Hello everyone, first of all I am not a specialist in anything IT and sorry for my English.
If you prefer not to read the context you can go directly to what is written in bold.
I have a company that sells luxury leather goods and I hired a company that manages my "google ads". I chose it for the price... wrong!. I am not satisfied with them.
In the entire city we are only 5 competitors of luxury leather products.
Of which I am the leader in sales in "physical stores" but my performance in virtual sales is very bad, in fact I am the worst by far (these things are known because in fact the market is very small and we all find out what what others do).
So my luxury goods company (called A) works with the agency "ads1".
My competitor B works with agency "ads2", wich is one of the best agencies in the city (I always wanted to work with them until I found out they worked with my competitor B).
B publishes in ads 24/7/365, almost always in position 1 or 2.
The other competitors work with agencies too but the virtual leaders are the B-ads2 tandem.
Ads2 recently contacted me to offer their services. They told me something like "you are the king of physical sales, you can be the king of virtuals sells too."
BUT ads2 continues to work with B as well, that is, it would be A and B who "fight for leadership" but we have the same agency!. In a mass market (soda) a customer is a drop in the ocean, but in these luxury items a only customer can makes the diffrence... because the customers are very few.
My question is:
Why would ads2 agency benefit me over B if the B-ads2 tandem has been getting better and better for years?
In other words:
Why would "ads2" get me "the best SEM positions" and make me "the virtual king" if in that way ads2 would be harming "B, his usual partner"?
