Forum Moderators: open
We targeted three test clients, all in exremely competitive verticals: mortgage, casino, and debt consolidation.
I was reviewing early August referrers for the mortgage client, and was noticing a large number of very obscure search term referrers coming from Metacrawler. Phrases such as "Bank of America mortgage department".
Our contract with the mortgage client, has a distinct set of keywords to optimize for, and at $2.00 US a click, they didn't want "non-relevant" traffic, or optimization of competitive company proper names.
Well, 90% of the Metacrawler click throughs had referrers with the competitive companies such as: Citibank, Peachtree, GE Capital, etc, etc....
I couldn't believe my eyes, so I started doing searches on Metacrawler, and guess what? We were #1 or #2, for all of these terms. And the listings were all showing "Findwhat" as the referring engine.
I immediately contacted FindWhat customer service, and they didn't have a clue. I told them somebody needed to get back with me before the day was over. About an hour later, Pete Neuman, VP of Business Development contacted me, and we started reviewing the situation. (I had already captured findwhat pages, and metacrawler pages for proof).
It turns out that Findwhat uses what they call "Fast technology", a proprietary function they developed for obscure searches that don't produce any relevant results (relevant meaning nobody has bid for these search phrases)...
So, our bid of $1.81 for the term mortgage, was coming up in searches for "Bank of America mortgage department", and every other obscure term, that search users were typing at Metacrawler, and Findwhat....
I asked Pete Neuman how long they had been using this technology, and he replied, "For close to a year". I told him I wouldn't have bid on terms that had competitive company proper names for my client, and that I sure as HE!! wouldn't have bid $1.81 for "Bank of America mortgage department", nor would any other advertiser in his/her right mind!
I told him that if my client was aware of the situation, there was a good chance they would terminate their contract with my company. Pete said he wanted to get with the Director of Technology, and call me back.
Thirty minutes later call number two from Pete. They turned off the "Fast" technology on the word mortgage, but only by going to the CEO of Findwhat, that supposedly was reluctant to do so.
Pete was also very apologetic about the situation. I inferred to the philosophy of a PPC bid SE environement, in that the advertiser should only receive clicks on the keywords/phrases they selected. He said I would be credited the "stray" click throughs, and I said what about the rest of the advertisers that you have been ripping off for close to a year now? I couldn't believe nobody else had noticed this problem?
Pete asked me repeatedly what Findwhat could do to make it right, and every time I answered that I needed to evaluate the ramifications if my mortgage client cancelled because of this situation. When he realized I wasn't going to quietly go away, he then asked, "What I really wanted".
I told him that I was going to turn it over to my lawyer, and that if it got out into the Internet world, that Findwhat was defrauding their advertisers, it would be a huge case of negative PR for Findwhat...
The conversation got nasty from that point, and we concluded the conversation. I have turned over all of the documentation to my Attorney, and are evaluating what steps to take.
Neuman indicated that the rest of the advertisers were completely satisfied with the "FAST" technology (like they took customer satisfacation surveys!), and they had received no other complaints.
Now tell me, if you bid $2.90 US for the term "casino", and you were charged $2.90 for a Metacrawler click through for the search term, "where can I find free casino games", how would you feel as an advertiser?
Now for the bonus kicker! During the conversation (When Pete was still trying to find common ground with me, and be friends), he mentions the fact that Findwhat also owns an SEO company, BeFirst.com... Talk about a conflict of interest? Remember when Goto was compiling bid lists from advertisers in the same vertical as their own IdeaLab networks, then not only using the compiled bid lists, but having the IdeaLab site, outbidding Goto's other advertisers?
We have serveral clients who have tried FindWhat (on their own), and been pleased with the results. I have forwarded them this url.
Appreciate you sharing it with us.
So you've caught them.....
Yes, I believe there WAS a post questioning the validity of FW's kw referrals over in SEF about 4 or 5 months ago. I believe the username was "grannie" or "grandma" --something like that, if you're trying to search for more documentation.
About 2 weeks ago, you posted that RocketLinks was providing referrals, while no one else has commented similarly. While I am in NO WAY implying that RL is known to be using "Fast" technology (as in: pulled a fast one), I wonder if you've researched any of the other PPC engines looking for suspiciously broad phrases?
RC - Rocketlinks doesn't pass referring information on the majority of their clicks, but we tracked the RL clicks to a unique destination URL, and conversions were in line with everything else we do.
The Findwhat situation leaves me a bit perplexed. Their sign up page specifically used the verbage, "Only pay for the keywords, and/or phrases that you bid on"...... Neuman tried to twist that sentence around on me, and that's what really set me off. Either the guy thinks that those of us in SEO are a bunch of idiots, or he was trying to force feed me, that Findwhat didn't care what I did with the information on their "FAST" technology serving up clicks that advertisers did not bid on. I've a good mind to issued a press release, and contact Danny Sullivan, but am keeping a bit quiet on the issue, until I hear from my attorney.
On the other hand, (please no flames its just IMHO) anybody
who bids $1.80 per one click deserves what he gets.
Pretty close knit community here, compared to SEF, so I feel comfortable discussing the FindWhat situation openly. Neuman at FindWhat tried to downplay having to credit back thousands of advertisers.
But new Findwhat partners are popping out of the woodwork, and the FAST technology is still displaying high bid listings for very obscure phrase searches.. Go to epilot.com and do a search for "online casino liability logistics". You'll get a group of FindWhat advertisers paying out in excess of $2.00 per click for the term "casino"..... My phrase may be a little obscure, but just making a point. You can put the word casino with any other part of a phrase that has no bids in Findwhat, and the same poor group of advertisers get displayed...
As for the $1.80 a click, don't worry bout the flame your way. I got a client that pays us $2.00 a click, and wants maximum coverage for their very specific keyword list. Hence some experimenting in Sprinks, Findwhat, RL, and Kanoodle... :)
I hate forkin out a penny for a click, but I'll take 10% of 1000 clicks at $2.00, over 100% of 0 clicks at $2.00 anyday.... double :)
Can I join in?
Would you like to hear from Findwhat in this thread?
It is not like befirst is trying to hide their relationship with findwhat.com
[befirst.com]
Now befirst has a client wine.com
They are not bidding for #1 on the word wine.
When you do a search on get very best wine there are no paid results.
When you do a search on very best wine there are no paid results.
When you do a search on best wine tthey come up as an INK result.
mortgage and casino seem to be effected by FAST where wine or realtor etc. are not.
Hi Mike, welcome. As for the term 'realtor' --here's an interesting point; it's trademarked... they'd better not be selling clicks on that without some sort of co-op arrangement with the Nat Assoc of Realtors.
You are correct and ALL the PPCs are selling it.
>It is not like befirst is trying to hide their relationship with findwhat.com
I'm sure they wouldn't, my concern is are findwhat fully upfront about the relationship and particularly is any information shared?
Good point!
Just so happens I'm scheduled to attend a the NAR convention in a few days. If I get a chance, I'll jot a note to their legal staff on this one. Should be fun to watch the $$$$ ring up in their eyes.
Who is at fault?
The PPCs, the buyers, your site if you have an affiliate search box and got paid?
Interesting but it's the "FAST" issue we need to get back to.
Word Mark REALTOR
Owner Name (REGISTRANT) NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REAL ESTATE BOARDS
Owner Address 22 WEST MONROE STREET CHICAGO ILLINOIS ASSOCIATION ILLINOIS
Owner Name (LAST LISTED OWNER) NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS
Owner Address 430 NORTH MIGHICAN AVENUE CHICAGO ILLINOIS 606114087 CORPORATION ILLINOIS
Attorney of Record MICHAEL F. THIEL
Serial Number 71-540013
Registration Number 0519789
Filing Date 07/17/1947
Registration Date 01/10/1950
Mark Drawing Code (1) TYPED DRAWING
Register PRINCIPAL
Affidavits SECT 15.
Type of Mark COLLECTIVE TRADEMARK
Renewals 1ST RENEWAL 1970.01.10
Agreed. moved to more appropriate thread [webmasterworld.com]
