| 12:21 pm on Dec 20, 2005 (gmt 0)|
smart move...getting hold of some of that brand building ad budget has got to be a big priority for google.
| 12:39 pm on Dec 20, 2005 (gmt 0)|
AOL Coaxes Google to Try Busier Ads [hendersonvillenews.com]
| 1:51 pm on Dec 20, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Since when does the tip of the tail wag the dog? Google doesn't need AOL, the deal does not make sense to me. Goog should not bite the hand that feeds it, simple text ads. I hope these stories that have been coming out in the past few days are just poorly informed, hysterical reporting to get attention during the holidays.
| 1:59 pm on Dec 20, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I think it'll be on the AOL brand...not on Google
|King of all Sales|
| 3:20 pm on Dec 20, 2005 (gmt 0)|
There goes the neighborhood!
"Graphical advertisements, like the common rectangular ads known as banners, have been a feature of most commercial Internet sites for a decade. Google made a name for itself, in part, because it went without graphical ads in favor of small text advertisements linked to the topics for which users search. Google's simple pages, quick to load and easy to read, helped the site build a following, and text advertisements proved valuable to marketers looking for people interested in their products."
| 3:26 pm on Dec 20, 2005 (gmt 0)|
>>>There goes the neighborhood!
Agree, part of Google's allure is the simplification. I guess they just can't stand being different than everyone else.
| 4:29 pm on Dec 20, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Give that firefox can block/allow graphics on a per-site basis, all you have to do is block graphics on Google. I just tried it and it works fine.
| 6:40 pm on Dec 20, 2005 (gmt 0)|
The shark has been jumped.
| 9:21 pm on Dec 20, 2005 (gmt 0)|
When I first heard about this today I was shocked, appalled and thought the end was nigh....Then I thought about it and I think this is actually a good thing IF Google can match the ads shown to relevant queries (a tough task, in my opinion). There have been several times when a client has approached me about a product that wasn't appropriate for search because they either weren't branded and searched for in their vertical or the product wouldn't sell without visualization. And the Google Image Ads don't work very well in the contextual environment. I'm anxious to see how this plays out.
| 9:38 pm on Dec 20, 2005 (gmt 0)|
The shark has been jumped. - K?
| 9:55 pm on Dec 20, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Google did pay a heave price it seems--they $1 Billion was just desserts.
| 10:28 pm on Dec 20, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Is it becoming askgoogle .com?
| 2:19 am on Dec 21, 2005 (gmt 0)|
the graphical ads are just going to be shown on AOL serps though, right.
Doesn't seem like too big of a deal since they already show graphical ads on other partner sites (adsense). Just giving one of their superpremium partners (AOL) more options on their webspace.
Seems like regular text google will stay regular text google.
| 1:52 pm on Dec 21, 2005 (gmt 0)|
It's amazing how everything comes full circle.
First there were banner ads. Lackluster click-thrus, but justified because they helped you build a brand.
Then, people realized how hard it was to build a brand online, because of its commoditized nature. Banner ads were seen as a waste of money.
In comes pay per click, which improves click-thrus, and allows advertisers to track results and pay for performance.
Now, here comes graphical ads again, shown for the purpose of branding, and to help big companies recoup their investment in promoting their brand nationally.
Logos in SERPS are like chain restaurants on Main Street. They just make everything look cheaper, and sooner or later, everything looks the same.
| 2:02 pm on Dec 21, 2005 (gmt 0)|
The end of Google dominating the search market is nigh. The bigger they get, the greedier they get.
What encouraged people to switch from Yahoo to Google was the simple, clean look of G. Now that Google is featuring more and more prominent advertising, including in the organic results, do you think people will migrate to other search engines?
| 2:34 pm on Dec 21, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I think people started using Google because the results they offered were SO much better than any other search engine.
They got used to the interface, and are now extremely loyal to it. The results just "SEEM" better because, well, Google is Google. The term Google has become a verb in many people's vocabulary.
None of the other search engines (namely Yahoo and MSN) are THAT much better than Google (giving them the benefit of the doubt that they even measure up).
As a result, I don't see people switching from Yahoo in big numbers. Google is still the cleanest of the big 3 (Google/Yahoo/MSN).
I'm skeptical about these logo ads in the SERPS, because Iím skeptical about brand marketing on the Internet in general. Don't get me wrong, having a strong brand gives you a huge advantage... but simply using the Internet to help people memorize your logo, unless you have big bucks to burn, is a waste of money.
This form of advertising is essentially a nod to big companies, because smaller enterprises have NO business partaking in this. This makes sense, I guess, because itís mostly larger companies who advertise on AOL (excluding the PPC ads pumped in to AOL.com from Google).
| 5:34 pm on Dec 21, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I think they should splash pictures all over google ... might cheer things up a bit ;-)
| 9:56 pm on Dec 21, 2005 (gmt 0)|
So let me get this straight, sorry I am a little slow, this means that Adwords ads will be shown as graphics?
| 5:14 am on Dec 22, 2005 (gmt 0)|
The way that I understand it is that google will create a new system that graphically interprets your website (Beta Version Obviously). Using the studies of Carl Gustav Yung, google intends to tie in to the cosmic consciousness and this will allow them to guage whether the particular site has useful content or just another spammy waste of space ... and quick as a flash produce the dreamlike image on the screen that best reflects its intentions.
By the time this new search engine goes Omega nobody will be able to hide the real intentions of their website from google. The only people expected to be able to trick this new engine will be polititians and very professional card players. Therefore watch out for .gov & poker sites in the future ... ;-)
| 9:58 am on Dec 22, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I hope they dont do it!
Here's a thought. The company who has paid Google top dollar for that particular keyword being searched should be allowed to have a big, annoying, 'slide down' ad that obliterates all of the search results behind it!
| 2:30 pm on Dec 22, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Hey essex boy thought I'd try and explain 'jumping the shark'
When the show 'happy days' was at the hight of it's popularity the writers felt invincible, and their plots started to get more and more ridiculous, this culminated in a show where the 'Fonz' jumped a tank filled with sharks. The show headed downwards after this and the term 'jumped the shark' was born.
Has google gone to far, don't know but they will do one day.
| 1:47 am on Dec 26, 2005 (gmt 0)|
More here Time Warner's AOL and Google to Expand Strategic Alliance [media-press-release.com]
| 4:55 pm on Dec 27, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Hm. I know there have been graphical Adsense ads on non-Google sites for some time, but this does seem to imply that ads with graphics may appear on Google itself. That seems to contradict the 12/22/2005 post on GoogleBlog, but then, I guess I may have misunderstood the meaning of "There will be no banner ads on the Google homepage or web search results pages. There will not be crazy, flashy, graphical doodads flying and popping up all over the Google site. Ever." (From the aforementioned GoogleBlog post.)
Maybe a "box with a photo" is not a "graphical doodad" or a "banner ad" in Google's opinion?