However, just below PPC ads (we usually rank under top 3), I find 'traditional advertisers' with multiple domains/sites, covering rank (traditional) 1-3. Traditional listings allow for more ad space and even show sub domains/sites with lengthy descriptions. As a paying advertiser naturally this upsets me. After all we pay dearly to get and maintain top PPC ranks. Or in other words the traditional ranks are funded by the paying Ad Words community.
As the expense for google ads now comes close to being no longer economically viable, and top spots are hard fought and paid for, I am curious to know what googles long term policy is on this issue.
Rbacal - with demand prices go up. As an advertiser I then must decide if the ad works for me. This has nothing to do with being a 'business failure';-) I simply will look for other ad channels which allow for sufficient margin after deduction of client acquisition expenses.
If you don't understand your customers, or how they use search engines, or even what search engines are for (and that's what it appears to be the case), then you may very well be headed to serious problems.
If you don't understand these Internet channels and how potential customers use them you ARE better off looking at other ad channels, where hopefully, you better understand the medium, and understand customer behavior in that medium.
If competition from the serps is his problem, then the issue is that his CTR is down, which doesn't directly affect his costs, or probably his ROI.
I don't think that's his problem, from latter messages. His problem is probably that he IS getting the visitors, but can't convert them, and thinks this is somehow related to competition from the serps (which could be part of it). Or that click prices are too high given his margins (Now, who's fault is it if someone has a faulty business model?)
But it gets back to competence and skill. If you aren't converting (ie. it's not cost effective), then it comes down to one's own site, not google competition.
(all this is general, since I don't know how he makes money. For all I know he owns some of the MFA faked sites, and in that case, his "concerns" become clearer)
The SERP positions (whether resulting from SEO or other causes) are a form of exposure, just as advertizing is a form of exposure. That doesn't mean that all kinds of exposure are advertizing.
I think this really depends are your definition of advertising.
If you purposefully optimize your site to obtain high organic listings then you are doing it for a reason whether it is to make sales, generate leads, receive donations, rasie awareness for a cause, provide information on a topic, etc.
To me all of that is advertising.
If by advertising you mean only to make a monetary profit and by exposure you mean anything non commercial then I guess there is a difference but to me it is all a form of advertising.
Splitting hairs I guess :-)
3.) google allows loads of 'free' ads/listings through smartly SEO engineered websites. How far these sites contribute to the user experience is a matter of opinion. These free listings compete (under my keywords) directly against me.
As a blanket statement, this is not accurate whatsoever. I also love how you phrase it as 'allows' ... as if, to suppose, that SERPS shouldn't really be there - but Google just sort of *allows* it to happen.
I'm horrible at web design - basically, I butcher templates that I find over at Open Source Web Design to my needs for my sites. What I end up with is a horrible hybrid of CSS and legacy HTML. If you run my home page through an online validator, you'll see at least a few hundred errors. Thus, I have done no such 'smart SEO engineering' as you speak of.
I started my first site 5 months ago - tracking niche consumer electronics products as they're first rumored, then leaked, then announced, and then finally launched. My site defies 'smart SEO' in many many ways. But I didn't care, because I was having fun doing it - and it was providing value to my visitors.
Guess what? For a particular two-word keyphrase (very specific to the ultimate visitors I want) I'd been floating around in Google position #9 to #18 for months. I was happy to have it - occasionally being on the front page was good enough for me since this was just a hobby. Considering I do all my coding in notepad.exe, I considered myself lucky enough to have that! But last night, something changed -- and now my site has shot up to #2 in multiple Google datacenters. I've not changed my code or site design since the 4th of July holiday weekend. I've not 'smart SEO'd' it. For whatever reason, Google has finally determined that my site is very relevant for its niche - despite its lack of valid HTML and SEO'ing... the bump in traffic so far today has been amazing, and I just hope this holds for a while.
It depends on way too many factors to simply say that you can 'smart SEO' and you can automatically get to the top for any keyword. If that were the case, heck - I would apply my same approach here to a site for mortgages and loans, and would retire tomorrow! But that's not going to happen ... the reality is that sometimes you can SEO your way up higher, and sometimes without any SEO at all Google will rocket you upward based on other factors of what it considers 'useful' for searchers.
Oh, and I make less than $100 a day at this, and still maintain a full-time (50-hr a week at least) job outside of my web site work. So I have nowhere near the time or capital resources that you appear to have ... yet I've somehow managed to stumble into a #2 spot for now ...
It's somewhat sad to admit it, but Google will probably move towards WiredInAsia way... where paid ads will take more space than the free results...
He did raise a valid point (in some disturbing way)... that primary Google's profit comes from Paid Ads and like it or not Google has to listen to paying advertisers... Those advertisers just want to get the most out their $$$... they want more exposure, more click, and, hopefully, better conversion.
Have to admit that other SE's are moving in that directions too - look at Overture (first results are paid - excatly what WiredinAsia wants), MSN now has more ads, and so does Yahoo...
Hey, funny thing, my boss asked me about the same question the other day - "hey, is that little thing on the right? Is what I'm paying thousands of dollars for?!" - "What are those big things in the middle?!" - "Why aren't we there? Don't we pay tons of money?!"...
I, personally, would not want Google to downgrade free results - hehe- I'm still in the Wild West Google...
Tip for WiredInAsia: I think you confused a lot of people here (and even pissed some) by continually misnaming things - those "Traditional Listings" are called the "free results" - those are NOT "ads" (not by any stretch) - those not "advertisers" who put those "free results" up there - google did. It also was google, that picked the text and size...
He did raise a valid point (in some disturbing way)... that primary Google's profit comes from Paid Ads and like it or not Google has to listen to paying advertisers...
Sure, the way it listened to paying advertisers when it introduced landing-page Quality Scores. :-)
Have to admit that other SE's are moving in that directions too - look at Overture (first results are paid - excatly what WiredinAsia wants), MSN now has more ads, and so does Yahoo...
Yahoo has, shall we say, a sketchier history than Google does when it comes to search. (Remember the pay-for-inclusion scheme?) MSN's track record in search is fairly new, but its business model has been far less consistent than Google's over the years. Google has built a huge company by offering clean, useful SERPs, so an ad-dominated Google would be as dumb as Coca-Cola's introduction of New Coke [en.wikipedia.org].
Do spill the the beans,, $100/day :-)
Stop getting all new-tech on me!
The real Web 2.0 tool is "vi"!
Rgds
Damon
2.) same size for PPC ads as for traditional listings (i.e. more text for ads)
You might want to look into paid inclusion on the engines that support it. Most likely, you won't get the traffic volume of G, but you might get better ROI. In general, it seems like G doesn't work for you any more. Whenever I see/hear someone complain about negative cash flow, that suggests to me they need to spend their money somewhere else.
rbacal & Khensu - both of you argue that you 'understand' the internet and others, like myself', not. Personally I think your comments are rather naive as they lack a clear vision for what google is all about. google has been conceived from the start as a business. 'save the whales' corporate personas sell well. Do not make the mistake though to fall for this cleverly painted public front.
I do get a feel from this thread though that google may make most of their money from smaller AdWords customers. If this is the case their client base would rise from 'traditional listings'. So in fact by allowing limited cheating when it comes to rankings google engages in a sweet soft sell. If this assumption is correct than of course extra space for larger advertisers would discourage potential future customers, as the google story would be tainted by a too commercial image.
QUESTION
Do you agree that googles chief asset is its dominant position in the search market, result in the billions off searchs done on google
by multiple millions of people.
However, as google is a business and not a non profit organization google does pay attention to it's customers. I.e. those who pay the bills.
But as I mentioned in my last post I now have come to believe that it is quite possibly googles attention to appear rather non commercial as to attract potential advertisers. If google feeds primarily on small advertisers then my request for more coverage will get un-heard. At least at this point in time, as yes, more prominent ads from larger sponsors may simply not appeal to the SEO community. After all, the professional SEO community, including those who try daily to tweak their pages to get top rank, present another consumer segment, with little attention paid to by other media.
Also, when thinking about it, googles ad system and philosophy may have never been designed for a few large advertisers, but rather has been built for an army of loyal followers. After all, this very thread confirms this. Look past all the bitching about google foul play, the very same guys do strongly defend google.
Yes, I think you've got it.
Explicit paid SERPs placement has had SUCH negative PR for SEs in the past, and is so much against G's way of thinking IMHO, that things will not be going the way that you want any time soon.
And I think that a lot of us believe that if G *tried* to do what you want then they'd lose the traffic that you want, ie you cannot have your cake and eat it.
That said, G seems to have snuck in a thick layer of paid-for icing around the top and side of every SERPs page without too much screaming, so maybe they'll continue to seek the sweet-spot between revenue and reputation... I'm sure that it will move around a bit...
Rgds
Damon
Google does need its paying advertisers, but if it loses the surfers the advertisers will go too! I think Google manages to balance this reasonably well, and I'm confident they strive to improve their service to the surfer as their end customer as the source of their long term business.
QUESTION No2
If google changes the ratio of organic search results to paid adverts, substantially in favour off paid adverts,
do you believe that googles level of traffic can be sustained. If you believe so, support your assertion with facts/examples
P.S. If you can do this, then we've got problems those off us with the cash :-)
hmmm, toomer lets talk about the merits off notepad SEO :-)Do spill the the beans,, $100/day :-)
Quite simple ... when you create your code and run it through a HTML validator - - make sure it comes up with a LOT of these types of errors on your page:
-an attribute value must be a literal unless it contains only name characters.
-element "font" undefined
-there is no attribute "color"
-there is no attribute "align"
-an attribute value specification must be an attribute value literal unless SHORTTAG YES is specified
-end tag for "br" omitted, but OMITTAG NO was specified
-an attribute value must be a literal unless it contains only name characters
-document type does not allow element "table" here; missing one of "button", "map", "object", "ins", "del", "noscript" start-tag
Make sure there's at least 1,000 of those on your page. And do it all with notepad.exe. That should rocket you up to #2 in the SERPs in about 5 months.
Or maybe not. Your Mileage May Vary. :-)
And all those SEO engineered sites don't pay. This must also bug google. But I guess at the moment it is as good as it gets for google. Plus by adjusting the min. bids (and I am sure the dial is there), they can drive revenues as required. Once revenues turn flat though, you will find google will address the issue of more ad space for advertisers.
For examples where the searcher finds just about only commercially driven ads/listings you don’t have to look far. Pharmaceuticals, apparel, travel, financial services etc.. If you take all these ‘traditional listings’ and weigh revenues generated against the sum of ad revenue of paying advertisers, you probably will find a direct financial relationship. I.e. AdWords clients pay for the free listings, who in return enrich their owners. So a % of ‘traditional’ listings is needed, with a controlled quality contents to keep the show going.
In that sense google’s algorithm is corrupted as it allows for many to be carried by a few. Participants of this forums will never agree due to their biased stand, but advertisers large or small will address googles with this issue increasingly.
vite_rts - already under many commercial keyword combinations the google customer (searcher) only finds ads. These consist of mostly 'traditional listings' AND PPC ads.
Here's the problem. You don't seem to grasp or understand what an AD is, and an AD isn't.
An ad in any media is something that an ADVERTISER specifically requests, usually pays for, and controls the content of the ad.
The CONTENT on which an ad is placed (in this case the search listings), is NOT requested by anyone, and is not paid for to the media owner, and its content is NOT under the control of the "beneficiary". It is NOT negotiated, and in fact has little to do with the wishes and wants of the owner of the site that is listed.
This is such a basic distinction in any field, and it's been pointed out to you in different words, that it moved me to suggest that you may run into business difficulties, because this is really a very essential aspect of marketing.
You seem to think that everything is an ad.
Maybe you haven't been around the Internet to understand why people use it, how they use it, and what they want.
Google monetizes content (listings) in the same way that adsense publishers monetize THEIR content. It just so happens that google content is the search listing, and millions of people go FOR that content every day.
The concepts of ADS, and CONTENT (or editorial content) are essential in any media, whether it's newspapers, magazines, etc, and it's one distinction that is still valid on the Internet.
Why are you having such difficulty with that distinction?
QUESTION No2 RESTATED
If google changes the ratio of organic search results to paid adverts, substantially in favour off paid adverts,
do you believe that googles level of traffic can be sustained. If you believe so, support your assertion with facts/examples
Its an explicit question, and you didn't answer the question explicitly.
Look man,there are actually quite a few other search engines that do what you want, e.g. I did a search just now on a search engine that has pretentions off being numero 4,,
An I suddenly realised that one of the reasons i don't ever use erm is that their ratio would probably make you happy, tis hard work getting past their adverts :-)
Its no accident that GOOGLE/YAHOO/MSN the real search engines kinda look just the same,
That 3 giant companies telling you that this is the right way to run our business, an
You, Mr WIA, you disagree,,, well thats cool too
have fun,
You took the bait!
Thanks eWhisper for re-activating this thread.
After I read through some of the comments in response to my first post, I only feel like stating my point again, as some of you completely missing the key point. Let me try this again, from a different angle though.
He went and had the thread re-opened and he is doing exactly what he did in round one with a different spin.
wired in asia is grandstanding for airtime.
The bigger the thread gets the more exposure he has and that is what he really wants.
You cannot compare google to traditional media. google acts as an intermediary where it summarizes listings based on their internal quality rating. A search engines is not the original content provider. It rather re-directs. Google also does not provide any editorial. Google has no new news, neither it pays 3rd party providers to supply any new or articles. Yahoo/msn may do all this. Google does not.
Looking at the facts, you have to agree that if you search for 'financial widgets', most likely you find just about all traditional listings under search results advertising exactly that particular product. And there is nothing wrong with it. But it is for this reason I refer to traditional listings as 'ads'. They simply advertise/sell a product. Truth is that the commercialization of the Internet has changed search engines into ad channels. Google drives ads home to the audience, paid and non-paid ads.
Now as google selects, according to their own standards, worthy links only, google takes on the added responsibility of placing these ‘ads’ in a particular order (1-10 etc.). So one could say that for many commercially driven keywords google consciously provides free advertising supported by a rating system. From an advertisers point, where I have opted to pay to be seen, rather then to opt for the SEO route, I do accept this only to a point. When I see a single advertiser under multiple links getting top priced ad copy for free, I feel the need to remind google of their prime responsibilities. Which are to match AdWords customers needs, as they do pay salaries at google.
This discussion is not about whether one understands the Internet, it is about google and it’s responsibilities.
You took the bait!
Yeah, I guess so. I think I'll just skip his reply and move myself to an elsewhere thread.
