|What Big Brands Are Spending On Google|
|At the time of the rig explosion in April, BP barely registered on Google, but neither did its big-oil peers; Exxon Mobile, the world's largest corporation by market cap, spent just $43,000 on search ads in June. |
By comparison, one of Google's top advertisers that month, AT&T Mobile, spent more than $8 million on AdWords in June, a big month for the company, which was supporting the launch of iPhone 4. (AT&T is the third-largest U.S. advertiser, according to Ad Age DataCenter; it spent $2.8 billion on measured media -- almost $1.3 billion on TV alone -- in 2009. The company declined to comment on its search spending.) Other big June spenders included Apollo Group, the company behind The University of Phoenix, online travel site Expedia, eBay and Amazon, which all spent over $5 million apiece on search.
The data obtained by Ad Age includes huge brands such as GM, Walt Disney, Eastman Kodak and BMW, which appear to have spent less than $500,000 in June. Tech rival Apple spent just under $1 million on search during the month, as did chip maker Intel.
Among Google's biggest spenders are businesses that depend on search traffic, including those that resell AdWords or simply buy Google traffic to resell to their own advertisers, including Hungry Machine, which does business under the name Living Social, which spent $2.4 million in June, and Yellowpages.com, which spent $1.2 million.
Wow. Had no idea some companies spent so much on G ads. My $107 last month didn't seem to make this list. ;-)
|...Apple spent just under $1 million on search during the month... |
I wonder if that paid off for them. And if anyone cares.
I once worked for a large corporation and it was amazing how money just flooooowed out, with no one ever looking at the ROI. I have a "friend" who is doing corporate web work and he thinks he knows what he is doing, cutting edge marketing. What's his ROI on the hundreds of thousands he is spending? He has no idea.
Yes, I am jealous.
Would love to see this document in the raw, as I'm sure would dozens of institutional investors...
Looking at the data, a couple datapoints worth noting:
7% of spenders account for 60% of spend
26% of spenders account for 84% of spend
It's too bad there's no historical trend data in the document AdAge got their hands on. I'd bet that if there were, though, you'd only see a slight diversification over time away from reliance on these large advertisers for the majority of Google's revenue.
Depends on the industry but lots of advertisers just throw money out the window....still. Here's a million bucks to go spend on search...um, but your website has nothing for people to do on it and doesn't have any info related to the keywords and reasons you want to bring people to the site! It might be nice to play with those big budgets but at the end of the day it's just boring and frustrating to deal with the people who want to see "results" but don't listen to anything you tell them.
Since they have a big brand behind them, some conferences like to bring the big spenders in to do a presentation and as the agency you have to put words in their mouth and write it for them. :)
|I wonder if that paid off for them. And if anyone cares. |
I wouldn't assume that this is the case. I sell advertising to large corps (just looked at one of my clients, it's got about 400 billion in assets) and they watch their performance on my ad network like a hawk. Turns out for me that it's a good thing because they keep coming back.
I think it looks like a lot of money gets thrown around - and it does. But I'm not so certain that numbers aren't being watched.
|companies that buy google traffic to resell to their advertisers |
How do they resell to advertisers, adsense arbitrage?
these companies just doing their advertisements of most famous sites like youtube etc.
Arbitrage is alive and well. You just need a big site with lots of money to spend. The big site gives an illusion of respectability and the money smoothes over any QS problems.
I see this phenomenon over many ( so called unique) information sites. They are plastered with adsense ads with little data sandwiched in between.
>I once worked for a large corporation and it was amazing how money just flooooowed out, with no one ever looking at the ROI.
I've worked for some large corporations.
And what you say is true. But what's even more amazing is ... how the money flows when someone up in the rarified-oxygen altitudes TRIES to look at the ROI. The decisions are simply incredible.
Example: Stuffed-suit PHB notices that new customers are less profitable than old customers. Conclusion: stop trying to get new customers. Result: do I even have to spell it out?
But universally in the MBA crowd, engineering is considered a "cost" center, and sales is considered a "profit" center. How, with that kind of insane distortion of reality, can sensible decisions on ROI possibly be made?
AT&T Mobile, spent more than $8 million on AdWords in June, a big month for the company, which was supporting the launch of iPhone 4.
And people wonder why searching for apple is returning almost entirely big brand corporate results. Follow the money.
Considering Google is a huge company and gets all of its income from advertising you should expect to see some big spenders on Adwords.
If there were not, then Google would be on it sway out.
Like others above I query the ROI on adwords, that's why my small company does not spend any money on it. Plus the fact that its too time intensive.
When you are real big it's not just about conversions it's about branding. Keep pounding your name into the customers head. You pay $2.00 a click and get a 2 year contact at a hundred a month. Lots of room for advertising everywhere. Plus you get a returning customer after that $$$ Do the math and it's all good...