So, is anyone here testing it, either as a client, or have you seen it as a consumer?
Any comments?
JP
could you post the link or sticky me the article please.
ta
briggidere
thanks for that
Year 1: 2% of searchers, 5% of advertisers
Year 2: 2.5-3% of searchers, 10-12% of advertisers
Year 3: 3.5-5% of searchers, 15-18% of advertisers
With pay-per-call rates 5-10X ppclick rates, the sky is the limit...
Will this cost the merchant money? What if it is an 800 number that the merchant provides, will the charge from the phone company still cost the merchant?
Guess those last two questions are for G-Guy when he is done with his turkey dinner.
You betcha - & far more than PPC
>>>>What if it is an 800 number that the merchant provides, will the charge from the phone company still cost the merchant?
Merchant not allowed to provide it.
AFAIK, it'll be a "virtual" number (not sure of correct terminology) but just as Skype had a beta last I looked offering "real" VOIP nos, so Google is likely to get a big block of VOIP nos which will allows them lots of scope to grow.
I met a UK co called "CallGen" at Pubcon in London in Sept and I believe they're currently offering what Google is testing.
The advertiser pays X per call received.
CallGen & the publisher then have a revenue share.
Think it'll be the same with Google. The phone co they use will prob get a tiny % of what Google gets but the volume is likely to be massive once it kicks off.
>>>>Patent Holder
Almost positive this process isn't patented and is unlikely to be?
Incidentally, a US company called ServiceMagic claims that they "screen" calls before passing callers over to the advertisers so as to ensure the advertiser isn't getting billed for spurious calls. However, I tested this 2 months ago and was put straight through to the advertiser & I'm pretty sure he was billed even though I'd no interest in his service..... If Google could manage such a screening process, this would lend massive credibility & would ensure rapid take-up but dunno how feasible it is?
It's nothing to do with click-to-call. In fact, there is no "click" involved.
Almost positive this process isn't patented and is unlikely to be?
Probably not due to prior disclosure and common use.
The "callto://" tag has been present in IE for years.
Also, nobody sued Skype yet, and they've been doing it for 18 months.
TJ
Hmmm - Sounds like G will actually be "pay per call" until the mass market uses VOIP at which time the "click" will come into use?
You might be right about that payday Tom....
Is Ingenio's patent global?
will actually be "pay per call" until the mass market uses VOIP at which time the "click" will come into use?
It doesn't require VoIP. The caller clicks and enters their phone number. Google then call the user, and connect the other end to the advertiser.
It's nothing like the Ingenio patent which is about displaying phone numbers on screen. Google do not do that.
TJ
That's true but do you not think that this is a short-term thing while they're waiting for VoIP to take off more than it already has?
I'm guessing the 3-5 year goal is that people click and then use Google Talk to connect to whichever advertiser?
But they can't monetize that yet which is why they're going the "click-to-call" route - for now.
That's true but do you not think that this is a short-term thing while they're waiting for VoIP to take off more than it already has?
Absolutely.
I'm guessing the 3-5 year goal is that people click and then use Google Talk to connect to whichever advertiser?
I agree. In fact, I've laid money on it.
But they can't monetize that yet which is why they're going the "click-to-call" route - for now.
For now? It's still click to call whether you terminate to a landline phone or to a VoIP phone. No VoIP? Then google asks you for a phone number. Have VoIP and callto:// assigned in your OS? Google boots the softphone up. Both are implementations of click to call. There is never a phone number displayed in the ad, which is the model that the Ingenio patent uses.
TJ
Why should I have to type in *my* number in order to connect to an advertiser. That's not how we use the Yellow pages and people don't like learning new things.
I'd far prefer to search for "red widget", see a no (instead of URL possibly) on SERPs, dial it on my normal phone and connect to the advertiser - 'cos thats what I'm used to.
But then that Ingenio payday starts to loom large...
This must be their eventual goal?
Personally I think you were right the first time - GTalk is the eventual goal. Click to talk offers great convenience to both sides.
Why should I have to type in *my* number in order to connect to an advertiser.
Good question. There are a few reasons which make it work well for both sides. I think the most significant is predictive dialling. You can search that for a full explanation (call centers use it), but in short, Google won't call you immediately unless an advisor is able to take your call immediately. The advertiser can set times when calls can be accepted etc. With predictive dialling and click to call, the potential shopper "clicks" and then thinks "right, that's done I can forget about it and wait for a call". That's opposed to calling a number and getting an engaged tone, or no-one answering.
There's value to both parties.
That's not how we use the Yellow pages and people don't like learning new things.
I remember similar comments about bricks and mortar stores and online buying - and not that long ago either - 1995?
I'd far prefer to search for "red widget", see a no (instead of URL possibly) on SERPs, dial it on my normal phone and connect to the advertiser - 'cos thats what I'm used to.
Searching the internet is itself a relatively new concept. You got used to it. Previously you would use a directory, such as the Yellow Pages to find a dealer in red widgets. Now you're using a search engine. You've adapted and learned a new thing because it was convenient to you.
TJ
Didn't believe it then myself - still coming to terms in fact :)
My memory being what it is, when someone reads me a 10-digit number, I have to write it down - or a few seconds later I'm wondering "was that -7283 or -7823?"
I hate being shown a number and then having to type it back in on the phone keypad... a reason why I appreciate how the 411 directory service automatically connects a call. That service used to cost $0.75 per call, and I paid $0.75 EVERY TIME. now it's free.
Google is about to hit another jackpot with this new killer feature.
I find Google's concept thrilling, but impractical.
And if Yahoo et al will use a similar mechanism, what about them?
Can someone elaborate on this from Google?
========================
So the obvious quesiton is...How would they stop prank calls?
I find Google's concept thrilling, but impractical.
And if Yahoo et al will use a similar mechanism, what about them?
========================
-Hollywood
In time i beleive Google will have a way to provide a "banned phone number" list - IMO ,this will take care of most fraud.
banned phone number
Quite.
What competitor would deliberately give their phone number to Google to make a prank call?
Anyone that did that deserves all that's coming to them for being so stupid. That's like stealing a credit card and then having goods you ordered on it delivered to your house ;-)
TJ
As soon as a phone is picked up, it also crosses FCC jurisdiction in the US.
Ingenio has been successfully using PPCall on AOL and other properties for a while now, and the amount of fraud is incredibly small (and many of these phone calls can be $20-$35+).
While of course fraud is an issue, when a phone is used there is more personal data being exchanged than with a 'click'. Phone numbers are closer tied to an individual than an IP address.
Things like calling cards and prepaid cell phones will have to be addressed eventually, but even these are easier to track than legit vs illegitimate clicks.
On:
"Ingenio has been successfully using PPCall on AOL and other properties for a while now, and the amount of fraud is incredibly small (and many of these phone calls can be $20-$35+)."
In AOL, I am seeing a phone number of the sponsor. But in Google, its the sponsor that will call you the visitor's inputed phone number.
I am unsure how you can do fraud protection against this. Or more likely the case, prank protection.
While Google may not charge the sponsor for obviously fake leads (calls), what about the outcry from random folks getting calls about products/services etc via pranksters?
Cant wait for juvenile kids to route a tampon sponsor call to their friends or anything else.
