I have hundreds of adesnse terms where I pay $0.05 and one small set of terms where I pay an average of $0.48.
Only the $0.48 ads will even consider using the new Yahoo program and they will be thinking long and hard about it.
I have a meeting with that customer in an hour to discuss it in detail.
Are you using Overture as well? They start at $0.10 a click now.
You will maybe miss out on Yahoo! users clicking on the sites in the regular SERPs unless you sign up for the new program or have your site crawled and indexed for free.
This exactly what I'm talking about as to what is wrong with site match.
I would rather stay with Overture and have control as to what keywords my ads should appear as compared to site match....
that any of the 'word' in the page could trigger a 15c or 30c clicktrough which in the long run could become very expensive.
unless of course the only text in your page is 'buy widget' any other words could trigger relevancy to the searcher's quary...
or if cloaking is allowed then the cloaked page would only contain your highly targeted keywords just to avoid untargeted traffic.
|that any of the 'word' in the page could trigger a 15c or 30c clicktrough which in the long run could become very expensive. |
On the flipside though this could be very cheap for some people. A lot of the verticals I advertise in demand $1+ bids to be in the top 10 results. If someone can get in the top results for $0.30 or less through this new system they could make a killing.
>Are you using Overture as well?
No, we no longer use Overture. We have not used them for about six months.
I have not used Overture in about 6 months because my average cpc is .10 in Adwords. This means many of my terms are .05 and some are .15 depending on the category. It is like going to a casino that has $5 min bet vs. a $10 min bet. I like the flexibility to go below 10.
Yea, but if some of your keywords make you money at $0.15/click why don't you by these same words on Overture?
I called to find out what category my product would go in 15 cents or 30 cents.
I was going to sign up my web site, in which I carry an inexpensive product, but the category they lumped me into is Electronics which is 30 cents a click.
I can't afford to spend 30 cents a click on a $6.00 product.
This looks like it may be a little restrictive to many products under $20 unless you have a super exceptionally high closing ratio.
+$20 Product sale.
-$10 Product cost.
-$10 for 33 clicks at 30 cents a piece.
That is a 3% closing ratio (3 sales to 100 visitors).
Try this same scenario with a product under $10, and it just doesn't seem to work.
Exactly, it won't work...for small business...at 15 or 30 per click at any related keyword. Your only chance for such product is either free SE or Overture/PPC(where at least you can pick the keywords you want).
Perhaps some of us has a very high closing ratio or very expensive products/services that it can absorb multiple clickthroughs(targeted and untargeted) and still make a profit.
But this program really cut-off a lot of small businesses.
Your site may show up high on the search results for something you don't even sell, just because both of the words are on that page.
You sell "Blue Widgets" and "Green Blocks" only, but you show up in the search results for "Green Widgets"
Can you imagine paying 30 cents a click for something you don't sell?
Look at your web stats for all the search string results that are for products you don't carry.
Plus, the fact of showing up for non buying search terms such as, "pictures of blue widgets".
30 untargeted clicks per day times 30 days = 900 clicks.
900 clicks times 30 cents = $270 a month in untargeted traffic.
100 clicks per day times 30 days = 3,000 click a month.
3,000 clicks times 30 cents = $900 a month in clicks.
These numbers don't seem unrealistic comparing them to the web stats on my major sites.
I worked it out for me a visitor is worth about 1 or 2 cents. Adwords and SiteMatch are just impractical. SiteMatch is further flawed because there is no reason to do it. If you can submit your site for free and the ranking isn't affected whether you pay or not, then why pay? The only benefit I could see is if you could use the product short term to get you site(s) indexed then drop it soon after. This system reminds me of Looksmart, which really annoyed me. I paid $199 for inclusion then soon after they dropped it and switched to 15 cent per click model. I don't think it would be wise for Yahoo to follow Looksmart's example.
We carefully priced Site Match to be comparable to our old paid inclusion programs (Inktomi Search Submit, AltaVista Express Inclusion, and FAST PartnerSite PFI) and improved total value by adding new benefits: Yahoo! distribution, quality review, detailed reporting (AV didn't offer reporting), and enhanced customer service.
The up-front fees for Site Match are actually significantly lower than combined fees for the programs it replaces, and the additional cost-per-click component of Site Match pricing scales with the value delivered to each customer.
Below is a brief summary for a customer submitting 10 URLs:
- Annual fees for the 3 legacy programs: $1042
- Annual fees for Site Match: $310
The difference ($732) means the 10 URLs would have to generate 4880 clicks (488 per URL) at $0.15 per click before the price of Site Match reached the price of the old programs. Many URLs will not exceed this level of clicks, making Site Match less expensive than the old programs.
The cost-per-click assures fair pricing for every customer. Previously, some sites received far more clicks than others, making the old programs unfairly favorable for those sites. In addition to making the pricing model more equitable for customers, cost-per-click pricing protects our users by providing an incentive for content providers to submit only high-quality content--customers don't want to pay for irrelevant clicks on low-quality content. We realize cost-per-click pricing is new to many customers and have provided budgeting options to limit total cost: you can choose to pay a fixed amount per month or manually recharge your account to suit your budget. The program is designed to be customizable and to deliver fair value.
and if you run out of cash, will you get clicks for free, or be removed?
>old programs unfairly favorable for those sites..
Well, it was pretty favourable to those who knew how to use PFI properly! Why do you think we are complaining about the CPC costs?
Couldn't you come up with an option for those who want to pay upfront for a year - say, double the old price of the combined PFI plans?
For those of us who were able to get superb focussed traffic from PFI quickly - it is going to be rather costly on a CPC basis and probably more cost effective to wait for standard spidering. But I'm sure we'd still be willing to pay an increased fee over the previous plan!
Just an idea ;)
We use both AdWords and Over with 5¢ at AdWords with lots of keywords and around 12¢ at Over for a lot fewer, more directed keywords.
We have a B&B - 30¢ per click is just out of the question as we would fall under travel. Our total budget would be all in one pot.
The PPC business is getting very expensive although we have done more business this year than any year in our 15 year history.
> and if you run out of cash, will you get clicks for free, or be removed?
You're listings are suspended until you replenish your account.
|The difference ($732) means the 10 URLs would have to generate 4880 clicks (488 per URL) at $0.15 per click before the price of Site Match reached the price of the old programs. Many URLs will not exceed this level of clicks, making Site Match less expensive than the old programs. |
This really exemply Yahoo greediness. How many sites do you know that participate on 'all' Yahoo program at the same time?
So if I only use Inktomi and not AV or ATW does the site match makes it cheaper for me to participate?
|The cost-per-click assures fair pricing for every customer. Previously, some sites received far more clicks than others, making the old programs unfairly favorable for those sites. |
Now, this is really a bothersome statement...'Previously, some sites received far more clicks than others'...
What do you mean? Do you mean that Yahoo would make sure that the paying URL would receive clicks?
If so, isn't that in direct contradiction to your previous statement that the serp is based on algo regardless of it is a paying or non-paying url?
Because, there's no way you can guarantee/assure a paying url a fair amount of clickthroughs without some boost on their ranking.
Which is which Tim?
Serp based on honest algo? or
Assuring paying URL that they would receive clickthroughs?
>The difference ($732) means the 10 URLs would have
>to generate 4880 clicks (488 per URL) at $0.15 per
>click before the price of Site Match reached the
>price of the old programs. Many URLs will not exceed
>this level of clicks, making Site Match less
>expensive than the old programs.
I don't believe I have any sites which would fall under this calculation and cost less under the new program. That would be 41 click-thrus per month per url or less than two per day. Why would anyone even bother to pay for inclusion of a page like that?
One of my less active commercial Inktomi url's has averaged 580 clicks per month for the past 13 months. That is a commercial site and that extra $174 per month can easily be added to their budget but is a large percentage increase from what they have been paying. They might pay it but they will not be happy.
I will explain it using the same explanation I had to use when Looksmart pulled their change-up and lost/settled that class action lawsuit as a result.
Another Inktomi url that is completely non-commercial has averaged over 460 clicks per day (over 14,000 per month) for the past 7 months. That is a hobby site and an authority site in its topic area.
There is no budget for it and there is no large income stream to pay for the added cost of this program which would amount to
$69 per day
>$2000 per month
>$24,000 per year
That site is just out of luck.
... actually, ...
I just took a look at only the month of March 2004 so far and this site is running at an average of about 3200 click-thrus per day now since the changeover.
That brings the annual cost at $0.15 per click to about
and that does not even take into account the enormous seasonal spikes which happen about 6-9 times per year.
Tim said, "Previously, some sites received far more clicks than others, making the old programs unfairly favorable for those sites."
My question is, why is it unfair to have far more clicks, if your site has quality content above the others? Isn't quality content what makes a good user experience?
Example Search: "auction sites"
Should a large commercial auction site with thousands of items rank higher than a small home made auction site with only 500 items? Is it unfair that the larger commercial site received more traffic, because they were loaded with quality content?
Some web sites are just better than others.
A good user experience for visitors should come first.
It is like comparing Disneyland to the County Fair, and stating that Disneyland got way to much traffic, so we must send people to the County Fair instead.
The real question should be, where do the visitors really want to be?
>It is like comparing Disneyland to the County Fair
Hey! don't go picking on the County Fair.
We are a major sponsor of it and get lots of traffic leading up to it, during and for a while after.
Disneyland has never sent us any traffic.
I see new results have now been added in the UK today.
Will INK PFI UK customers get the 60 day trial period to review the position now or will this still halt at 14th April?
I know you said you hand handed this on for feedback and I'm sure UK customers would like to know the result of this.
I didn't mean to knock the county fair. :)
That was just trying to make the following point.
It should not be unfair to get more traffic, if you have a well built, high quality site, like many of us that visit webmasterworld build.
Cheers to everyone here that builds high quality web sites that attract an unfair amount of visitors!
I hope this doesn't sound like an irrelevent question. But since Yahoo is now moving to paid inclusion in association with a more aggressive indexing approaching, we should see the size of Yahoo's index grow quickly. My question is how quickly and often will Yahoo update? Also, how deeply will the new Yahoo bot crawl? I still don't see much deeping crawling and sites I built over 2 months ago aren't yet ranked for terms they target (despite little competition) and these same sites only have 1-2 pages indexed. So how will Yahoo update in the future?
We talked at the conferences about UK PI and I passed on your request to the PI product manager last week for the free trial.
>authority site in its topic area<
>That site is just out of luck. <
If it's an authority it should have enough inbounds to be crawled and indexed for free.
|What do you mean? Do you mean that Yahoo would make sure that the paying URL would receive clicks? |
The number of clicks per URL would vary greatly depending on the rank and the keywords targeted just like any other page in a search engine database, not necessarily on a bump associated with paying for inclusion.
What's really irking a lot of us Tim is that Yahoo! has failed to even offer any kind of sensible migration path for existing clients of your legacy PFI systems.
If a client has $10K invested in 2 of your 'legacy' systems - with 3 or 6 months still to run - Yahoo! just expects them to pay 'again' at the full 'new' rate - just to get into Yahoo! - and get clicks he has already paid for - again.
Yahoo has no planned migration for existing legacy clients who have already paid for FAST and for Inktomi - to get into the new Yahoo!
Not a well thought through system when you keep claiming you want to provide a structured customer interaction - and you are ignoring and penalising the customers who have been your supporters......
Tim, thanks for your explanation how Yahoo determined reasonable pricing for the Side-Match service.
But, I think that your calculation is far from being realistic. I will show you that the majority of customers switching to Side-Match actually will experience an increase of cost by 230% to 420%.
Taking into account the different shares of each inclusion program and applying a total resulting number of 4800 visitors, I get the following cost / visit:
Altavista: 0.75 USD / Click, Inktomi 0.07 USD / Click, AllTheWeb 0.30 USD
I assume that most decided not to use Altavista and AllTheWeb as the resulting cost per visit is beyond reasonable ROI.
Pure Inktomi customers (majority) which want to switch now from Inktomi to Site Match have to do the following considerations:
Before: 264 USD for being one year in Inktomi (10 URLS)
Now: 310 USD to be in Inktomi and Yahoo. (10 URLS)
Great, as the increase of cost is accompanied by an increase in reach. Absolutely not great is that we pay additionally 0.15 USD (0.30 USD) for each visit.
Assuming similar click-through rate, we have to expect about 10000 visitors (before 3400 only Inktomi share) resulting in an additional cost of 1500 USD (3000 USD).
The switch of Yahoo will increase the required budget from 264 USD to 1810 USD (3310 USD). Yes the increase of cost also increases the traffic and income. But the traffic will increase by the factor 3 whereas the costs increase by the factor 7 (12).
Normalized, the costs will increase by 230% (420%).
It's obviously important to review the new PFI/PPC program and see if it will be viable or not. With a time period and analysis of clicks from Yahoo.co.uk it will give a better chance to evaluate this.
| This 32 message thread spans 2 pages: 32 (  2 ) > > |