Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 18.104.22.168
If a stock went up 15% in a single day, it would be national news.
If Wal-mart decides to raise their prices by 50% overnight, this would be national news.
So when Google suddenly deactivates and raises the price of keywords by 1,000% or more in a single day (.05 to $5/click or more), wouldn't the Drudge Report or Fox News or somebody want to pick that story up?
I'm sure there are enough webmasters here that someone knows somebody in the news business!
News Alert: Google has unsettled thousands of small businesses with a 1,000+% increase in pay-per-click cost without warning, sending many small mom-and-pop companies out of business almost overnight.
Here's a quote from a popular web site, WebmasterWorld.com:
So that puts us at $573,000 per month that Google has decided they don't want. A tangible $6.8m in annual revenue that is gone right now.
How many more? At this rate, I bet we could find almost $20m in annual revenue impact -- and given that there's probably 10-100x more people out there that have been impacted that are reporting here ... those would be some significant numbers!
Every time some AdSense publishers get banned or certain types of publishers see their earnings drop, we see dire predictions that publishers are abandoning AdSense for YPN. Yet every quarter, AdSense revenues go up and "Ads by Goooooogle" boxes remain on vast numbers of Web sites.
Similarly, every time Google Search does a new update or tightens the screws with a filter, we see claims that users are fed up with Google and are switching to Yahoo and MSN Search. Yet Google's share of the search market continues to grow.
Let's remember, too, that some unaffected advertisers are pleased by the recent changes (as we've seen in posts on this forum). Those advertisers won't be going anywhere soon.
The new landing-page/quality-score requirements may be news for those who are affected, but for many (most?) advertisers, they're non-events. And for the vast majority of consumers and media reporters, they're non-news. To put it another way, who outside of this industry pays much attention to what's being said on SEM Web sites or in SEM newsletters? (And for that matter, who can claim with straight face that coverage of Google's AdWords changes in the SEM media have been universally negative?)
Also, stories where a large chunk of the people "hit" seem to resort to name calling and personal insults at the drop of a hat tend to have low credibility with many people (journalists, readers, etc), especially when it seems clear that many of the name callers are incapable of or unwilling to look at their own situation logically and/or from another point of view.
So, I'm sure that at least some entirely innocent AS/AW users have been hit by G's QS change, but I'm also pretty sure from the ugly noises being made by many of the complainants that G may be better off without their bile and trouble and grey-to-black hattery. And those ugly noises will probably be seen by G the same way.
If I sound skeptical of the "unhappy advertisers abandon Google" scenario, it's just because most of us have read similar claims on the AdSense and Google News forums month after month, year aftar year.
If it were restricted to webmasters, I'd agree with you. But I'm hearing it from clients. People whose Adwords accounts I manage.
The longer Google stays in denial, the worse the fall will be when it comes.
Set up a website that professionally describes the issue then send polite emails to the high dollar Google partners, sponsors, advertisers...
I like the bit about the website, but instead of emailing everybody, which takes ages, it would be faster to just email Reuters. :)
[edited by: Alex_Miles at 8:00 pm (utc) on July 22, 2006]
It's a bland, somewhat interesting read, and shows Brin pushing this as a selling point, which to him, well, it is.
Again, I'm skeptical, but why speculate? Google's quarterly earnings reports will tell the real story soon enough.
You think real stories are told in earnings reports?
I like price action.
It was a prepared talking point in the earnings announcement
Yes. Funny that. They had the counter argument ready.
Of course its possible to blow a hole a mile wide in it. They just figured no-body would, because they'd be too busy redesigning websites like good little proles.
[edited by: Alex_Miles at 12:42 am (utc) on July 23, 2006]
But I doubt it will.
A story that hyped up lost revenue with real life examples would probably get attention if placed in the right context... would be good for short termist stock holders to get a bit a bit of inside knowledge on it. Not that the founders care about share prices, as long as they think they are making users happy and alienating advertisers, they really dont care (I mean, they didnt want us there, they hate ads).
But yes, it could get coverage if done correctly.
Website with a name, and address and a phone number for an official or semi-offical pressure group to send out press releases.
Man, I hate that. Its so old.
And the way I usually do it. A private email to a journalist or an editor or two with an amusing slant on that part of the story already covered, with sources.
I prefer the second way because it gives the target nothing to aim at, but the first way creates a bigger splash.
There is a third way my friend does it and that is to write the article yourself and submit it for publication, often this article will be about someone she knows caught up in the situation.
All of these require topicality and an angle.