homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.205.242.179
register, free tools, login, search, subscribe, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Subscribe to WebmasterWorld
Visit PubCon.com
Home / Forums Index / Advertising / Pay Per Click Engines
Forum Library, Charter, Moderator: open

Pay Per Click Engines Forum

    
Who do you trust longterm?
Google - MSN - Yahoo
ebuilder




msg:3018555
 4:41 pm on Jul 22, 2006 (gmt 0)

I received a survey from Yahoo several weeks ago and at least 6 of the questions delat with the trust issue. At the time I thought they were just trying to gauge how they ranked. Now after the past two weeks I think they were onto something more important. Has our competitiion Google gained the trust of their customers. And if not how can we exploit that. Well how would you answer that survey today. Even then before this happened I ranked Google last. My intuitions were right.

After only 2 weeks using MSN they have earned my trust. How about you.

 

TypicalSurfer




msg:3018581
 4:59 pm on Jul 22, 2006 (gmt 0)

Its economics, MS doesn't need fraudulent click revenue, with income at 13 billion last quarter (10 times that of google) MS can play the game differently as it relates to MSN, they don't even NEED search revenue to play the game. Redmond is probably more focused an Bill Gates's legacy and it won't be tainted by click fraud.

Google on the other hand derives 99% of its revenue from clicks and has a huge conflict of interest when reducing revenue/fighting click fraud. If their search revenue drops, the sky falls.

MSN long term will win the trust.

rbacal




msg:3018737
 8:13 pm on Jul 22, 2006 (gmt 0)

ts economics, MS doesn't need fraudulent click revenue, with income at 13 billion last quarter (10 times that of google) MS can play the game differently as it relates to MSN, they don't even NEED search revenue to play the game. Redmond is probably more focused an Bill Gates's legacy and it won't be tainted by click fraud.

Just laughing at this. Been tracking paid ads displayed on msn and google on the same search terms. For a number of my test terms on msn, msn is displaying about 95% of the results being junk sites (we'd call them MFA), with no content, no nothing except trying to get visitor victims to click.

So, out of let's say 10 ads 9 are junk.

Google's ahead on this one.

Which, among other reasons, we won't advert. on MSN. In fact, as google/adwords has more MFA's we'll cut our ads. We turned them off until recently. But google is a lot better.

TypicalSurfer




msg:3018746
 8:29 pm on Jul 22, 2006 (gmt 0)

msn is displaying about 95% of the results being junk sites (we'd call them MFA), with no content, no nothing except trying to get visitor victims to click.

Right, google injected a noxious system into the web and it has effects on all ad systems, thats why google will ultimately fail in the trust area, they are the source of the pollution.

[edited by: TypicalSurfer at 8:31 pm (utc) on July 22, 2006]

poster_boy




msg:3018772
 9:09 pm on Jul 22, 2006 (gmt 0)

MSN will be under pressure to grow search revenue just like every other engine. You paint them as the picture of health, but they're bouncing off 52-week lows...

As the previous poster mentioned, their organic results are *terrible*, they're a mere fraction of Google, their growth is slower, they have fewer sources of traffic, and they'll be under pressure to push the boundaries of quality in order to grow.

They've only been in this game for - what - three months?... they're learning their way. Once on their feet, their CPCs will undoubtedly rise and their quality will undoubtedly decline.

As for Yahoo, I'd have appreciated them hitting their promised date on "Panama" - as the miss caused me to change back my growth projection to zero instead of the improvement I assigned to the release, instead of wasting my time surveying about "trust".

chief72




msg:3018903
 1:43 am on Jul 23, 2006 (gmt 0)

I think MFA sites probably represent the largest affront to consumer confidence (really, the whole concept is just so cynical and insulting). Sadly these sites seem to have survived G's latest quality algo changes quite well (I'm still seeing heaps, anyone else?). Personally I would like to see them banned outright. It would certainly be a good PR move on G's part for both users and other advertisers who have had more benign pages hit hard by said changes.

Ads using dynamic titles with bulk kword lists are obviously (to me at least) often a problem. We've all heard the funny stories about dead cats etc. The other day I had the opportunity to buy myself a B#$?!*d (unpleasant word referring to illegitimate children). Now whilst the ad probably linked to a number of products with the kword prominently featured, does this make it well targeted? I would argue it does not.

I'll sign off with an anecdote. Last night I arrived home late from a music festival in Byron Bay (Australia) near where I live. I had missed the football earlier in the evening so I thought I would check the score online. I Googled the search term Sydney Swans (an Australian football side and by the way last years premiers). I was happy to find that they had won though also a little perplexed by the one sole Adwords ad my search had triggered, an ad relating to erectile dysfunction. Now whilst the assumption on the part of the advertiser may be somewhat insulting, I found the correlation quite humorous and even a little clever. One could possibly even argue that based on demographic, the ad was actually quite well targeted. Anyone? (this point is intended to be light hearted)

rbacal




msg:3018948
 3:17 am on Jul 23, 2006 (gmt 0)


I think MFA sites probably represent the largest affront to consumer confidence (really, the whole concept is just so cynical and insulting). Sadly these sites seem to have survived G's latest quality algo changes quite well (I'm still seeing heaps, anyone else?).

Actually, my monitoring of the MFA for some of the sectors I watch (which are probably not representative) is that 1) there's a lot less 2) some of the old ones are gone. 3) some of the old ones have changed domains to spam the ads 4) there's some new ones and 5) they are fluxing a lot (appearing, not appearing, changing where in the listings).

And, that MSN has ALL of the old ones, even the ones that have left google.

(I was referring to their paid ads in my earlier message, NOT their SERPS, which I happen to like).

Anyway, it's a start for google on this issue. Frankly, it's not good enough yet. We'll monitor and decide on a day to day basis whether we'll turn on more campaigns, bid higher or lower, or shut it all down and those decision are going to be based on whether google gets rid of virtually ALL of these sites or not.

We didn't get hit by price increases. But we won't advertise amidst junk ads, or compete with them.

trannack




msg:3019104
 10:07 am on Jul 23, 2006 (gmt 0)

My feelings are that with the new algo's Google are in a way, forcing the MFA sites displaying in the main Adsense adverts, to advertise on MSN. When someone clicks on these MSN adverts, then on an adsense ad, they are taking the traffic back to Google and away from MSN. Quite clever really. Ultimately I imagine MSN will ban any advertisers that take traffic away from MSN - much as Yahoo do. But over time I would imagine that MSN will introduce a similar programme to Adsense, and so it goes on....

Perhaps the algo changes need to come from Adsense rather than Adwords. If Adsense assessed its advertisers first, and instead of giving accounts to a "person" gave the account to a domain name, they could assess whether the domain name has relevant content etc, thus eliminating the sites that purely have a block of adsense adverts. Your thoughts?

rbacal




msg:3019289
 4:48 pm on Jul 23, 2006 (gmt 0)

But over time I would imagine that MSN will introduce a similar programme to Adsense, and so it goes on....

Maybe. But Adwords is a completely different animal and process compared to both MSN and Yahoo/overture, and the financial implications are completely different. The reason is that google's formula for displaying adwords isn't completely price driven, while the other's are.

Google HAD to do this to protect revenue (even in the short term), while the others don't.

poster_boy




msg:3020125
 2:56 pm on Jul 24, 2006 (gmt 0)

The reason is that google's formula for displaying adwords isn't completely price driven, while the other's are.

MSN's isn't completely price driven. And, whenever Yahoo gets around to releasing Panama... Q4 or beyond... it won't be either.

Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Advertising / Pay Per Click Engines
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved