| 6:26 pm on Dec 7, 2003 (gmt 0)|
There is no incentive/need for google to keep Froogle free for merchants ...
Once they reach a critical merchant mass and their product becomes perfect ,integrated well with the general search they will go for PFI .Also they sprinkle the top results with affiliate links :)...
In the future Froogle will sure be a mix of PFI and affiliate relationships with little or no free listings...
| 8:38 pm on Dec 7, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I welcome any targeted affiliate traffic I can get, and would from Froogle as well. No risk, unlike all the PPC places. Pure rev share is hard to turn away. I've never found a reason to do so.
| 11:15 pm on Dec 7, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|In the future Froogle will sure be a mix of PFI and affiliate relationships with little or no free listings |
It's been said before, but "little or no free listings" just doesn't work. Even the people at Yahoo Product Search know this... After they ended their beta, I got a phone call from a salesperson asking if I wanted to do a paid inclusion. I grinned and said "I'll get back to you". A few days later, Yahoo indexed my whole site for free.
| 3:23 am on Dec 8, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I still do not know why they do not allow affiliates to be listed in the Froogle index. Every other product search engine does, why don't they allow it?
| 4:06 am on Dec 8, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|I still do not know why they do not allow affiliates to be listed in the Froogle index |
It would just clutter the results, and you'd see loads of listings all for the same product.
Plus (and I'm asking because I don't know) do affiliates sell individual products (i.e., HP 895Cse color cartridge) or do they promote stores (printer ink dealer)? Froogle is individual items.
| 9:33 am on Dec 8, 2003 (gmt 0)|
How would google know if you're an affiliate or not? How will they know you're a trusted merchant?
I can quickly see a PFI consolidator type business coming falling into place.
- Give the affiliates a business address and phone number (easy)
- Include their feeds into mega feed for a fixed fee / item
I do not have any idea on how Google will develop a StoreRank type algorithm similar to PageRank. How will people cast their vote for the store? Will it be a democracy (algorithmic or otherwise)?
Some amount of lateral thinking (and not drinking) brings to the conclusion where it makes more sense run Froogle as a mix of eBay and AdWords. If a user sees an item he presses a "buy" link on the Google page the merchant is obligated under contractual terms to fulfill that order. Never mind .. amazon does this already.. ;)
| 1:39 pm on Dec 8, 2003 (gmt 0)|
And we all know how hard it is to find those Amazon links in the regular serps.
| 1:54 pm on Dec 8, 2003 (gmt 0)|
>There is no incentive/need for google to keep Froogle free for merchants ...
Yes. There is. That will be the key differentiator to compete with the other product search engines. The same way like they did to their web search:
-"No one can buy a placement" mantra.
-Totally automated algo
And they can make enough $$ with the sponsored listings from Adwords there
| 2:33 pm on Dec 8, 2003 (gmt 0)|
mquarles, links yes, but the new webservices APIs that Amazon has will hide the fact that its amazon you're dealing with right until you're ready to click on the "check out button".
Another big player in the affiliate market is preparing an prepackaged store which allows you to run the shopping cart and transfers the product to their when you hit the checkout button.
| 6:26 pm on Dec 8, 2003 (gmt 0)|
The pharmacy folks have been doing this for a while. Others are catching up. Hide the affiliate is the new trend.
| 6:54 pm on Dec 8, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|Yes. There is. That will be the key differentiator to compete with the other product search engines. The same way like they did to their web search |
There is inherent difference between Info and Product searches which can enable Google to fully exploit the later without much surfer dissatisfaction
Google cannot fill the normal web search with only paid listings (overture style) as it will not produce relevent results in the case of non-commercial/info searches (which is BTB 80% of total search volume ) because no advertiser will bid just to answer the user .
But product search is different ...User is in the buying mode and the advertisers will be ready to bid for his attention . Overture's mantra "paid listings are relevent" works well here .
When you type "canon powershot G5 Camera" in Froogle will you care the results are paid are not paid?... The only thing you expect is relevent product pages ordered in a specific way (like price) .
But if you type "canon digital camera reviews" in google you expect authorative sites which gives honest (percieved!) info not a paid listing which shamelessly entice you to buy!
| 6:58 pm on Dec 8, 2003 (gmt 0)|
>will you care the results are paid are not paid?
Then, i aswell, use the tons of other Product Search Engines.
What Froogle offers on the table is - even if a seller has no product feeds, it would still be in that index, if his/her site is spiderable. That gives a wide- open exciting search for exotic/rare product specific searches. If the results were paid, it cuts down that impression very much.
| 8:51 pm on Dec 8, 2003 (gmt 0)|
>> What Froogle offers on the table is - even if a seller has no product feeds, it would still be in that index, if his/her site is spiderable
I think the model Google may go is PFI + some free listings with prefered placement for PFI ... So for submitting the data feeds merchants has to pay and for some small rare things spidered fillup is always there.
The USP of froogle over other product engines is not in free listings or the product superiority (it just has to be as good as others) .It lies on the fact that Google can redirect product searches in the main google to froogle .
People or not going to search separately in different engines for different things (like images/shopping etc) . The engine has to inteligently parse the user's intent and present the appropriate listings . Google knows this and they are sure going to integrate froogle into the main google soon ...fridays testing proves it!
Read Danny Sullivan's take on this - Searching With Invisible Tabs [searchenginewatch.com]
| 5:18 pm on Dec 9, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I didn't notice this thread earlier. I posted this reply in another Froogle thread, but this one seems more appropriate.
Froogle, from my understanding has applied to become an affiliate with advertisers through LS, and CJ; yes, this is can be verified.
I warned people a year ago. The writing has been on the wall for sometime. We're all about to get screwed by the biggest search engine company in the world. I was scoffed, and told I was a "paranoid". The "Florida" update is just the beginning, and Froogle is just getting warmed up.
| 8:37 pm on Dec 9, 2003 (gmt 0)|
FYI - GoogleGuy did say that there are no plans to make Froogle a paid service. I was florred when he wrote it, but I guarantee he did post it here in a previous thread about froogle.
Do a search.
| 8:54 pm on Dec 9, 2003 (gmt 0)|
>>> GoogleGuy did say that there are no plans to make Froogle a paid service
Yes , Froogle will never become a paid service!...that is a 100% paid service :)
You can see free listings on the 20th page :)
| 9:32 pm on Dec 9, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|Yes , Froogle will never become a paid service!...that is a 100% paid service :) |
You can see free listings on the 20th page :)
| 9:45 pm on Dec 9, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I found an article in The Register about the new Google deskbar: [theregister.co.uk ]
Google is also hyping Froogle in its December newsletter:
From a news search, I found out froogle had its own domain (I thought it was just accessible as a google.com subdomain).
It seems safe to conclude that it's going to be mainstreamed soon, and I've applied to send a feed.
If Froogle is as accessible as news, it probably will make money whether or not they use affiliate programs- as long as the sponsored links are clearly labelled and people trust the impartiality of the results.
I'm not sure I like this, though. Too much competition based mainly on price is never healthy.
Die_Hard: can you provide links for Google applying to become an affiliate with advertisers through LS, and CJ? I've done a bit of research and can't find it myself.
| 11:14 pm on Dec 9, 2003 (gmt 0)|
>> can you provide links for Google applying to become an affiliate with advertisers through LS, and CJ?
Its posted by WW member catalyst ... i think she is the AM manager of a baggage merchant ...
| 9:15 am on Dec 10, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Good bye are the days from being an affiliate and working from home.
| 1:37 pm on Dec 10, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Here is what Google is doing (from personal experience). One section of one of my sites, I had a few products that were affiliate links. Now, there is no way to know that unless the person or company actually registers as a member of that site, and then clicks on the add to cart link. So, believe it or not, after about six months of being listed within Froogle, they not only took the affiliated products down (which again cannot be seen unless a REGISTERED member clicks on the add cart link), they took all of my products down (over 20,000) from the Froogle database.
So, this is one reason why I think Google is alienating the people that supported them for the decade or so, the WEBMASTERS. They are carving out the little man and just allowing major players to be listed within Froogle as affiliated merchants. I had even sent proof that certain merchants are affiliated merchants (and there was well over 200000 links), and they said that they would look into it. That was about four months ago. The products are still their (only updated), and now I do not even receive a reply from them.
So, there is no doubt in my mind that Google is cherry picking their merchants. I think that is wrong, unfair, and stifles competition. Google is turning out more and more like a big corporation with no morals which does not cater to the small or medium sized business owner.
Thank my take. Whoever doesn't like what I am stating, do not take my word for it. Go over to Froogle, conduct a few searches for common items, and you will eventually see links to merchants who link to affiliated links for purchase and commission.
If it was the idea that no affiliates are to be listed within the Froogle shopping engine, then fine. I can live with that. But when it is some merchants can and some merchants can't that is unfair business practice.
| 6:52 pm on Dec 12, 2003 (gmt 0)|
IMO it's not unfair, it's just tough luck. Middlemen serving the small and medium size business market have been getting squeezed for centuries, ever since the days of the bazaar. If people think Google is about to take everyone's revenues away, then because we live in a free-market democracy, we all have the right to... go out and buy their stock when they IPO.
| 8:00 pm on Dec 12, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Are they really cherry picking or just weeding out those who deceive. By your own admission, you purposely hid the fact you were an affiliate. Most likely someone reported you just like you did to others.
If the ones you reported are doing the same thing, then it may be akin to cops on a highway. Do the cops ever give tickets to everyone who is driving above the speed limit? No, they only do it to some because they have limited assets. It's not fair when you happen to be among the ones who get a ticket, but it doesn't change the fact you were wrong. Life isn't fair. It never has been.
| 8:28 pm on Dec 12, 2003 (gmt 0)|
>has applied to become an affiliate with advertisers through LS, and CJ; yes, this is can be verified<
With all due respect, I think that at this point it is nothing more than just rumour and speculation.
| 8:56 pm on Dec 12, 2003 (gmt 0)|
>With all due respect, I think that at this point it is nothing more than just rumour and speculation.<
I don't know about you, but I believe it.
| 10:32 pm on Dec 12, 2003 (gmt 0)|
BlueSky, your missing the point. First of all, when I originally signed up, I do not recall seeing anywhere that affiliates are not allowed to join Froogle. Second of all, if that was the case, then all affiliated links should be removed by Google. But alas, that has not happened. There are still a ton of affiliated links on Froogle. So, I am stating that it is Cherry picking by Google. If it wasn't, then all shoulf be removed, not just a selected few. Additionally, out of my ten of thousands of links that were approved by Google, only about 100 or so were affiliated. I did not try and get this past them, I just included it with my other links. Now, there are 0, zilch, nada for my sites. SO, is that fair business practice too? Something smells over at Froogle, and other people are starting to wake up also. Google cannot look the other way for some affiliates, and terminate the rest. That is against fair business practice law in the US, and I would assume that would be the same in the EU.
| 11:16 pm on Dec 12, 2003 (gmt 0)|
> I do not recall seeing anywhere that affiliates are not allowed to join <
From the Froogle merchant info page [froogle.google.com]
|Froogle points users to sites where they can buy actual products from the merchants that sell them. Therefore, to be eligible to submit a feed, you must sell products via your website and ship them to the buyer. If you sell services or custom products that do not have fixed prices, use your website only to promote an offline business, or are an affiliate marketing site, your site content may be crawled by and included in Google's web search, but it will not be included in Froogle. Nor will Froogle accept a data feed under these conditions. |
| 12:28 am on Dec 13, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Hi all, please enlighten me. I'm assuming that the way Google plans to make $$$ on Froogle is to tie Froogle click-throughs to affiliate programs, either directly through merchants or via the affiliate networks like BeFree, CJ and Linkshare.
Is my understand correct, or is there some other way that Google plans to make money off of Froogle? Is there a possibility that they will sell Froogle listing directly to merchants?
| 2:51 am on Dec 13, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I think there are a few scenarios that seem to be possibilities. Maybe one of 'em, or all.
(1) Paid inclusion. However, it doesn't seem to be Googles style.
(2) PPC - defeats adwords.
(4) CPM - not likely, but who knows?
(4) CPA - Pay per sale. Good ol' fashioned affiliate marketing, complete with a p.i.d., a.i.d., and quikserv (or bfast, or linksynergy) 1x1 pixel.
The latter is the one I think they will go with. And the latter, imo, will be the death of most of us who have become accomplished experts at "click here, buy this!"
| This 55 message thread spans 2 pages: 55 (  2 ) > > |