Forum Moderators: open
Are users of search engines really unaware that a "Sponsored Listing", "Recommended Listing", "Partner Site" or whatever, is there simply because a business has parted with cash to have it there? Or do they really believe that a SE endorses and whole heartedly recommends all these sites?
Does it really have to be spelt out to people or can users be credited with a little intelligence in this day and age?
Any thoughts appreciated.
He has bought probably 15,000.00 worth of goods online in the past 18 months. Until about a week ago (when I told him about Google) he used MSN for most of his searches because it was his default home page. He always went to the "featured sites" because he believed they were picked by the search engine as the best site!
In short ... he and many like him have been duped and have fallen victim to the SE's carefully crafted marketing terms used as a substitute for "paid advertisement".
(Added) He was very surprised when I told him about the paid sites versus the sites listed by relevance. I showed him on all the search engines which were the paid sites and which were deemed the most relevant by the search algorithms. I set his default home page to Google which he balked at to begin with.
I just called him to see what he thought of Google vs. MSN after having used it for a week and he loves it! He said he feels like a fool for not having realized that the featured and sponsored sites were not necessarily the best sites available and said, "I'll never use MSN or Yahoo again ... that is a sneaky thing to do to people!"
I couldn't agree more.
Just because there are a lot of people out there who may feel stupid once they find out that the featured and sponsored listings are paid ads and are not necessarily the most comprehensive or informative or even have the widest range of products available ... why would you want to jeopardize your sites' ROI?
It seems to me that that's the whole point of "pay for placement" listings. Grab the money and run and to hell with whether or not your customer realizes that its a paid ad or not.
The SE's have taken great pains to come up with carefully crafted and might I add, ambiguous marketing terms such as "featured sites" ... in an effort to make the consumer believe whatever they are going to believe, while purposely putting a distinctly "this is not an ad" look and feel to it.
I've said it before and I'll say it again ... Overture and AOL are on the up and up and identify paid ads as paid ads. I have no problem with either of them. I don't even care that they have the paid ads placed at the top of the serps. Fair is fair and everyone needs to make a living.
However, what Excite, MSN, Alta Vista, Yahoo and all the other wanna be's are doing is nothing short of misrepresentation and they will undoubtedly pay for that very huge mistake in the end as more and more people become aware of their duplicity. Can't happen soon enough for me! They deserve to be abandoned by Joe public and I have no doubt that they will be ... over time.
In the long term it's difficult to convert people away from their favourite search engines, if on the other hand you're up front and honest with them, perhaps they'll stay around a bit long - well at least until they discover Google.
I think a more important question to ask would be:
Of those here at WebmasterWorld that have pay for placement listings on Overture, which SE's participating in the partner programmes produce the most hits? My guess would not be Aol or Overture itself, but rather Yahoo and MSN followed by Alta Vista and Excite. I'm willing to be proven wrong???
If you do it though, I'd like to know what difference (if any) it makes to your hits/visits from the various engines.
Also, what about Google? Do you really want that in your title or description on Google?
(edited by: Liane at 4:42 pm (utc) on Feb. 7, 2002)
I would prefer that the ads were clearly labeled as such:
1.) As mentioned, users feel duped when they "find out" that they really are ads, and I don't want my branding efforts tainted by less than ethical advertising vendors; guilt by association.
2.) ROI- Like any advertiser, I am looking for the best ROI and not a clickstream when I pay for ADS, if visitors are simply searching for info and not in "buy mode", I don't want to pay for the click.
3.) There is nothing inherently evil about advertisements, I normally ignore ads until I am ready to BUY, and then the ads become very important to me. I believe that others operate the same way..otherwise there would be no such thing as advertising.
4.) It is distasteful to dupe internet users; we have a responsibilty to keep the internet a clean , safe place to visit and *spend*. Shady practices hurt the entire internet.
Right now it looks like most ads are being presented "national enquirer style"..I would prefer national geographic.
Okay, I'm done
The whole concept really needs to be played with carefully, and I'm of the opinion that most users do know what they're doing, so why risk a bad image by trying to be sneaky with terminology.
To be totally honest though, I'll give it a few days and if people turn out to avoid the "Paid Listings" they will suddenly turn back into "Recommended Listings".
There's nothing at all evil about advertisements ... only those that masquerade as something other than what they are! You are absolutely right about the guilt by association. It is the only reason I have not become involved in pay for placement programmes.
I despise the slimey use of "featured sites" or in Excite's case ... no identification whatsoever. I have spent several years building my company reputation and have no intention of allowing anything (particularly something outside of my control) to diminish what has taken so long to cultivate.
I too look for ads when I am ready to buy, but to be honest, when shopping on the internet, I always skip over the paid listings and go straight to the web site listings.
I have been in the marketing/advertising/sales game for over 27 years now ... a cover or centerfold position has never swayed my purchasing decision one way or the other! The "product" itself, the way it is presented and the product information accompanying the ad was what influenced my final decision. I research before I buy and I think most people do as well. The problem is that a large majority of people will only go so far as the top 3 to 5 listings when doing their investigating on the internet ... and guess what they find in those top 3 to 5 positions on most SE's today!
Regular listings on "pay for placement engines" only serve to lend credence to the the paid listings. Paid listings certainly couldn't stand alone. If they could, Overture would have dumped the rest of us by now. I for one resent having my sites used that way.
I may just be splitting hairs here... As I read this thread, it occurs to me that most commercial sites are in fact ads. I agree that PFP sites should be accurately labelled, and that calling them "partner sites" or "featured sites" is deceptive. But, upon reflection, the real question is how they got at the top, which the word "advertisement" doesn't exactly cover. And is a site any less an ad because someone optimized the content etc to get it to where it would be visible?
This is probably a good place to ask... does anyone know what has happened with Nader's lawsuit about all this?
