|Where is PPC going?|
the future of ppc
| 7:52 pm on Feb 5, 2001 (gmt 0)|
I've seen alot of posts about PPC, and why people hate them. However, even the "free" engines are charging submission fees that don't guarantee any traffic, position, or even a listing for that matter.
The reality seems that one way or another, we will be paying for our listings, the question I pose to you is this?
What type of system would you like to see on the engines? Paid submissions, straight PPC, Flat rate PPC with listings rotated? Other ideas?
| 7:58 pm on Feb 5, 2001 (gmt 0)|
I think one time submission fees are best... with a directory, once you're in, you're in, and with an SE, Inktomi's pay-for-regular-spidering seems like a good idea.
I keep hearing about people 'tuning' their pages for the SEs, and with most of the engine's DB update schedules, it seems like a guaranteed regular spider visit would be a big improvement.
| 8:27 pm on Feb 5, 2001 (gmt 0)|
Hi tomin, welcome to WebmasterWorld.
I'm still partial to good ol' free-ranging spiders, but if I have to pay, I think INK's plan is the most palatable.
| 8:48 pm on Feb 5, 2001 (gmt 0)|
As to future of ppc, 4Q results from the majors will help us answer that question.
Where is PPC going?
Let us first try to define PPC. Remember that we are webmasters here.
Some webmasters have, in addition to seo, elected to "pay per click." They pay a firm based upon targeted clicks from quality SEs or Portals. They measure their rate of return and decide on continuing or not continuing the program.
To me, PPC does not mean get paid to click OR click stuff and get a reward, win a prize etc.
Sites that advertise:Every time you click-through on a paid search listing we reward you with 1 'spot.'
They are taking MY money and rewarding someone. That is not quality targeted traffic - imo
It is just that type of partner or affiliate that will cause webmasters to demand a system for excluding certain traffic that is found to be of little or no value.
PFP seems to be used as "pay for performance" by some.
The INK program is an example I've seen used.
PFP or "pay for placement" was originally used by GoTo - I think.
Their PR people like thinking up NEW TERMS
At GoTo "paid introductions" means clicks.
| 8:51 pm on Feb 5, 2001 (gmt 0)|
Of course the owners of sites are going to say they prefer the paid Directory or highest_bidder_ppc. But to a search engine they need to please the surfer more than the site owners.
I'll have to side with RC, I would like to see more of INK's style or like you said: a flat rate PPC with rotating indexes.
We need more_up-to-date_and_more_variety results without having to drill down through the same sites that have the money to suck up all the good listings.
I mean, yes, Directories do have good quality sites(half the time), but won't people start to get sick of seeing the same sites all the time? Or having to drill through 10 links to find their topic of interest?
| 9:19 pm on Feb 5, 2001 (gmt 0)|
Yes... I'll go with the consensus and vote for Ink's model.
The worst approach is GoTo, no doubt about it, in that the deepest pocket wins, end of story. This is bad for surfers (who want the most relevant site NOT the biggest budget players, ranked in order of budget) and bad for the small but creative site owner.
| 9:27 pm on Feb 5, 2001 (gmt 0)|
Mike, I agree with your opinion on incentivised clicks 100%. Crap traffic doesn't do anyone any good, especially crap traffic that you pay for.
Obviously though, ad revenue alone will not sustain SE's (even yahoo has added paid listings above their commercial categories) and we (the web masters) will often be paying in one form or another for our traffic from the directories and engines.
Given that spiders are on the endangered list, what type of system would most likely make you part with some green?
| 9:34 pm on Feb 5, 2001 (gmt 0)|
Nothing new to contribute but just add my opinion that if the INK model worked it should be the best for both Webmaster and user (and SE owner???)
Paying for spider (theoretically) means that content is much more up to date, which is the second biggest problem i have with SE returns after relevancy.
| 9:41 pm on Feb 5, 2001 (gmt 0)|
>and we (the web masters) will often be paying in one form or another
We work only with commercial traffic.
The way we see it, the end user of the product/service is the one who pays.
| 2:32 am on Feb 6, 2001 (gmt 0)|
Paid submissions, straight PPC, Flat rate PPC
They are all tools in our toolboxes.
Our job now is to decide when to grab a screw driver, a hammer, a wrench or all of the above.
In this busy world, the more options available the better, I say.
Play the game, be good in the game, stay in the game.
| 4:58 pm on Feb 6, 2001 (gmt 0)|
I fully agree with you minnapple,
Just hope that too many SE copy GOTO's pattern. Otherwise a lot of people here will be out a job. For me SEO is more interesting then beeing a ad broker.
| 5:13 pm on Feb 6, 2001 (gmt 0)|
I personally prefer the Ink service:
At least this allows for some 'skill' in optimising a content page to suit the flavour of the particular engine and thereby achieving a good ranking and a result that is returned after a clients 'keyphrase' is used.
I find that the 'paid for/express' directory services are fine for being 'listed' but not for delivering traffic which has specifically searched using a phrase which is relevant to a clients business.
Obviously, I am aware of the importance of the site description you submit to the directories, but with some of the 'creative' editing used by some Editors the effectiveness of this can be diluted.
At least with Ink it's 'reasonably' priced, allows you to change and improve copy and you can see results (or not) in a short space of time.
| 5:34 pm on Feb 6, 2001 (gmt 0)|
From a marketing point of view, each case needs to be addressed separately. It all boils down to traffic AND conversions. I say, test them all, and monitor them very closely.
The Ink plan may work fine, if you have in house, cost effective SEO resources. If not, pure PPC like GoTo may work until the top blows off the bids due to businesses that have deep pockets and no understanding of conversion rates and profitability.
Some folks tend to distract themselves from the true goals. The goal (for commercial sites obviously) is NOT traffic. It is conversions and profits.
IMHO - try them all, and let the ROI rule. I believe each case will be different. For example, a catalog with 1,000's of products may do better with GoTO listing each product, and a direct link. A single product site may do better optimzing several domains one for each engine - and they will benefit most from Ink pay for review and endless tweaking.
Some products need predominantly offline promotion (sad to say, there are some products that don't get enough search traffic online to merit much in the way of online promotion, but who will still benefit from a presence.)
Minnapple nailed it <pardon the hammer/tool metaphor!>. Different jobs, different tools. Use them all.