| 4:09 am on Nov 1, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I agree, we've definitely seen some questionable stuff coming through from sites that have basically been built as an excuse to show FindWhat results, but...they've been converting, so I've been ok with it so far.
| 10:50 am on Nov 1, 2003 (gmt 0)|
We have always had an ad under our country name on the theory that most people looking it up were planning to visit and, if they were, they would come to our area. We were always in the 4th or 5th posisition which eliminated casual clicking. Our ad copy spelled out exactly what we offered.
Then FindWhat went to a 5¢ minimum and, as Compworld points out, the quality of the traffic deteriorated. The advertisers in the first four spots quickly disappeared and there we were stuck at 3¢ in first place with no where to go. Our clicks skyrocketed to a point that even at 3¢ it was too much for our budget. We have eliminated an ad that has been there for 2 years.
This is one of the dangers when companies with less than stellar traffic raise their minimum bids. They end up losing a lot of marginal ads because of the cost.
| 3:13 pm on Nov 1, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Yeap. I signed up gave it a few hundred dollars to see how it does, and its just plan garbage. If it was a .01, then I wouldn't mind, but .05 is to rich for my blood. Especially for this type of crappy traffic. I can see a dim future for them if they keep this .05 min. bid up.
| 4:08 pm on Nov 1, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Clicks for keywords that I convert at a $.18/click rate on Google only convert at about $.03 with Findwhat. I gave up on them a long time ago.
| 11:31 am on Nov 2, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Yep - same conclusion.
The only reason I continue to use is that with 5 pages per viewer I can offset some of the cost through banner advertising revenue.
So in fact it ends up being purely a traffic generator with a pretty low ROI
| 4:34 am on Nov 3, 2003 (gmt 0)|
If you need a traffic generator, you should use the cheap .01 sites like ah-ha.com, click-seek.com, iqseek.com, etc. No sense in paying .05 per click when its just for traffic generation.
| 5:46 pm on Nov 10, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Yeah $.05 is a little high. Galaxysearch is a $.03 min adn worth a try. I am very familiar with this site and can answer any questions about it.
| 5:50 pm on Nov 10, 2003 (gmt 0)|
>Yeah $.05 is a little high. Galaxysearch is a $.03 min adn worth a try. I am very familiar with this site and can answer any questions about it.
Because you work for them?
| 6:54 pm on Nov 10, 2003 (gmt 0)|
| 1:17 am on Nov 11, 2003 (gmt 0)|
LOL, at least you admitted it. Okay, so uhh I guess it may have been conisdered a bad idea on the advertisers side that findwhats’ prices have gone up even though their traffic quality has not.
| 4:57 am on Nov 11, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Do you guys think that there is any chance that Findwhat will go down to .03 or lower? They must have lost a good amount of advertisers due to their great idea to raise the minimum PPC.
| 7:45 am on Nov 11, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I'm afraid the minimum bid prices can't go down.
PPC SEs sell traffic to advertisers. They don't generate it - they purchase it from webmasters. Good traffic is not cheap, cheap traffic is not good. Findwhat, Ah-ha, and who is next have to raise the minimum bid price. Otherwise their partners will sell the traffic to somebody else. There's not much fun having a lot of advertisers if you don't have reasonably good traffic to sell them.
| 8:28 am on Nov 11, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I think that minimum bid prices are more to do with costs than anything else. In theory, the bids will manage themselves - and will increase according to demand. Having a minimum bid of $0.01 rather than $0.10 simply means that more advertisers can afford to join in, and there will also be advertisers on less commercial phrases, thus increasing the phrase matching. This is great for PPC engines.
However, the PPCs also have to pay people to check all of the new listings, which drives up costs, so unless those $0.01 bids are going to cover the costs of the review time, then what is the point of having them? Hence they have to reduce costs by reducing the number of bids to check to a point where the numbers balance.
I may be wrong of course.
| 10:55 am on Nov 11, 2003 (gmt 0)|
A 0.01 bid can receive 100,000,000 clicks and make the review time totally worthwhile. The point is if I am a webmaster partnering with several PPC SEs the one with 0.01 bids would hardly receive any clicks from me as I would have partners with 0.03 and 0.05 per click to send traffic to.
| 12:24 pm on Nov 11, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Considering that the traffic from Findwhat is pure garbage, they do not deserve to charge .05 minimum. We are not talking about Google or even Overture. We are talking about Findwhat. The traffic we receive from Ah-ha and a few others have actually gotten better. Hence, we have been raising our bid on each phrase/word.
| 2:53 pm on Nov 11, 2003 (gmt 0)|
As Findwhat's ROI for advertisers seems to be very poor / dipping rapidly in comparison to other ppc engines like ah-ha, out of interest are they beginnning to work with loads of affiliate partners in order to boost presence on the web and number of clickthroughs?
In short, is there are a correlation with a certain UK ppc in this respect?
| 7:28 pm on Nov 11, 2003 (gmt 0)|
RoboPal, can you think of reasons webmasters such as myself would consistently get less than 50% the ROI from Findwhat that we get from Google and Overture for the same keywords?
I'm willing to bid up to $.18 on Google and Overture for some keywords that it just doesn't make sense for me to bid $.03 on Findwhat. What reasons can you point to for the lower ROI (value) of traffic that comes from Findwhat when compared to Overture and Google.
| 11:39 pm on Nov 11, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|A 0.01 bid can receive 100,000,000 clicks and make the review time totally worthwhile |
Of course this is undeniably true, but the problem is that most of the 0.01 bids won't get enough clicks to make them worthwhile. most of the 0.01 bids will be at the bottom of the bidding pile, or, if not, they will be top for very rare phrases.
Companies work on averages, so I presume that Findwhat have calculated their cut off point for breaking even on an average listing.
Findwhat's problem, it would appear, is that the quality of traffic prevents the bid prices from rising to the same potential as Overture or Google.
| 8:57 am on Nov 12, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I can see many reasons why traffic from second tier PPC SEs is not nearly as good as traffic from Google and Yahoo.
I also can see that if second tier PPC SEs would not push up their prices they would become third tier.
| 11:34 am on Nov 12, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I have been receiving better traffic from Ah-ha than Findwhat. I would never had thought that they actually had gone down in the traffic quality, and Ah-ha went up. Very very strange. I was never crazy about Ah-ha, but maybe they had cleaned up their act in some way. They are not Google, but the traffic and partners seem to be getting better. Back to Findwhat, the traffic back in August wasn't that bad, but for the last month, I have had 0.00% conversions via Findwhat. That is horrible and completely unacceptable. I would never go back their even if they refunded my money (well, maybe). Heck, even searchfeed converts better than Findwhat. Findwhat should change their name to Findnothing.com.
They would be better suited that way.
| 1:59 pm on Nov 12, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|I can see many reasons why traffic from second tier PPC SEs is not nearly as good as traffic from Google and Yahoo. |
Would you mind listing some of them? I'm asking because I would like to begin buying traffic from Findwhat again, however, I need a better strategy if I plan to do so. I'm holding up a sign, "WILL SPEND FOR ROI".
| 9:10 pm on Nov 12, 2003 (gmt 0)|
He-he, we'll all spend for ROI :)
As for the reasons, here they are:
When somebody is "advanced" enough to buy something from the Interenet, they also advanced enough to know about Google and Yahoo. If I am looking for something with my credit card ready, I go to Google. Visitors of smaller websites came there from google or yahoo searching for something, and, when they are done with the site, they can return to Google or, if the site is partnering with a PPC SE, they can search for something on it, too. Mostly out of curiosity and mostly generic terms. It may well be a fellow webmaster interested who is the search results provider and who is listed there. This traffic is secondary.
Wich traffic would convert better:
google -> you
google -> PPC SE's search partner -> you?
Webmasters of smaller websites are different from Google admins. If they are partnering with a PPC SE, they first debug their scripts, they check if the clicks are refelcted in the partner statistic. You get some useless clicks from there. Some of them are doing it every day to make sure that everithing is working. Sometimes they look through the logs and click on the links to see where they visitors clicked. Sometimes they have "competitors" who would click on all the links on the site to see what it is and how it all works. Sometimes they have somebody who would click on every paid link several time a day to give the website a bad name. There are many of smaller websites, they are different, they may be not well protected from clickbots, and some of them may be fraud. Some of them may be very good, of course.
The adveritsers on a second tier search engine are smaller, too. Some of them would try to click competitors off the listing to regain a cheap first position and make a couple of bucks.
Depending on keywords, bids, time of the year and stellar disposition you may have these and other reasons affecting you or not. This is why this traffic is cheaper.
Some websites are making money with second tier PPC SEs for years, some leave after the first failure. There are happy customers and unhappy customers. It's a game of skill and chance, isn't it?
| 11:48 pm on Nov 17, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I have heard a lot of good opinions, and I do agree with the fact the conversions seem to be down. But as I advertise on both ah-ha.com and FindWhat, I've seen this take place on both PPC's from my little tree branch. Now does anyone think that seasonal factors and the economy could be affecting conversion rates?
| 5:21 pm on Nov 18, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I take back the good things I said earlier. I had to zap a bunch of listings today. Cut our FindWhat costs by about 60%. ROI has plummeted.
| 1:37 am on Nov 20, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I had to do the same thing.
| 2:20 pm on Nov 22, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Yeap. I had to also pull out of Findwhat, Kanoodle, and Search123. The traffic is just pure 100% grade a garbage. I do not know why some companies advertise with these PPC's that just do not convert. I have spoken to some other webmasters, and they say the same thing. Adwords seems to convert, and Overture is slipping, but still converts some what. Strangly enough, Ah-ha and epilot have been on the rise. So, take it for what it is worth. I used to not have anything good to say about these two, but it seems they are starting to get rid of the garbage and pass it on to these other PPC's.
| 1:28 am on Nov 26, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I will agree that ePilot is getting rid of some of garbage. So is, oddly enough, Kanoodle, from my vantage point the last month.
| 11:16 am on Nov 26, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I tried kanoodle after a year lapse, and it went through $10.00 in about 2 days. Conversion: 0.00%. Average session time: 0.07 seconds. Average number of page views per customer: 2.
Therefore, their traffic is in the same league as Findnothing. If you could bid 0.01 - 0.03 per keyword, then maybe it may be worth something. But nope, they did the same stupid 0.05 raise in 08/2001, and at least from my perspective, it is not worth the bandwidth. In Findnothings case, their stock has been tumbling down (NASDAQ:FWHT). I wonder if their bottom line is deteriorating due to the bailout of advertisers.
| 12:13 pm on Nov 26, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Yep - considering pulling the whole account - their management system is a nightmare anyways.
Am checking on the clickthrough reports and there is no correlation with the charges I am paying and the chrge I think I am paying through their reporting system...
could you imagine an espotting / findwhat advertisers interface - what a mare!
| This 36 message thread spans 2 pages: 36 (  2 ) > > |