| 11:33 pm on Jan 17, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I have just smoked about 3 cigarettes in a row over this.
Getting absolutely SICK of the Editorial attitude, to the extent that I have threatened to close my acount with (u know who), unless it gets sorted quicktime.
I explained to them, that their Editorial team was costing them £1000s a day, but while sales people try and push, Editorial have their own ideas.
| 11:42 pm on Jan 17, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I feel your pain (and I am sure my account reps do as well after having me call them numerous times a week about my declined terms).
The exact same thing happened to me last week with my newest submission of terms. All of them were the same general idea, went to the same landing page and had the same amount of content devoted to each, however one was accepted and the rest went back into the reject line.
My arguement (which has worked half of the time when I get vocal) is that I do not run a content driven site and when my users type in the search term, they are not looking for pages of content regarding the term. (Ex: someone types in widget because the want to find a widget, not read about what it is)
Good luck and try and enjoy the rest of your Friday night :)
| 12:19 am on Jan 18, 2003 (gmt 0)|
i've changed the way i'm doing things with overture - i create a big content page as the landing page, then submit the terms, then replace the landing page 24-48 hours after *all* terms for that page have been accepted. only rejections i'm getting now are where i make a mistake like typing in an invalid URL. any clickthroughs i get while the wrong page is up might be wasted, but it's a small price to pay for the time saved.
| 12:34 am on Jan 18, 2003 (gmt 0)|
The editorial teams at some of the PPC engines are MUCH more strict than the crawlers. We can be number 1 on Google for a term and get rejected by Overture for the same thing. Just gotta roll with the punches.
| 1:28 am on Jan 18, 2003 (gmt 0)|
IMO they seem to be much better at the moment. My Overture terms can be turned round in little over an hour sometimes.
| 9:41 pm on Jan 18, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|you gotta roll with the punches |
I'm real happy to roll with punches, but inconsistency is a nightmare.
I don't really want to vote with my credit card, ultimately my clients will lose out, but when you price the work based on doing something once only to have to then go up a chain to get keywords approved it's more time, which hasn't been built into quotations. The other sad thing is it's a universal problem, not isolated to one PPC alone.
This latest batch of rejections is really annoying me, it's a time sensitive event and because of pedantic editorial reviews we will lose 3 or 4 days traffic, so we will lose 3 or 4 days revenue, the client will lose 3 or 4 days of sales enquiries, the PPC provider will lose 3 or 4 days revenue and face, the PPC partners will lose the opportunity for increased revenue.
We all fly by the seat of our pants some time, but these keywords were no brainers from an editorial point of view (or at least they would have been if the editors were based in the UK and understood the sporting calendar over here.)
What's wrong with sending an e-mail asking for clarification if they are unsure? Or a phone call?
I had someone on the phone yesterday (Friday) when a major data entry mistake was brought to light, so it can be done when it needs to be.
| 4:15 pm on Jan 23, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I was glad to see this thread. I also had several terms rejected for reasons that were invalid. While other terms went right through under identical conditions. Resubmitting proved to be an irritation so I have pretty much given up on this unnamed PPC. The hair loss did not equate to the ROI.
| 6:03 pm on Jan 23, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I believe that PPC providers have the right to set their own editorial policy (assuming they follow it), but there seems to be a consensus that providers should follow some common standards.
|I'm finding a lot of power seems to have shifted to the editorial teams within the major PPC providers. |
|I'm all for advertising standards, and relevancy rules, but within this client account not only do they spend a lot of money they have a lot of keywords with double digit CTR |
|The editorial teams at some of the PPC engines are MUCH more strict than the crawlers....Just gotta roll with the punches. |
Even different editors within the same company seem to be more strict than others. Although this may spin off on it's own thread... if we could suggest a few ideas to create a standard ... what powers should be given to an editor's discretion and what should be common policy? I like the following idea.
|What's wrong with sending an e-mail asking for clarification if they are unsure? Or a phone call? |
Maybe someone is reading who has some influence.
| 10:02 pm on Jan 23, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Good points TrffcSndrs and welcome to Webmaster World.
I know that many of the PPC providers and search engines have staff members that read the threads, but there is an inherent danger in them replying, because the opinions are often just pesonal rather than corporate.
It's great that we have GoogleGuy here taking stuff back to base and putting forward Google's point of view. This is one of the benefits of being a private company.
One of the things I'd love to see is regional editorial staff. We operate a lot of UK campaigns and the decision on relevancy is made in the US by Overture. In some instances if they understood the topical or localised keywords we wouldn't be having to appeal as often as need be.
I know that e-mail and telephone support would make the delay in keywords being approved even longer.
| 11:32 pm on Jan 23, 2003 (gmt 0)|
>Maybe someone is reading who has some influence.
Overture [a public company] employees have a clause in their contract that precludes them from commenting in public fora.
That is why GoToGuy is such a j...
| 12:04 am on Jan 24, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|That is why GoToGuy is such a j... |
I may be mistaken, but I don't think GoToGuy is actually an employee of Overture.
| 1:37 am on Jan 24, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|One of the things I'd love to see is regional editorial staff. We operate a lot of UK campaigns and the decision on relevancy is made in the US by Overture. In some instances if they understood the topical or localised keywords we wouldn't be having to appeal as often as need be. |
That is a Great idea!
|I know that e-mail and telephone support would make the delay in keywords being approved even longer |
I think e-mail and telephone support could be used better if done in certain ways.
For example, new advertisers could potentially spend thousands of dollars over the lifetime of the account. If a new advertiser has words that are questionable, a phone call could go a long way to help give the new advertiser confidence in the PPC's customer support and it gives the PPC an opportunity to get feedback and set up a long-term relationship.
SEO/SEM consultants spend a lot of time educating clients about the overall importance of ROI; why can't the SE PPC providers look at the long term ROI of customer retention, and determine a middle ground that is cost effective for them, but also satisfies some of our suggestions.
|Overture [a public company] employees have a clause in their contract that precludes them from commenting in public fora. |
I didn't say that they had to comment or post anything. I just said they might be reading this thread and get some ideas.
Anyway, this gives us two possible suggestions. Anyone have some other ideas for common standards?
| 1:57 pm on Jan 24, 2003 (gmt 0)|
On the regional Editors front, I've looked into this before after a US editor corrected UK spellings to US spellings on UK campaigns (a great way of detering potential UK clients, the fool!)
One thing I did eventually find out (from the job pages on PPC engine sites to be honest) was that Mirago and Espotting both have UK Editorial teams in the UK. Their editors are all native speakers of their European langages for different territories too. Google recruit for Editorial-type positions in the UK too.
I think we can all spot the name missing from that list...wake up Overture UK!
| 2:24 pm on Jan 24, 2003 (gmt 0)|
<<there seems to be a consensus that providers should follow some common standards. >>
They wouldn't need to all have the same standards, as long as they were consistent with themselves.
When I first started using GoTo, there was a box where you could add comments along with your listings submission. That might help a great deal in some cases if we could explain some things up front.
I had a hugely frustrating battle a while back because O. rejected the term "fake book". Most non-classical working musicians would know precisely what a fake book is, but the Overture editor would not believe it was a specific term referring to a specific type of product. I reeeeeally wonder what they smoke over there sometimes.
| 3:35 pm on Jan 24, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|They wouldn't need to all have the same standards... |
I agree that each PPC provider needs to have their own unique standards to help set them apart from all the others. I also think that they could make some basic standards common.
|...as long as they were consistent with themselves. |
This should be PPC providers big focus.
|When I first started using GoTo, there was a box where you could add comments along with your listings submission. That might help a great deal in some cases if we could explain some things up front. |
This is a great idea! I think an optional comments box would help editors in many situations, and you gave a good example of one.
So that gives us three ideas.
| 9:03 pm on Jan 24, 2003 (gmt 0)|
When they accept "red widgets" than a few days later reject "blue widgets" as a "clear path" violation even though both point to the same landing page that has a drop-down containing both "blue widgets" and "red widgets" there is a problem.
Last summer I went though these issues Overture US, now it looks like it is Overture UK's turn.
| 6:12 am on Jan 25, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|When they accept "red widgets" than a few days later reject "blue widgets" as a "clear path" violation even though both point to the same landing page that has a drop-down containing both "blue widgets" and "red widgets" there is a problem. |
Do you know if this was due to two different editors with different impressions about your landing page or if other factors were to blame?
Anyone know if any PPC Providers have editors go through a checklist for specific items to look for, with each answer having a score, or do most editors just make a decision based on how they feel at the time they reviewed a submission?
| 10:54 pm on Jan 27, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Thought I should report on the resolution to my red widget/blue widget problem.
My listings got bumped to a senior editor and were all approved. In addition, I was told the initial editor would be undergoing more training.
| 11:45 pm on Jan 27, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I know it's frustrating but everyone has to learn.
I submitted some ads to Google today and foolishly put "click here for more detail", it's a simple mistake and one I am sure many people make, but sometimes in your rush to get things done, you don't do them right, which is probably a lesson for any editors that find themselves reading this.
Less haste more accuracy to start with then more haste same accurancy.