December 8, 2008

Is the Bad Economy Bringing Branding Back?

So, here at SES Chicago, I keep hearing about a marketing practice I thought was dead - BRANDING. After all, aren't conversions, ROI, data, analytics and landing page testing/optimization the name of the day?

Maybe not in a tough economy. With consumers buying less (save for Black Friday and Cyber Monday), brands who brand during the recession may be the ones to emerge on top when the good times roll back in.

Integration will be key to that branding. Advertisers are shifting their dollars from expensive traditional methods to the better deal that is online advertising. Of course, all that bidding is driving/will drive up prices.

But this might lead to better deals for offline channels, which can make that integrated marketing campaign bloom.

Whatever your strategy, do your best to stay visible during the recession. You might just be the first retailer consumers turn to when they go shopping again.

Posted by Nathania Johnson at 3:36 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

October 29, 2008

SEW Experts: Search Trademark Hobby Kit

Who owns the trademark when it comes to search? A lot of angry litigation stems from the huge dollars that big brands measure from clicks on their trademarked terms in search results. In today's Searching for Meaning column, "Search Trademark Hobby Kit," Kevin Ryan asks if they're simply misunderstanding the search realm and buying funnel?

» Full story

Posted by Kevin Newcomb at 12:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

October 31, 2007

SEW Experts: Achieving Brand and Affiliate Harmony in Search

Forget brand vs. brand brawls in the search engines. The new UFC: Affiliate vs. brand. In today's Searching for Meaning column, "Achieving Brand and Affiliate Harmony in Search," Kevin Ryan recaps last week's SES @ A4U event in London, and tells you when you have crossed the line between affiliate or brand advocate and brand adversary.

Posted by Kevin Newcomb at 12:00 AM | Permalink

October 29, 2007

SEW Experts: Search and Brand Authenticity

CMO life expectancy shrinks. Search for brand authenticity grows. In today's Search Ads column, "Search and Brand Authenticity," Matt Spiegel tries to get to the bottom of this paradox. With the need to market an authentic brand, it's time for marketing to reclaim some of its glory.

Posted by Kevin Newcomb at 12:00 AM | Permalink

April 17, 2007

Today's Featured Expert Columns

In case any of you missed it, we recently launched a new series of daily columns, with expert writers covering several topics in search marketing. You can sign up to receive the latest SEW Experts headlines via XML/RSS feeds, or subscribe to each column individually to receive email newsletters. We will send these as each column publishes, beginning May 1.

Today's featured columns are:

Organic Search by Mark Jackson of Vizion Interactive Compliance Continued: Creating Internal Links for Organic Success Considering internal link structure and keyword rich anchor text makes your Web site more accessible to users and search engines, and lead to strong rankings naturally.

Little Biz by Carrie Hill of Blizzard Internet Marketing Branding Isn't Just for Big Businesses Search advertising can be intimidating to small businesses, but buying your company name in PPC ad programs can be both affordable and profitable.

Posted by Elisabeth Osmeloski at 2:28 AM | Permalink

March 20, 2007

Move Over Dave Pasternack. Travelocity's Glueck Wants The Hot Seat

It is amazing that even at the C level, the ability to make sweeping comments may show lack of knowledge - but gets attention.

Dave Pasternack, your 15 seconds of fame is up. Travelocity's CMO Jeffrey Glueck is now under the spotlight, following his comments that it is a waste of time buying nonbranded search terms and that measuring ROI of search is not possible.

Are they for real or just grabbing for headlines and link baiting?

The comments left at SEL's post suggest Gluecks ears will be burning for a few days.

If you have any insights into why these comments seem to be getting more prevalent lately please share them here.

Posted by Frank Watson at 10:58 AM | Permalink

February 20, 2007

IndustryBrains Continues to Grow Vertically

Since 2002, IndustryBrains has focused their contextual advertising program on a site-specific approach, giving advertisers the option for targeting premium content sites within their vertical marketplace.

Today, Marchex, the parent company of IndustryBrains, announced partnerships with seven new content publishers in several verticals: Business & Finance, Information Technology, and Home & Living. Marchex already has over 100 vertically focused and brand-name online publishers, such as BusinessWeek Online, The Motley Fool, and the Ziff Davis online properties.

The most recent partnership deals include InvestorVillage.com, Homes and Land, CIO Index.com, and WorldGolf.com, among others.

“As the company that created the site-specific approach to contextual advertising more than five years ago, we are very pleased to build upon our leadership position by adding seven high quality online publishers to our platform since the beginning of the year,” said Erik Matlick, IndustryBrains CEO. “As 2007 progresses, we look forward to further increasing our market share while helping all of our new partners more fully realize the value of their online brands, and providing advertisers with direct access to many additional highly targeted audiences.”

Posted by Elisabeth Osmeloski at 1:14 PM | Permalink

November 7, 2006

Use Of AdWords In US Senate Campaigns

The Rimm-Kaufman Group conducted a small study on how the US Senate candidates and campaigns used Google AdWords this weekend to "swing Senate races" in the last minute hustle and bustle. Here is a quick punch list of 'take aways' they sent me from the study:

* "Red" ads (pro-Republican or anti-Democrat) outnumbered "blue" Ads (pro-Democrat or anti-Republican) two-to-one.

* Blue ads were three times more likely to be negative than red ads.

* The most prevalent advertisers within this query set were Accoona (search engine ), Gather.com (social networking), CafePress (retailer), and GOPSenators.com (National Republican Senatorial Committee).

* No campaign ads referenced President Bush. Iraq and Al-Qaeda were only mentioned only twice (stopidioticforeignpolicy.com, against Jim Webb)

* Only two ads linked directly to videos (against George Allen: "macaca" and prescription drugs).

* Blue ads were more likely to include an exclamation point. Red ads were more likely to contain a question mark. * What struck Rimm-Kaufman Group most was how few political organizations are using Google.... And Yahoo, practically zip.

Posted by Barry Schwartz at 10:11 AM | Permalink

October 28, 2006

Mazda 'Craves' Clicks From Honda

Pontiac had a much celebrated TV ad in which the viewer was invited to “Google” its then-new Solstice convertible, but an ad for Mazda came up among the sponsored links. Here's Danny's earlier post on that episode. Now Mazda is at it again with its new CX-7.

Honda has mounted a clever user-generated content campaign (from RPA) for the newly redesigned CR-V. It also involves search (as well as traditional media). The name of the campaign is "Crave."

I just discovered that when you plug in the word "Crave" into 'The Google', you see the Honda campaign ad at the top of the page, but also an ad on the right for the new Mazda CX-7, inviting comparison:

CRaVe Mazda CX-7 Discover the 2007 Mazda CX-7. The SUV You Never Saw Coming™! MazdaCX-7Info.com

This hasn't made its way yet to Yahoo. This tactic, intended to intercept and divert potential CR-V buyers, is identical to the Miata vs. Pontiac Solstice strategy used before.

Posted by Greg Sterling at 4:47 PM | Permalink

October 9, 2006

Coke Counters Bad PR With Search Ads

Coca-Cola Counters Critics With Search Ads from MediaPost covers how Coke is using search marketing to get the word out about a court victory where it was accused by a Colombian trade union of intimidating and assassinating union leaders.

A search for coke on Google, for example, brings up the Killer Coke site ranked third, which covers the allegations. Now Coke is fighting back against that -- sort of. A search for killer coke brings up this ad:

Coke Lawsuit Dismissed Suit against Coca-Cola bottlers in Colombia dismissed. Read more. www.coca-cola.com/presscenter

That leads to more information about the victory from Coke, right alongside the "anti" natural search result that appears, like this:

But c'mon. This is Coke being savvy? A regular search for coke on Google doesn't carry this ad. That means plenty of people are seeing the Killer Coke site ranking well but not getting a counter message from Coke itself.

Perhaps it is an oversight, though it might be intentional -- trying to target those specifically searching for "killer coke" with a positive message without trying to be too in the face of those doing regular searches who might not know about the allegations.

Curious, I checked out the trend of searches for killer coke versus coke on Google Trends. As you can see, practically no one is searching for "killer coke:"

Overall, if Coke thinks spreading the word is important, I'd have gone with an ad targeted to Coke as well. Then again, since the company already has three different ads running for its My Coke Rewards program, the main Coca Cola site and the official Coca Cola store, maybe it felt a fourth ad would finally trip Google's rules against multiple ads from the same company:

To provide the best possible experience for our users and advertisers, Google does not permit multiple ads from the same or affiliated company or person to appear on the same results page. We believe that pages with multiple ads from the same company provide less relevant results and a lower quality experience for our users. Over time, multiple ads from the same source also reduce advertiser performance and lower their return on investment.

Of course, Coke does seem to meet the exception to this rule:

The destination site for each ad offers different products or services (for example, a large manufacturer with two product sites, one solely for stereos and one solely for computers, both running on keyword 'electronics').
Each destination site has a different layout and design, and each URL and domain is different.

Posted by Danny Sullivan at 10:07 AM | Permalink

October 6, 2006

Honda's New 'Crave' Campaign Missing Search?

Honda has redesigned its bestselling CRV sport utility vehicle. There's a snazzy flash-based site featuring the new car and a user-generated/social media component there too. People can post their "craves."

But this otherwise sophisticated campaign, which includes outdoor and other traditional media, is apparently missing search.

One of the things you'd have thought that marketers learned over the past 12-24 months is the centrality of search in the consumer product research experience. Here's Chris Sherman's Search Day piece on comScore research that shows the importance of search in the car-buying process.

What typically happens with consumers is that they are made aware of something via word of mouth or traditional offline media and then they go to a search engine to find out more information or otherwise conduct research.

That's exactly what I did. I was having lunch at Yahoo! yesterday and driving back to my office saw a billboard that featured the new Honda and simply the word "Crave."

What did I do when I got back? I went to a search engine and plugged in the word "Crave." (I didn't know that Honda was the maker of the car so I didn't go straight to the Honda site.) Here are the results of that search on Google, Yahoo, Windows Live: nothing, nothing and nothing.

How foolish is that?

Now, let's talk about price. The term "SUV" (according to Yahoo) is worth $5.03 per click. Both Ford and Honda are bidding that same amount. Given that they're competing at that price they're probably paying it too. By contrast, the top bid for the term "Crave" is $.20.

One of the things that traditional media can do is create demand (or more precisely search inventory) for terms that are unique or cheaper to buy.

I should have been able to plug in "Crave" and see a paid add for the new Honda CRV and been taken to their cool new interactive site. But because Honda's agency doesn't fully understand consumer behavior it's missing an important campaign component and an opportunity to build awareness of the new redesign very cheaply.

Bad agency. Time to put the account up for review?

Postscript: I was informed by AdWeek that RPA is Honda's general interactive agency. These guys are very smart and won Yahoo's first "Searchlight Award" based on their integration of search into an overall campaign. I was a panelist at that event and was very impressed with their work.

If the information is correct and RPA is handling the new "Crave" campaign online, my question remains: why aren't they buying a word so central to the campaign?

Postscript 2 - Mike Margolin responds in detail to this post below:

Wow, Greg, ouch. Initially, I'm a bit disappointed that the SEW Blog apparently doesn't allow comments to posts. I've long held the belief the blogging is meant to be a two-way medium and that it's important to give readers a voice. The only thing that I can imagine is that, in an effort to control the sheer amount of opinions that might be generated on any given topic, SEW decided to disable this function.

So about the campaign. You are correct that we (at this early stage) made the oversight and forgot to include the keyword, “crave”. Frankly, I'm a little surprised that we did, considering the amount of keyword brainstorming that was done to support the central theme of the campaign (more on that below). I even recall a specific conversation that we had with one of the search networks where we talked about copy strategy for the keyword. I'll liken the omission to turning over every book and pillow in your house looking for your sunglasses, but realizing that, d'oh, they were in your jacket pocket all along. Thanks to your suggestion, we'll add the keyword to the campaign today. But I won't lose too much sleep over the missed opportunity as here's what we've actually done with this campaign so far:

Earlier in the year, shortly after the “CRaVe” creative concept was approved, we went to work on the on the website and marketing strategy. Right off the bat, we felt that search marketing (both search and content-targeting) could play a big role in driving visits from the right psychographic profile to an experiential site leveraging user-generated content. In fact, our search marketing team actually had a big voice in web site strategy meetings, explaining how the site would need to function in order to make the best use of cost-effective search traffic. And when all was said and done, we developed a strategy that targeted thousands of non-automotive keywords which could easily be turned into craves. For example, one of the initial site users uploaded “celebrity gossip” as something that she craves. Well, now when someone searches “celebrity” gossip on Yahoo!, they now see this ad:

Crave Celebrity Gossip? Tell us what else you crave and see what others are craving. crave.honda.com

And when someone searches for yakitori (which, BTW, is one of the things that I crave as well), we show this ad:

Do You Crave Yakitori? Where can you find the best? Tell us or see where others go. crave.honda.com

All told, there are thousands of crave-related keywords in the campaign, ranging from “ice cream” and “barbecue ribs” to “Labradors” and “surfing”. And while the search portion of Yahoo! Search Marketing's campaign has been very important, Google's content targeting has been even more valuable. The result: a combination of these crave-related keywords and SUV category keywords have already generated nearly œ of a million visits to the crave.honda.com site (it should be noted that that the total number of searches on the keyword “crave” across the Yahoo! network during the prior month was a whopping 9,750 – that's roughly the same amount of people searching for “banana split”). And because of the breadth of words which can be spun into the “crave” concept and how valuable those keywords have been to this initiative, the average CPC of our campaign has ended up being a very, very small fraction of the $5.00 CPC that you pointed out in your blog post. That's the problem with scrutinizing search marketing initiatives from the outside; not every campaign strategy will be immediately apparent, mainly because of the purchasing/placement models with Google and Yahoo! across both search and content properties. It's just not always as simple as searching on a couple keywords and determining whether the campaign was a rousing success or a miserable failure.

And frankly, while I hope I'm wrong, I just don't see a ton of people outside of the search marketing world seeing a CRaVe-themed billboard for the new Honda CR-V and then typing “crave” into their search engine to look for more on the theme or the vehicle. Google Trends shows virtually no lift in search volume for that keyword since the campaign began, which suggests that the 9,750 number above isn't likely to change much. The lift on “2007 Honda CRV” is much more interesting. If people are intrigued enough to carry their interest from an outdoor ad or TV spot over to a search engine, they'll more likely search for “Honda CRV” or even ”Honda Crave” (and we have highly visible SE presence for both).

Was it an oversight to not get covered off on this keyword? Yep. And I'm a bit chafed at myself for missing such an obvious word. But was it a missed opportunity to the extent that we're “stupid”, a “Bad agency” and worthy of Honda putting the account “up for review”? I just don't think so. We might've missed out on a couple thousand clicks to the site. But not for much longer.

Postscript From Danny: Comments are very welcomed. We have a How To Comment link in our left-hand navigation that explains that discusison happens in our Search Engine Watch Forums, so we aren't having discussions run in two different places. I'll look to make that link perhaps more prominent under posts themselves, in the future.

Posted by Greg Sterling at 9:09 AM | Permalink

September 22, 2006

Google & Saturn Team Up On Video Ads, Google Earth Promotion

Marketing on Google: It's Not Just Text Anymore from the New York Times covers how Google is partnering with a traditional ad company to do an integrated campaign for General Motors, one that begins today to promote the Saturn brand in Google Earth, video ads through Google AdSense For Content and other unnamed Google products (fair to say, those old school text ads will be part of it).

Meanwhile, Cameron Othuis points out how BMW is letting opportunities slip by in by overlooking paid ads. Similarly, last month, Steve Plunkett dropped me an email where he was amazed that Pontiac was running those TV ads we've mentioned before about Googling them in his area but without paying more attention to the organic results.

To prove his point, he created a page to rank well for pontiac dealers dallas-ft.worth at Google, which now ranks first. Of course, that's a lot of words, making it easier to rank. A search on pontiac dallas doesn't list him, though pontiac dealers dallas does. While perhaps Pontiac could do more on the organic side, they aren't complete invisible -- and that big fat paid link at the top saying "The Official Pontiac Site" is pretty noticeable.

Postscript: See Google / Saturn Video Ad for an example of the landing page for the ads

Posted by Danny Sullivan at 6:58 AM | Permalink

September 19, 2006

Why Is Wikipedia Advertising On Google?

Wikipedia Advertising Shows Up on Google from Micro Persuations covers how Wikipedia is apparently advertising content on Google. A search on crowdsourcing in Google brings up a Wikipedia ad in the sponsored listing area that says:

Crowdsourced Software 1. Harness this exciting wave. 2. Save money or make money! wikipedia.org/Crowdsourcing

Yes, the same landing page is shown on the organic listings as well. So why would the Wikipedia be spending money on those ads? Is it even Wikipedia who is purchasing those ads? Maybe it is a 3rd party that is interested in getting more content added to certain Wikipedia pages. Maybe there is some financial interest on that page for some company?

Postscript Barry: ClickZ has a quote from Wayne Saewyc, a Wikimedia spokesperson saying, "As far as I am aware, the Wikimedia Foundation is not purchasing Google ads, or any other advertisements for that matter."

Posted by Barry Schwartz at 9:08 AM | Permalink

June 21, 2006

The Search & Branding Tug-Of-War, Again

"Cannes Lions Diary: Search under scrutiny" from the Financial Times at the Cannes Lions Advertising Festival covers what we've seen before, traditional ad buyers worried that search is going to rob their budgets while search engines planning to do that theft try to distract with a "search is a brand thing" message.

First, let's do the sound bites out of the event. Here's what Laura Desmond, chief executive of Mediavest USA (which the FT says "advises clients such as P&G, Masterfoods and Kraft on buying and planning media") is quoted as saying:

Google is going to have to change its business model soon. Search alone isn't where marketing is today. It is about search and branding and putting the two together.

As for the search engines, we have:

Damian Burns, head of European agency relations at Google, said: "There is a need for self-education among agencies and clients. But I don?t believe that you can have people being exposed to brands on search results day after day without that having an impact on brand building."

During one conference event, campaigns by IBM and an onscreen prompt by Donald Trump, presenter of ?The Apprentice?, the US reality show, for viewers to investigate a new coffee product online, were cited as examples of pairing television and search. In both cases, online searches for keywords related to the campaigns rose sharply after relevant keywords were used onscreen.

Speakers said marketers would in future have to time their spend on search engine keywords to coincide with television or press campaigns to get the best results.

OK, let's go back to Desmond. First, is Google in trouble for only doing search? Actually, the company does more than search. All those ads across the web, the contextually placed ones through AdSense, those aren't search. Moreover, some of those placements are image and video ads sold on a brand-building friendly CPM basis.

Now let's say Google really did only have search ads. Why would it be in trouble for failing to put search and branding together? I mean, search marketers haven't depending on branding value for their stunning success over the past 10 years. What, today suddenly you need to have a brand component?

Search marketing is a fundamental advertising activity that stands alone from others, as I've been stressing in keynote speeches recently. It works because it gets your message in front of people who are overtly expressing a need, often without any exposure at all to brand advertising that tries to build that need.

Saying search must address branding is like saying that direct marketing address branding. You don't need to have a brand lift for direct marketing to be successful. Neither do you need a brand lift with search.

Having said this, search certainly can help with branding. Scott Karp over at Publishing 2.0 has taken a fairly anti-branding stance in his Search Advertising Does NOT Build Brands post, and here's some of my counter-response to him in the comments:

What do you think made Zappos a brand name when it comes to buying shoes online? Those magazine ads you saw for them? That TV spot? Wait ? I don't think they do that stuff. What they do is a lot of spending to show up in search engines when you search for ?shoes? and related terms. You did a generic search, you keep seeing a particular provider, and you learn about that brand.

Hey, need an espresso machine? I learned an entire new brand, Whole Latte Love, simply because when I was doing searches, I kept coming across their site. J&Rs in New York? If you?re in Manhattan, you know that brand as well as I knew Fry?s living in California. But J&R was a mystery to me until I kept seeing them in some shopping search results before making a trip to New York. Now that brand is rooted in my mind, not because I saw some offline ad but because I saw them first in search. That brand did build in my mind, to me.

I've done panel after panel on the intersection of search and branding at our SES conferences. We have another one coming up for our San Jose show this August. Actual advertisers and brand holders continue to say there's a brand value in search. They don't say they'll build brand only with search. Nor do they say they want all the branding money to come away from other venues like TV and solely support search. In fact, they want TV ads to keep going -- those help fuel the searches they buy.

Instead, the real pushing point is that they want more of the ad spend. They have a type of advertising that converts incredibly well and, in my opinion, is incredibly undervalued still. If the ad spend pie isn't getting bigger, then it has to come from the traditional space -- a space itself which has to be feeling more pressure given the relatively poor metrics it can offer.

As for the search engines, they've been pimping brand value to traditional advertisers to woo spending since Overture's big study way back in 2001 (see here and here). There is brand value with search ads, of course -- but if they really wanted to help establish search as a serious fundamental marketing activity, then how about leaning on the Cannes Lions festival to recognize that with awards just for search. Here are this year's awards. Search isn't a category, not even within the Cyber area which does recognize things like email marketing.

For more on these issues, here's some selected reading:

Want more? We've got plenty. Check out our Search Ads: Branding & SEM Tips: Branding categories, if you are a Search Engine Watch member.

Posted by Danny Sullivan at 11:22 AM | Permalink

May 24, 2006

Leveraging Brand and Non-Brand Search Terms

New research from search marketing firms 360i and Search Ignite looks at the effectiveness of brand vs. non-brand search terms. The findings suggest that brand terms are the most effective—but that a careful combination of brand and non-brand terms can be nearly equally effective. More on the report and the tactical suggestions it offers for search marketers in today's SearchDay article, The Value of Branded vs. Non-Branded Search Terms.

Posted by Chris Sherman at 3:12 AM | Permalink

April 18, 2006

Search Ads Getting More Attention From Big Advertisers

The Wall Street Journal ran an article named Once-Wary Industry Giants Embrace Internet Advertising yesterday. It discusses the recent shift in large retailer ad budgets towards online ads. For example, Pepsi-Cola is expecting its online spend to increase to between "5% and 10% of the overall ad budget in 2006, from 1% five years ago." Also Anheuser-Busch is expecting its ad spend for online advertising to double in 2006, to account for 5% of the overall advertising budget. Business Week is running an article calling out the same theme, "Rise Of The Lowly Search Ad." The Business Week article shows some of the more unique ways of using keywords to reach potential consumers.

Posted by Barry Schwartz at 8:42 AM | Permalink

March 27, 2006

Yahoo & 60 Minutes Debut Tiger Woods 60 Minutes Interview

Rand Fishkin describes how he was flipping through the channels and noticed the mention of the Yahoo & 60 Minutes deal at play. Rand says he was watching the "tail end" of 60 minutes, where they asked viewers to search for "Tiger Woods" at Yahoo Search. At the top you will see a "Yahoo! Shortcut" with links to http://news.yahoo.com/60minutes, which currently has exclusive footage of the Tiger Woods interview. You will also see a link to Tiger Woods profile page at Yahoo PGA and a link to the Yahoo TV listings for 60 Minutes.

Posted by Barry Schwartz at 8:38 AM | Permalink

February 23, 2006

Yahoo To Ban Bidding On Competitor Trademarks To Stop Comparison Advertising

Yahoo No Longer Allow Bidding On Trademarked Terms on our SEW Forums has news that Yahoo will no longer be allowing companies to purchase ads linked to the trademarks of their competitors. From what's being sent to advertisers:

On March 1, 2006, Yahoo! Search Marketing will modify its editorial guidelines regarding the use of keywords containing trademarks. Previously, we allowed competitive advertising by allowing advertisers to bid on third-party trademarks if those advertisers offered detailed comparative information about the trademark owner's products or services in comparison to the competitive products and services that were offered or promoted on the advertiser's site.

In order to more easily deliver quality user experiences when users search on terms that are trademarks, Yahoo! Search Marketing has determined that we will no longer allow bidding on keywords containing competitor trademarks.

OK, I haven't had a chance to talk with Yahoo yet, but here are few key points from what I see so far:

The policy doesn't seem to completely ban bidding on terms that are also trademarks, which is good. I won't spin out all the long explanations about why that is good, as I've done in the past. The short answer is that some products and services simply cannot be adequately advertised if you can't bid on a term that also is a trademark. Try selling "used ipods" if you can't buy the term "ipod," for example. Or look at the trouble this person is having about helping to advertise Ferrari driving experiences without being able to buy ads linked to that term on Google in Europe.
In the US (where the Yahoo policy is coming into effect), the courts have so far upheld the right to link ads to terms that might also be trademarks. That's why Google allows you to buy ads linked to these terms in the US. You simply cannot use the terms in your ads. In Europe, you can't use the terms as trigger words or in copy. Google's full policy is here.
Betcha I know what's prompted the move. Yahoo has been doing more and more work to attract big brand advertisers to link non-search campaigns back to search. The problem is, that means other competing brands can capitalize on this traffic. Mazda Taps Into Pontiac TV & Search Ads Again covers more about this. An easy way to stop your big brand advertisers you've partnered with from being walked over this way is to ban "comparison" ads linked to their campaigns.

Need more history on search ads and trademark disputes? The Legal: Trademarks section of the Search Topics area available to Search Engine Watch members has lots and lots of information.

Want to comment or discuss? Visit our SEW Forum thread, Yahoo No Longer Allow Bidding On Trademarked Terms.

Posted by Danny Sullivan at 1:06 PM | Permalink

February 16, 2006

HBO's "The Sopranos" Uses Google Maps & AdWords for Show Promotion

AdAge.com reports (free registration required) 'The Sopranos' Use Google Maps to Promote New Season. The article claims The Sopranos is "likely to be the first advertiser to have paid the search giant to use its map technology for promotional purposes." However, Danny did report that some companies might have used Google Maps to promote themselves, like Target, even though it may have been unintentional. The article says that HBO is developing a Google map of New Jersey "to remind viewers about some of the story lines." And they are reportedly buying keywords like Sopranos Map to direct traffic to the site.

Posted by Barry Schwartz at 10:06 AM | Permalink

February 8, 2006

Winners and Losers in Super Bowl Search Marketing

I find it hard to believe, but most of the advertisers who paid millions to have their ads shown during the Super Bowl completely neglected search marketing, squandering amazingly lucrative opportunities as search traffic related to their products, brands and services spiked during and after the game. For a fraction of what the TV ads cost to make and air, these companies could have captured some very valuable traffic. For some stats and a look at the winners and losers in this search marketing Bowl, check out today's SearchDay article, A Super Bowl Search Marketing Scorecard.

Posted by Chris Sherman at 2:08 AM | Permalink

January 30, 2006

Mazda Taps Into Pontiac TV & Search Ads Again

Remember the post earlier about Pontiac telling people to search for them on Google? What I loved especially about that was it reminded me of Gregory Markel over at Infuse Creative telling me how he helped Pontiac-competitor Mazda drive a benefit off a similar campaign that Pontiac did with Yahoo last year. Now history repeats once again.

Last year on The Apprentice, Pontiac used a programming tie-in to tell people to look them up on Yahoo, where Yahoo had inserted some type of Yahoo Shortcut-style link.

Gregory noticed this link came below the sponsored search results -- and if I recall correctly, Pontiac hadn't bought any of those. So he got Mazda into that space. For a few thousand dollars, he tapped into traffic from a product placement set-up that cost over a million, if I recall. He's actually got an awesome little video I want him to show publicly that explains it all very well with voiceovers, music and images.

Today, John Battelle notes that Mazda has bought a sponsored link on Google to come up for those Pontiac-driven searches.

Miata vs Pontiac Solstice Exclusive test-drive invitation for a New MX-5 Miata. Sign up now! MX5NoComparison.com

Mazda's bought Yahoo, as well

Compare MX-5 Miata to Solstice www.mx5nocomparison.com Sign up to receive an exclusive invitation to test-drive a new 2006 MX-5 Miata.

Andrew Goodman breaks down the comparative advertising campaign more here. Meanwhile, self-confessed data geek Bill Tancer over at Hitwise couldn't resist looking at traffic to the Pontiac site over time. You can see how the TV mentions to check Yahoo last year and Google this year drove traffic to Pontiac. He also shows how the site that received the most "pontiac" searches on search engines after Pontiac was -- yep, Mazda.

All this brings me back to something that came up at our Future Of Search Engine Marketing panel at SES Chicago last month. While several of the search marketers said that they were getting money formerly devoted to TV, none of them wanted TV spending to be cut entirely. TV drives search traffic, which in turn helps them.

That got me to wonder/observe to the audience if we'll see a change coming over the next year or so. Instead of people wondering how search can tie into other campaigns, maybe we'll see search become the primary target of a campaign. In other words, Pontiac someday might plan to do a big search buy and want to ensure they drive traffic to support that -- so television, radio, outdoors will all be purchases to push search.

Posted by Danny Sullivan at 4:08 PM | Permalink

January 26, 2006

TV Commercial "Googles" Pontiac

Here's yet another example of "Google the verb" in action, this time in a telelvion commercial. It also illustrates why "Google the brand" is so powerful.

Several sources including Media Post, Searchblog, and SEOmoz Blog point out that new television commercial for Pontiac (airing regionally in the U.S.) includes a Google mention and an actual shot of someone entering the word Pontiac into the Google search box with voice over saying: "Don't take our word for it, Google 'Pontiac' to find out!"

That's right, don't call (no phone number) or the common line in tv ads for automobile manufacturers, "visit your local xxx dealer." Nope, just Google it.

The complete 30 second commercial is available on YouTube here. The audio and video are ok but not great. In true "old schoool" media bootlegging style, it was recorded by someone placing a camera in front of the screen. (-:

When I just "Googled" Pontiac I find an ad (in a blue box) for the "official" Pontiac home page at the top of the web results page and sponsored links a myriad of car pricing services in the right column.

Battelle makes a thought provoking point about this tv/web ad combo: Now, when I Google Pontiac, I see two sponsored links up top [I'm only seeing one], both from Pontiac (if I were, say, Toyota, I might just think about bidding that keyword....but I digress). In any case, since many folks have no idea that those blue shaded links are in fact ads, I am sure that they are going to be making Google a lot of money over the course of this campaign.

Yes, John is very accurate when he writes, "many folks have no idea that those blue shaded links are in fact ads." What does this say about the searcher and the knowledge they have about understanding the difference between a paid and organic listings? Is the better disclosure and documentation that most search providers offer making a difference?

Postscript: In my Google search for Pontiac, after the paid listing in the blue box, a link to a map of Pontiac, Michigan, and OneBox with results from my desktop, I end up on the first organic result also from Pontiac.com.

Postscript: Btw, look at all of the free publicity Pontiac is getting by running this ad. Smart!

Postscript From Danny: Google tells me Pontiac did seek their permission to use Google in the ad. Google did not pay to be in the ad, nor was it any type of comarketing activity. Says Google:

"We are happy that Pontiac has featured Google search in their television ad campaign. This is evidence that mainstream brand advertisers are increasingly realizing the close relationship between broadcast advertising and search usage."

Posted by Gary Price at 6:58 PM | Permalink

December 20, 2005

More On AOL Pushing Google Into Graphic Ads & AOL Promotion

AOL Coaxes Google to Try Busier Ads from the New York Times dives deeper into details that emerged earlier this week about how Google will help promote AOL as part of the bid to retain the company as a Google partner, along with new graphical ads that will be coming to Google search results pages near you.

Google is looking to promote AOL content within a OneBox display area, something familiar to many of our readers, as we've written of them in the past. OneBoxes are where Google promotes other vertical search results that may be of interest to searches, such as news listings or shopping results.

AOL isn't being promised any exclusivity or guarantee to show up in these areas, and including material from other companies isn't even a radical departure. Google stock result OneBoxes already pull from various providers, for example. You can see how that works in a search for goog and the resulting detailed page.

Graphical ads appear to be in the works for Google's search results pages, though traditional banners might not show up except in Google Image Search and Froogle shopping search. The Google home page would remain without graphics. From earlier reports, it sounds like AOL will get some of graphical space to help promote its own sites plus have the ability to resell graphical ads on Google.

AOL is also getting SEO advice from Google. What?!!! Secrets on ranking better? No, it sounds more like the SEO advice Google already gives other large companies as part of the sales pitch and support to get them to buy ads. That's semi-controversial mainly with SEOs who feel the advice Google gives may undercut their oftentimes more detailed and better advice, simply because it comes with Google's own seal of approval. It also does blur the church-and-state divide a bit.

Overall, I'm sitting back until the deal is formally announced and people are talking on the record about it. That's likely to happen today. Then I'll dive back in and look more closely at what's being offered and what lines, if any, are being cross. In the meantime, some further reading and a semi-scorecard to date.

1) OneBox inclusion of AOL content probably doesn't harm Google's reputation for impartial results if AOL isn't promised any particular placement or exclusivity.

2) Graphical ads will definitely cause some purists -- and maybe even some ordinary Google users -- to raise eyebrows and perhaps feel Google has sold out. Expect that Google may likely make the display of these an option, on by default but easy to switch off. That will help, but overall, graphical ads I'd say will be seen as a sign that Google's just like "all the other" search engines and losing some of the magic some feel it has.

3) Google Thinking Flash Ads? covers what may have been some testing in preparation of running graphic ads in search results. Google Offers Banners & Image Ads -- But Not On Google Itself from last year covers the graphic ads that Google rolled out for contextual placement. At the time, Google did say partners might also eventually show these in search results. Whether these ads would come up on Google itself wasn't addressed. I don't think Google has ever completely ruled out the idea of graphical ads, but they do seem to conflict with part of its corporate philosophy:

Google has also proven that advertising can be effective without being flashy. Google does not accept pop-up advertising, which interferes with your ability to see the content you've requested. We've found that text ads (AdWords) that are relevant to the person reading them draw much higher clickthrough rates than ads appearing randomly.

A CBS News interview last year did have Google's director of technology eschewing banners:

"The focus that Google has on our users, you know, a very slim homepage and so forth -- text ads, not banner," says Silverstein. "We do that because we don't want to go to sites with banner ads. We don't like them."The focus that Google has on our users, you know, a very slim homepage and so forth -- text ads, not banner," says Silverstein. "We do that because we don't want to go to sites with banner ads. We don't like them."

Certainly the oft-cited person who diagnosed himself as having a heart attack after doing a Google search might not be thrilled about graphical ads coming. They slowed him down during his crisis and made Google a winner to him for not having them. From what he sent Google:

On Monday morning, as I started my workday as a Web developer and designer, I felt a pressure in my chest. Being 52 years old and somewhat familiar with the early warning signs of a heart attack, I thought I'd go online and check on the early signs of heart attack and stroke. My initial quest lead me to 'Blah, Blah, Blah'" ? which is a different search site which I won't mention the name of ? "wherein I entered the search terms 'heart attack symptoms'.

As I waited for the banner ads to download, and then the content, I became more and more anxious. I turned to Google. I knew from prior experience that I could expect the quickest search results possible, and I was not disappointed. In less than a tenth of a second, the top listing led me to the American Heart Association Web page. Their easy to understand graphics and descriptions lead me to acknowledge my predicament, and I went to the local hospital where I commenced to have a full-blown heart attack.

Thirty-six hours later, just prior to emergency, triple-bypass, open-heart surgery, my doctor told me that had I had a stroke at any time while waiting for the operation, the chances were great that I would not have survived. This was a very sobering thought to me, my wife and our three sons, who thought they may have seen the last of their dad. Simply put, had I putzed around waiting for another website to display interminable graphics and banner ads, I might not be here today. Instead, I wanted immediate results, got them from Google, and for once did the right thing by going to the hospital."

I expect that if graphic ads do appear, you'll see the Google philosophy page be adjusted to structure graphic ads as being relevant in the right situation, just as Google has changed that page in other ways to accommodate portal features it has added. Google's Philosophical Ten True Things Not So True Anymore? and Google's Philosophy: Then and Now cover those adjustments more. But overall, I don't disagree with graphic ads as being useful. They can be, especially for those who are seeking to build brand. Chris Anderson had an interesting post recently on how he's using AdWords not for clicks but to build awareness. Big Guys Crowd Out Little Guys in SEM Arena; Some Branding Focused Advertisers Willing to Spend "Whatever" It Takes, Don't Hate Search, Search May Not Be From Branding, But It Will Still Pull Branding Spend, and Search Ads Used By More Than "New Breed" Advertisers are just some past blog posts that cover how brand owners are looking at search to boost their properties. They aren't necessarily crazy or irrational spenders, either. C'mon In Brand Owners, The Search Water's Fine explains this a bit more. But in short, they're looking for something other than direct conversions, are willing to spend and it's only natural that search engines will have to react to this demand.

What we don't want, however, is a repeat of the days such as when Yahoo was partnered with Amazon. Old timers will recall how every search at Yahoo used to bring up an Amazon box in the right hand column. It was ever present, annoying and quickly ignored. If AOL is promoted this way -- or if brand ads from others aren't targeted well -- they'll also become annoying and ignored.

4) The AOL deal will raise awareness of advice Google is directly giving to some major advertisers, as I covered in my earlier Google SEO Support Given To Advertisers. While that still doesn't appear to be crossing the church-and-state divide, it is blurring the lines more, something that Google may regret down the line unless it can provide more support services to everyone.

Want to comment or discuss? Visit the Google to Hold onto AOL thread in our Search Engine Watch Forums.

Posted by Danny Sullivan at 8:56 AM | Permalink

December 11, 2005

Big Guys Crowd Out Little Guys in SEM Arena; Some Branding Focused Advertisers Willing to Spend "Whatever" It Takes

The Media Post article: Search Execs: Big Brands Muscling Out Small Players, reports on comments made at the SG Cowen Internet Conference last week in New York City.

During a search engine marketing session, panelists said that as search engine marketing grows in popularity, big name advertisers (the ones with lots of money) are "crowding out" small advertisers.

Bill Wise, CEO of Did-It.com told the audience: That branding-focused advertisers are willing to spend whatever it takes to get their keywords listed. "Big companies will spend a lot of money to get that market share," he said.

Other panelists included: + Michael Yavonditte, CEO of Quigo + Gregg Stewart, senior vice president for channel management and marketing at Fathom Online

Yavonditte said that there was vanity involved because companies want their keywords at the top. He said, the "vanity" aspect is surprising.

Fathom's Stewart said: "As the brand marketers get in and the smaller marketers can't compete, we're going to see local keywords as a way to hedge." Because of this, Stewart said, it's possible there may be some upward movement in local keyword prices.

A new report from Piper Jaffray released last week said: There are clear indications that search is now being used for branding impact as well as its core customer acquisition ability," the report said. "Participants indicated that nearly 10 percent of search spending is now driven by the branding impact of search listings."

Posted by Gary Price at 8:10 PM | Permalink

October 17, 2005

Good Clickthroughs Like Getting An Ad Discount

Brand Discounts at the Major Engines has Kevin Lee talking about a brand discount, but don't get excited that big brands are somehow overtly getting cheaper ads. What he's pointing out is that both Google and Ask Jeeves reward ads with good clickthrough, as I wrote about last week. You can potentially rank higher even if others are willing to pay more. MSN is to do the same, and it's widely expected Yahoo will follow as well next year.

So what's the brand discount concept? If you're a big brand, when your product goes against unknown products, people might be more inclined to click on your ads since you'll be familiar to them. If clickthrough rises, your cost per click might be able to drop without hurting your ranking.

Not a big brand? Have good creative, and you can reap the clickthrough reward, as well.

Posted by Danny Sullivan at 7:42 PM | Permalink

October 3, 2005

Search May Not Be From Branding, But It Will Still Pull Branding Spend

Hmm. Reading MediaPost today, I came across Graydon Carter Disses Search Ads. That's Vanity Fair Graydon Carter, who seems to think the internet must be best viewed as EITHER a branding or direct marketing medium and appears to come down on the side of direct marketing, since he remarked about not being able to remember a single ad he's seen on Google.

The remark came at a Magazine Publishers Of America event last week, where a panel of editors defended print ads by bashing online, MediaPost reports. Well, you'd expect them to, I suppose -- at least, if they haven't figured out how to tap into online ad spend, as well.

I think the web can do both branding and direct marketing. Search -- meaning keyword-targeted search -- is definitely more of a direct marketing aspect, in my book. Yes, marketers I talk with do find there is branding value to be had along with search. More and more are also turning to search to build brand. But I think those magazine editors are right if they feel people still will be largely looking at other ways to build brands than on the pages of Google.

No, the threat isn't that Google, Yahoo and other search engine result pages will become brand building powerhouses. Instead, the threat the magazine editors and publishers really face is that the direct marketing ads people spend on search can be easily measured, are currently still relatively cheap and for many, can be self-funding. Put money in, and you can get more out in sales.

So where do you get that extra money? You pull from the branded advertising that many feel is poorly measurable and overpriced. In short, brand advertising offline will continue -- but it just might not be seen as valuable as it once was.

Posted by Danny Sullivan at 3:03 PM | Permalink

September 28, 2005

Better Yahoo Tools Coming To Measure Search Buzz - And Watch Google, Too!

Yahoo! Testing New Branding Metrics for Search at ClickZ covers how Yahoo is helping more advertisers tap into tools to measure brand reach and buzz through search, a sign that tracking search buzz is finally getting some needed, renewed attention.

Many are familiar with Yahoo Buzz, the consumer-facing service that shows what's hot in search. Not so well known is another version that advertisers and others can tap into. Yahoo has had that product for years. It's not new, as the story suggests. Instead, it sounds like it's being given a revamp in preparation for wider positioning. A new "Search Share Of Voice" tool is also planned.

It's long overdue for greater outreach like this. As we've had more and more "word-of-mouth" tools designed to measure blog buzz, it's seemed forgotten that search engines have access to much more broad web buzz based on what wide, everyday audiences are looking for and writing about.

FYI, Google's got a similar tools it developed to help CurrentTV do Google Zeitgeist segments. I asked Google a couple of weeks ago whether these tools might be rolled out for others to use, when talking about them. It's something Google has in mind, but there were no immediate plans to do so. So we watch and see!

Posted by Danny Sullivan at 8:25 AM | Permalink

September 5, 2005

When & Why You Should Buy Your Name

Beaten at Your Own Name: Buying Your Brand from Kevin Lee at ClickZ looks at why brand holders might decide it makes sense to purchase their own names, ranging from blocking your competitors and affiliates to overcome "negativity problems."

Posted by Danny Sullivan at 2:04 PM | Permalink

July 11, 2005

Measuring Brand Value Of Search Ads

Trying to tell if your search ads have branding value? Paid Search Ads and Site-Side Brand Metrics from Kevin Lee at ClickZ offers some tips on metrics you can gather on your site to make an assessment.

Posted by Danny Sullivan at 7:04 AM | Permalink

March 30, 2005

WSJ On Using Search To Build Brand

Your Ad Here, 10 Words Max from the Wall Street Journal (sub. required to read) looks at how search ads are being used to boost branding rather than to generate sales directly. Intel is just getting its name out with search. Pitney Bowes is said to be trying to build mindshare among executives that later might become customers.

Posted by Danny Sullivan at 10:24 AM | Permalink

March 24, 2005

Are Your TV Ads Tuned Into Search?

Integrating Search With TV Ads: The Next Generation from Gary Stein at ClickZ looks at how television marketers better have a search strategy in place, because those TV ads will be fueling searches. Those can be a barometer for success, plus a way to help connect to consumers who need to close the gap between what they saw and how they can get it.

Posted by Danny Sullivan at 6:42 AM | Permalink

January 18, 2005

Building Roomba's Brand Through Search

Roomba Cleans Up With Search Engine Marketing from AdAge is a good read on how the makers of the Roomba automatic vacuum cleaner helped built their brand through search. The company became the seventh most popular brand name search on Google in 2004. The company didn't rely on search alone. Heavy TV and radio ads were run, with the assumption that this would drive consumers onto the web to do research. There, search-targeted ads awaited them.

Posted by Danny Sullivan at 11:14 AM | Permalink

See More Posts From:

This Week | This Month

Legal Notices, Licensing, Reprints & Permissions

Privacy Policy
Affiliates

var gaJsHost = (("https:" == document.location.protocol) ? "https://ssl." : "http://www."); document.write(unescape("%3Cscript src='" + gaJsHost + "google-analytics.com/ga.js' type='text/javascript'%3E%3C/script%3E")); var pageTracker = _gat._getTracker("UA-564586-7"); pageTracker._setDomainName(".searchenginewatch.com"); pageTracker._trackPageview(); window.collarity_appid = "incmedia"; //> //>

Top Jobs

more Jobs

Account Manager
Varick Media Management New York, United States

Reporting and Data Analyst
Varick Media Management New York, United States

Director of Marketing Communications
Avery Dennison Brea, United States

Publisher
Confidential Leading Publisher New York, United States

White Papers

more Research