.12 or less. The truth is the "average" webmaster doesn't do the necessary amount of legwork, testing, or tracking to maximize the profitbility of a PPC campaign- so in that sense I agree with you - the "average" webmaster won;t be able to sustain a business on their "average" PPC research.
|If youíre a small developing business you will not be able to accommodate such expenses for too long. |
This is due to unrealistic expectations more than anything else. Far too many world-be entrepreneurs think that starting a business with $50 in their pocket is a sure thing (due in part to all the hype surrounding such things).
|Not mentioning that it is 10 times harder to sell something online then it is in real world. |
Now THAT is just plain not true. An online business done properly has far less overhead, startup costs, etc. etc. than a "bricks & mortar" biz, and therefore frees much more capital and time for marketing and customer acquisition. Very few markets offer such a low custoemr acquisition cost. In my former corporate position, it would cost our company $500 just to get a customer in the door. Even at $1.00 a click, that's dirt cheap.
|Advertising is to help sustain a brand AFTER it is created and "owned". Yes you may be able to survive on advertising but you will have to spend alot of money to use it to build a brand. This is difficult for small time businesses and startups. |
There is a plethora of ways to create "top of mind" awareness (and just as many ways to waste your chance at doing so).
|This is why a building good solid well known brand should be a #1 priority. |
|Do you get enough clicks/sales from PPC at the end of the day to realy make a difference. Thatís my question. I suspect that the vast majority of webmasters would answer NO to that. |
|and then only 0.02% of visitors (if your lucky) buy or do something. |
...and there you have it. You've idnentified your problam right there. Such a dismal conversion rate would have a difficult time sustaining ANY kind of paid advertising campaign(s). Our average conversion rate is over 2.5% (and over the holidays was as high as 4%!). With your numbers (.02%) it would take 5000 visitors to make one sale. If that's the case, then I agree a PPC campaign based on that model would be unsustainable (unless your item(s) are so high-ticket that they make up for it).