SES Chicago - December 7-11, 2009

July 2, 2008

Google Updates SEO Recommendations Article

Google has updated its article entitled, "What's an SEO? Does Google recommend working with companies that offer to make my site Google-friendly?" Included in the update are the benefits of SEO as well as guidelines when choosing an SEO company or consultant.

The benefits mentioned in the article are:

  • Reviewing and providing recommendations on your site content or structure
  • Technical advice on website development: for example, hosting, redirects, error pages, use of JavaScript
  • Content development
  • Managing online business development campaigns
  • Keyword research
  • SEO training

Google also offers up 6 questions to ask a potential SEO vendor, but back in March, our own Marty Weintraub posted 48 questions you should consider when signing up for search marketing services. And earlier today, Aaron Shear discussed upsells agencies use to keep clients on board.

When hiring an SEO agency, it's always important to know enough SEO to make sure your vendor is pursuing the best practices. Google's article is a good place to start and of course, stay tuned to Search Engine Watch for news and tips in the SEO industry.

Posted by Nathania Johnson at 11:24 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

January 31, 2008

Search Marketers Share Their 2008 Wish Lists

So far, we've shared some New Years resolutions, and predictions from several search marketers and social media marketers. I asked many of those same marketers what they would most like to see from search engines in 2008. Yesterday, we ran part one, and today we share even more wish lists from search marketers in "Search Marketers' Wish Lists, Part 2."

Posted by Kevin Newcomb at 3:32 PM | Permalink

January 30, 2008

SEW Experts: The Day the Agency Model Died

Endless possibilities might not be the best way to label the latest round of partnership redefining. It will end, just maybe not how the agencies would like. In today's Searching for Meaning column, "The Day the Agency Model Died," Kevin Ryan explains how the recent Google-Publicis relationship reflects a sea change in the current ad agency model.

Posted by Kevin Newcomb at 12:00 AM | Permalink

January 23, 2008

Google Turns to Publicis to Increase its Madison Avenue Savvy

Google CEO Eric Schmidt was in Paris this week to visit Maurice Levy, chairman and CEO of ad agency holding company Publicis. The two shared few details, but said that Google and Publicis were more than a year into a relationship where Google's technology smarts and Publicis' media planning expertise are being shared to the benefit of both companies, according to a Reuters report.

"This collaboration, underway for over one year, is based on a shared vision of how new technologies can be used to improve advertising," reads a cryptic statement from Publicis.

According to an AdAge report, the relationship includes an exchange of talent between the two companies, with plans to "embed" employees at each others' company for months at a time. Publicis will also use Google staff and materials for training programs, and the two companies will work together on new products, platforms and tools. Google has also reportedly established a dedicated global account team for Publicis Groupe.

Google has been looking for inroads to big brand marketers for years. It opened a 300,000-square-foot New York Googleplex in October 2006, primarily to have a base of operations near the media companies and Madison Avenue agencies that control the media budgets of large brand advertisers.

"Our main wish is that we're able to leverage Madison Avenue combined with Silicon Valley to create the largest advertising platform in the world," Ad Sales President Tim Armstrong told ClickZ at the time.

Armstrong, Penry Price, Google's director of North American sales, and David Kenny, chairman and CEO of Publicis' Digitas unit, are reportedly leading the current initiative. Publicis acquired Digitas for $1.3 billion in December 2006. The digital shop brought with it an extensive Fortune 500 client base and relationships with the top players online, including Google.

To better serve these advertisers, Google has created industry-specific teams in verticals like automotive, retail, financial services, entertainment & media, and healthcare. These teams conduct research and work closely with top advertisers in each sector, and "letting customers into your meetings," or using customer insight to drive marketing decisions instead of making decisions in a closed boardroom, according to Armstrong.

Google has also been is poaching from the top ranks of agency creative talent, such as hiring Ogilvy & Mather co-President Andy Berndt as managing director of its Creative Lab.

Posted by Kevin Newcomb at 11:12 AM | Permalink

September 10, 2007

TurnHere announces new video distribution partnerships and products

Today TurnHere, the online video enterprise, announced their expansion in the video search space new distribution partnerships with book-centric sites and an enhanced video gadget for improving on the book search experience.

My new blog features an interview with TurnHere's CEO Bradley Inman, along with in in-depth review of TurnHere's claims of "deep partnerships" with the major search portals, along with a review of their new book widget technology.

Posted by Grant Crowell at 4:51 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

April 10, 2007

Efficient Frontier Offers Agency Program

Search engine marketing firm Efficient Frontier has revamped its offerings to create a set of tools and services designed for non-search agency partners. The services come in three flavors: Enterprise, Partner Agency, and Express Agency. All three can be co-branded or white-labeled for the agency's clients.

The Enterprise level is for large advertisers who want full-time client services and a fully outsourced approach. Efficient Frontier manages the agency's clients with a dedicated client team, as it does with its own direct clients. Partner Agency services are for medium to large advertisers who want to use Efficient Frontier's campaign management platform themselves and let Efficient Frontier handle the data and reporting. Express Agency is a self-service tool for small to mid-sized agencies interested in reselling a co-branded or white-label version of Efficient Frontier's platform to their clients.

"Both small and large agencies are struggling with how to bring a real search offering to their clients. They don't want to have to send their clients elsewhere for biddable ad services, but they also don't necessarily want to invest in the infrastructure necessary to build a search practice themselves," Michelle Schofield, VP of marketing at Efficient Frontier, told SEW.

The Enterprise offering has been available to direct clients, but has a new interface and new reporting tools for agencies. The Partner Agency and Express Agency levels are new offerings built on Efficient Frontier's existing platform, she said.

Posted by Kevin Newcomb at 5:34 AM | Permalink

November 1, 2006

Yahoo's Tim Converse Colors SEOs

Tim Converse, the "spam fighter" at Yahoo, has a fun post he named Search engine optimization (SEO) from black to white. He tries to add nine colors between black and white. For example, a "dark gray" SEO is an SEO that "collects (aka steals) random text from other sites, and uses it to create thousands (or millions) of pages targeting particular queries. The pages have nothing original of value, but do have ads." The new shades of black and white include; Dark inky black, Charcoal, Dark gray, Slate gray, Gray, Light gray, Off-white, White, and Luminescent pearly white.

Posted by Barry Schwartz at 9:12 AM | Permalink

May 16, 2006

SEMs Accusing Yahoo Of Stealing Clients

I reported this morning that folks over at WebmasterWorld have reported having their clients stolen from them by Yahoo Search Marketing representatives. I would not doubt that Yahoo unintentionally pitched its service to these clients. If so, that does not make it OK to me. Yahoo -- and Google, which also has been accused of doing the same thing -- should have a policy of checking with the client that he is not already a customer of a preexisting SEM.

Posted by Barry Schwartz at 3:00 PM | Permalink

May 11, 2006

Google Commission Woes In Sweden, Australia

Over the past few months, Google's been trying to reduce or eliminate commission on its ad products in countries where they are offered (North America, notably, has never had them). Now there are some news reports that the plans aren't well received Down Under and in Sweden.

Sveriges Annonsörer och Mediebyråer manar till Google-bojkott from Dagens Media covers briefly what Mikkel deMib Svendsen tells me is a recount of Sweden's major media organization calling for a boycott of AdWords through the end of the year, because of changes to commissions.

Despite the call for boycott, Sveriges Mediebyråers vd kritisk till Google-event seems to cover how some major ad agencies still have no problems buying and boozing it up at a recent Google event. I say "seems" since my Swedish is limited to "thank you" and some of the numbers up to ten. Systran helped, but the translations were still pretty poor.

The changes in Sweden are part of a move Google announced last year September in Europe. Some UK agencies have pushed back, but by and large, it seems the commission change hasn't seriously hurt the company, unless that fourth quarter drop was more related to upset advertising agencies than the long UK holiday period that got some of the blame. I also keep hearing whispered rumors that some ad agencies have deals excluding them from the cutbacks. Just rumors, nothing confirmed.

What's good for Europe is good for Australia. That seems to be the Google thinking. Google to rewrite rules for media buyers: no more commissions from the Sydney Morning Herald covers how Google will end 10 percent commission paid there as of August 1. Not everyone is upset, however, as the article covers.

And what's good for Europe and Australia isn't good for China. I covered earlier the irony of how Google is trying to disentangle itself from commissions in some countries where they were offered to gain a foothold, only to do the same to gain ground in China. Then again, despite commissions, we've also blogged how not all the SEM firms in China seem to feel happy: Chinese SEMs Accuse Google & Baidu Of Stealing Clients.

By the way, it's not just Google doing the commission pushback thing. Yahoo to Reduces U.K. Agency Search Ad Commissions from last month covers Yahoo also making similar moves.

Posted by Danny Sullivan at 8:31 AM | Permalink

April 10, 2006

Chinese SEMs Accuse Google & Baidu Of Stealing Clients

David Temple found an article that shows that 637 Chinese search marketing companies have reported Google and Baidu have stole their clients. Google and Baidu have not responded to the allegations, as of yet, according to the article.

Google stealing AdWords clients from SEMs is nothing new. Last week, I reported cases of this occurring in Israel. But it has been happening for years worldwide.

Posted by Barry Schwartz at 9:04 AM | Permalink

April 7, 2006

Yahoo to Reduces U.K. Agency Search Ad Commissions

Netimperative reports that Yahoo Search Marketing is reducing the commissions they give U.K. third-party search ad agencies from 15% to as low as 5%. Starting July 1st, Yahoo will offer a 5% discount "on total monthly gross spend to agencies spending from £20,000 to £79,999 per month on advertising on Yahoo! search." Advertisers who spend more than £80,000 will earn a 10% commission.

Posted by Barry Schwartz at 8:47 AM | Permalink

March 31, 2006

RPA Awarded By Both Google & Yahoo For Paid Search Innovation

AdWeek reports that ad agency, RPA, has been awarded awards from both Google and Yahoo for paid search innovation early this month.

"RPA's ability to leverage the entire Google network helped them creatively manage the innovated Honda and Pioneer Electronics campaigns by finding customers not only on our core search properties, but across thousands of Google AdSense partners," said Chris LaSala, Google's head of agencies, New York, in a statement. "This approach reinforces their leadership in the industry."

Chris Sherman wrote about the Yahoo "Search Light" Award around a month ago.

Posted by Barry Schwartz at 9:42 AM | Permalink

January 9, 2006

Search Engines As Leeches, The Difference Between Paid & Free Listings & Keyword Price Rises

Jakob Nielsen's just posted a Search Engines as Leeches on the Web article that makes a good point, don't be too search engine dependent. However, he muddles his point by confusing the issue of paid search advertising and free "organic" listings. A closer look at that, plus how "super conversion trackers" and "brand idiots" are likely to keep pressure on keyword prices.

As a reminder, the major search engines give you two main types of listings when you do a search. There are the "organic" or "free" or "natural" listings that they gather from crawling the web. They don't charge for these listings (though Yahoo's paid inclusion program kind of clouds the water over there). These listings are like the editorial content you get at newspapers.

Search engines also carry paid ads. Pay, and you can get listed for terms you want without hoping that it just happens naturally.

Jakob says:

I worry that search engines are sucking out too much of the Web's value, acting as leeches on companies that create the very source materials the search engines index.

That will resonate with many who have long voiced similar concerns that search engines are making tons of money by gathering "content" from sites from across the web to make their listings.

If suddenly every site on the web were to block Google from indexing them, Google would have a crisis in short order. Its main "content" would have gone away, and the ads alone aren't going to keep attracting searchers.

Web site owners have not done that, however. That's because by and large, they've found that search engines drive more traffic to them than they cost in terms of bandwidth of being indexed.

WebmasterWorld has become a classic case study of this. Google and other search engines were banned in November along with "rogue" spiders, because somewhat similar to Jakob's "leech" metaphor, they were seen to have been sucking down more bandwidth than it was worth supporting.

WebmasterWorld founder Brett Tabke was often quoted saying he had the best sleep in months after blocking the spiders. His sleep may have improved, but what to do about the major spiders didn't go away. By the end of December, Brett had done a 180 degree turn and let the major spiders back in.

Until now, WebmasterWorld's been about the only major site I can think of that has tried to block spiders. Craigslist was rumored to have done so, but that wasn't true.

I do believe concerns over spidering are growing, especially as we have more spidering from both the major search engines and from rogues that are out there. Back in October, The lie of distribution--search engines return very little value to news/blog sites yet hog bandwidth and increase server loads from Tom Foremski was an example of this.

As I commented on his blog, it's fair to say that despite grumbles, that the vast majority of site owners do not consider search engines leeches. If they did, they would deleech themselves by blocking spiders. It's not hard to do. A simple change to the robots.txt file will block all the major search spiders. But no on does this, because they want the traffic. Even Jakob's own file isn't blocking Google and gang.

But back to Jakob's point, it turns out he really isn't talking about the "source material" being leeched but instead about the high cost of advertising. Again to his opening statement, with the key part in bold.

I worry that search engines are sucking out too much of the Web's value, acting as leeches on companies that create the very source materials the search engines index.

And the evidence of this?

Paid search confiscates too much of a website's value.

What? Paid search "confiscates" a site's value? Since when did search engines suddenly show up at a web site and demand the owner sign-up for advertising? We've long had rumors that a site that doesn't advertise might find themselves banned with various major search engines. We've even had reports of "monetization targeting" where site owners have found that doing an ad or paid inclusion buy might clear up a spam banning problem. But by and large, there are plenty of web sites that spend nil with search engines on advertising and get plenty of traffic.

In fact, the exhausting, annoying, tiring, boring, you name it regular updates to Google generate plenty of forum fodder that show people aren't spending and getting traffic from search engines. If they weren't, they wouldn't be freaking out any time Google undergoes a major algorithm change that sends rankings dancing and for some, traffic plunging. They wouldn't worry, because they'd have had both a balance of paid and natural search listings that helped them ride out the rough times if there was an issue on the natural side.

Instead, the October 2005 "Jagger" update showed plenty of site owners are still dependent on getting traffic from search engines for free. The Nov. 2003 Google Florida update should have taught many not to be free listing dependent, but clearly they remain this way. And the lessons not to be dependent were in place even before this.

So overall, the issue doesn't involve free listings. Jakob's really concerned about the rising cost in search advertising. Over time, as he's worked with client sites, they've been able to pay more by pushing up conversion rates. But at some point, others catch up and the margins of what his clients can pay is reached. He says:

If your search bid stays the same, your ad will sink off the page as more and more competing sites improve their design enough to afford higher bids. Our site therefore has no choice but to increase its own bid to $7.99 per click if it wants to stay in business.

This simply isn't true unless Jakob's clients are making the mistake of depending solely upon paid search ads to gain customers. If that's the case, yep, you should be looking to diversify. More on this in a moment.

Jakob also says (and the bolding is his):

This is great news for search engines: they can double their income by doing nothing. Just sit and wait for all other websites to improve -- then skim off the increased earnings.

In other words, the search engines get to make more by doing nothing because the advertisers are learning they can afford to pay more. And they sound pretty evil. But rewrite it this way:

This is great news for the Super Bowl: the cost of buying a commercial keeps going up even though they do nothing. Just wait for advertisers to be willing to pay more -- then skim off the increased earnings.

Honestly, perspective like the above is very much in order. Consider:

  • Search advertising has long been undervalued. People still pay less than a dollar for some paid search ads and they obtain clients that will be with them for life. But few advertisers are calculating the lifetime value of search. Jakob doesn't appear to be consider this. The examples he gives are to the purchases made directly from a click on an ad. Do his B2B customers come back to the site directly the next time and buy? If so, the only reason they did so was because they found the site through search in the first place. If you don't factor that lifetime value, then you fail to understand how much you really can afford to pay.  
  • Advertisers are getting smarter. Those who better measure conversion know they can pay more and they are. The search engines are to blame for this? They're simply seeing that their undervalued advertising medium is finally growing to what it really is worth. The real person to be upset with is that other advertiser. And the solution is to get smarter.  
  • It's an open marketplace. Is Apple is a leech on consumers for overcharging for MP3 players that you can buy from others that work as well if not better but lack the Apple logo? The search engines aren't forcing people to buy ads. If advertisers can't afford to continue paying high prices, they won't. And when they don't, the prices will fall. The exceptions are if the search engine conspire in some way to force purchases (say they really do link buying ads to getting other types of listings) or when they set artificially high minimum bids (Google tried doing this but had to drop many because people weren't willing to pay).

So rather than "despite search engines, websites can make money," as Jakob says, the reality remains that because of search engines, plenty of web sites are making money without spending a dime, pence, euro, yen or whatever on search advertising.

I completely agree that anyone running a web site should heed Jakob's "search engine liberation" advice of alternative ways to promote a web site, such as considering RSS, email newsletters and so on. But this isn't suddenly new advice. Any long-time internet marketer would tell you not to depend just on search engines. Thinking "beyond search engines" has been the core of my basic tips since I put them up back in 1997:

Search engines are a primary way people look for web sites, but they are not the only way. People also find sites through word-of-mouth, traditional advertising, the traditional media, newsgroup postings, web directories and links from other sites. Many times, these alternative forms are far more effective draws than are search engines. The audience you want may be visiting a site that you can partner with or reading a magazine that you've never informed of your site. Do the simple things to best make your site relevant to search engines, then concentrate on the other areas.

It's all a matter of balance. Don't obsess over search engine listings, but don't ignore them, either. Do a variety of online marketing activities -- and do a variety of offline ones, as well. Search -- both paid and free -- is a component of any campaign. But it isn't something you should depend on, any more than you should depend on all television advertising, all print ads, all RSS ads or a strategy of no advertising at all. If you are not diversified, you'll have a weakness that might hit when you least expect it.

To conclude, no one should put all their eggs into any basket, search or otherwise. It's absolutely true that search engines are not the end all be all and that sites can thrive and survive without them. But many sites also can thrive and survive better by incorporating them into a diversified publicity campaign.

Search engines definitely can do more to help those with support on the organic side of things, which is especially needed since webmasters do indeed provide the content that the search engines depend on. The good news is that last year, we saw more changes and developments to give webmasters new tools than ever before.

Finally, ad prices will likely continue to rise, and different advertisers will react in various ways. John Battelle recently pointed at a blog suggesting that FTD might be nearing all it can afford to spend. But just today, we reported on a survey showing four out of five advertisers saying they can still afford to pay more, though the question of whether a plateau is being reached is raised. Then the latest Fathom report on keyword prices saw a continuing "downward spiral," as MediaPost put it. I haven't looked closely at the latest numbers, but the sample is so small (500 terms) that I'm generally wary on depending on it as a foolproof predictor.

From my part, I see two main issues with keyword prices going forward: Super Conversion Trackers & Brand Idiots.

Super Conversion Trackers are those who will indeed track a lifetime value of someone who comes to them from search. They'll understand that the initial purchase may lead to more and more purchases over time and feel comfortable paying multiples above competitors to gain a lead. That will push some out of the bidding. See Most Conversions Happen Offline; You Need To Measure These! for some further thoughts on this.

Brand Idiots are what some marketers think derisively of others who jump into bidding without linking it to a direct ROI target. They can screw up bidding on what seems to be "logical" or "fair" amount that most in the marketplace may assume. But brand idiots are part of that marketplace, and you can expect to see more of them.

Automakers Buy Up 80% Of Ad Space On Car Sites For 2006 from AdAge is a good example of this. It explains how automakers are going more and more online to extend their brands. Edmunds, a car research site, expects to take those brand dollars and buy more search as well as display ads to fuel that desire. That's big brand money that's going to be fueling those buys and putting pressure on others trying to compete.

Big Guys Crowd Out Little Guys in SEM Arena; Some Branding Focused Advertisers Willing to Spend "Whatever" It Takes and C'mon In Brand Owners, The Search Water's Fine has more on these type of moves.

Stuck in a bidding war? How To Get Out Of Bid Wars A Winner? over at our Search Engine Watch Forums may have some helpful advice if you're already tracking and improving conversions as much as possible and getting some brand idiot money is not an option.

Want to comment or discuss? Visit our SEW Forums thread, Search Engine Leeches, Dependency & Losing Perspective.

Posted by Danny Sullivan at 1:27 PM | Permalink

December 21, 2005

Google Worries Traditional Marketers & Google Print Ads To Enter New Phase

A twofer of stories out of MediaPost looking at how Google will be trying new things with its Google Publication Ads program, a program which is one of the latest things to get traditional marketers worried that Google may be making moves on their turf.

Google Readies 'Phase Two' Of Print Ads Project covers Google about to try new things in a second phase of its print ads program -- but what exactly these will be, the company isn't saying. BusinessWeek found recently that some advertisers were less than thrilled with the program, so perhaps pricing or formats may change.

Google Begins Agency Outreach, Recruits Traditional Media Buyers from MediaPost covers how Google's reaching around ad buyers directly to advertisers, as well as an expansion of ads into the offline world, is making some traditional ad buyers nervous.

Google counters it's doing more to work with ad agencies, from training programs to having "agency development managers" to and the creation of new products. Google's also apparently recruitment more people with traditional ad backgrounds. Gary's covered previously how there are a ton of jobs going for the print program.

Posted by Danny Sullivan at 12:12 PM | Permalink

November 21, 2005

Google Rolls Back Commissions In Europe, Forward With Them In China

I wrote earlier about how Google was phasing out commissions in Europe -- well, reducing them and giving them another name at least. Google clearly wishes it had never gone the commission route in Europe, but that was seen as something it had to do to get started. Apparently, doing the commission game is another thing it sees as a must to do in order to boostrap things in China, says Shak in Google adds 5th reseller in China at China White. It'll be interesting to see if five years from now, it tries to dig out of that strategy in the way it's trying with Europe.

Posted by Danny Sullivan at 10:15 AM | Permalink

November 17, 2005

Search Marketers vs. Search Engine Ad Reps

Although search engine ad reps are supposed to offer help to both advertisers and search marketers, they're also incentivized to persuade advertisers to work directly with them, bypassing search marketers. This conflict can cause tension between search marketers and ad reps, but there are ways to manage awkward situations, according to a panel of search marketers who discussed the topic at a recent Search Engine Strategies conference. Guest writer Heather Lloyd-Martin covered the session for today's SearchDay article, Search Engine Ad Reps: Friend or Foe?.

Posted by Chris Sherman at 6:41 AM | Permalink

October 12, 2005

UK Agencies Push Back On Google Commission Restructuring

I wrote earlier of Google ending/cutting commission payments to agencies in Europe as of January 1. Google under fire for scrapping agency commission from intellagencia and IPA wades into Google commission row look at the to-be-expected pushback from agencies.

In particular, the UK's IPA Digital Marketing Group has put out a statement (sorry, couldn't find it on the IPA site that wants you to log-in to do much of anything there) that it has deep concerns that

  • The move might undermine the trust between agencies and clients
  • Was driven by Google's financial self-interest
  • The qualification levels are unrealistic.

Of course, the fact that search marketing firms and other agencies have done well without commissions outside of Europe kind of undermines those arguments. I have no doubt the change is going to be hard for many agencies. Outside Europe, agencies have evolved to justify their services and time by getting compensation by adding on top of what search engines charge, often on a percentage or flat-fee basis. Europe hasn't grown up that way, so a commission cut will obviously be a blow -- though not as bad as if it was entirely removed.

The Search Agency Burden from Kevin Ryan at iMedia Connection also looks at the issue, finding it will help smaller players, rather than hurt them as the IPA argues. He also seems to like not having discounts, as that keeps the focus on the services an agency can provide.

Finally, I started out saying Google was ending/cutting commission payments. What's with that slash? As far as Google is concerned, commissions will be ending entirely. In their place will be an entirely new "best practices funding" that may pay up to 15 percent back on spend. Why's that different from a commission? It's not going to be, for many. The best practice funding doesn't come with any strings on what you spend it on.

Posted by Danny Sullivan at 9:13 AM | Permalink

October 3, 2005

Google After SEM Execs To Woo & Train Agencies?

Google Searches for SEM Talent at ClickZ covers how various search marketing firms are reporting that Google's after their execs apparently to beef up its agency outreach. It follows on a recent Yahoo hire.

Posted by Danny Sullivan at 1:43 PM | Permalink

September 28, 2005

Google Changing Agency Commission Payments In Europe

Many search marketers in the US are unaware that in Europe, both Google and Yahoo offer agency commissions. Today, Google has announced plans to restructure that practice. The Google press release on the move hasn't yet been posted in the Google press release area, so I've reprinted what I was sent below. The longer edition of this post for Search Engine Watch members has more information on the move, including:

  • The new program opens across Europe from January 2006 to any qualified third party agency (at least five clients, two Google certified professionals on staff).  
  • Google does NOT consider the new program to be paying commission but rather having a "best practice funding element."  
  • Payments will be tied to business brought in or grown and tiered to a maximum of 12 percent  
  • Yes, search marketing firms are eligible.

For more, see the members' version of this post (or become a member and help support the site and this blog!).

See also the Agency Commission Or Discount Offered On Search Ads? thread in our Search Engine Watch Forums for discussions of payments in Europe and how they don't happen in the US.

Postscript: Here's additional info Google has sent (press release comes after that):

  • From 1st January 2006 there will be no agency commission i.e. All advertisers will be on a level playing field.  
  • The Google European third party programme is a drive to empower 3rd parties in the delivery of best practice within the field of search marketing.  
  • The best practice funding element is a criteria-based scheme which aims to provide investment for third parties from Google in order to drive their search marketing capabilities forward and grow the industry.  
  • The scheme is optional and does not involve any discounting of the Google advertising model - a deliberate move aimed at achieving transparency and integrity for the adwords auction model.  
  • The criteria for qualification are not solely financially based and include mandatory adoption of our My Client Centre. Third parties must also meet Google Advertising Professional quota requirements in order to qualify.

Here's the Google press release:

London - September 28, 2005 - Google Inc. today announced that it has introduced a new program aimed at empowering third parties and delivering continued value to advertisers of all sizes. This new industry program will be available to all qualifying third parties across Europe from January 2006.

Under the new Google European Third Party program, Google will deliver training, tools and support to third parties, enabling them to deliver more value to their clients. By reconfiguring the previous practice of giving agency discounts and introducing best practice funding, this new program will level the playing field, allowing advertisers of all sizes to fairly compete in Google's auctions based advertising platform.

"Google's new program empowers third parties to more efficiently and effectively serve their clients. Third parties are critical to the success of advertisers and to Google and we have designed an approach that favours both," says Nikesh Arora, Vice President of European Operations at Google. "We firmly believe that it is important to preserve the integrity of the channel in terms of marketing effectiveness and advertiser perception. By fostering greater equality across Google's auction model, advertisers of all sizes can more effectively compete against each other," he concludes.

The core elements that Google will now provide its third parties are:

  • Tools to increase third party efficiency and effectiveness
  • Training and market research
  • Process enhancements such as wholesale upgrades to our commercial processes to ensure that our processes are aligned to our third party business models
  • Extended service and technical support
  • A quarterly best practice funding program for investment in training and platforms which aims to provide financial support for those third parties who fulfill our quality and investment scale criteria

Designed to boost the quality of search marketing operations, and safeguard the integrity of the channel, this program encourages third parties to deliver quality advertising results for users thereby improving marketing effectiveness, clients ROI and advertiser perception.

Posted by Danny Sullivan at 9:38 AM | Permalink

May 4, 2005

Google Faces Customer Satisfaction & Advertiser Trust Issues

Google: biting the hand that feeds it? from CNN Money shows Google slipping in some aspects of customer satisfaction among advertisers. An annual survey of 200 ad executives about customer happiness showed that Google rose overall from seventh place last year to fifth place this year. However, it had a dramatic drop from 11th to 18th in the "responsiveness and accessibility" subcategory. The story then goes beyond the report to survey several advertisers not happy about other issues. One big gripe? Google bigfooting search marketers by trying to grab accounts away from them. Some past reading related to this issue, for Google and others:

By the way, Yahoo comes out better than Google in the survey, ranked second overall and seventh in the responsiveness subcategory. AOL comes behind Google, ranked 14th and 21st, respectively. MSN is further behind, 19th and 43rd. Ask is also behind, ranked 20th and 27th.

Posted by Danny Sullivan at 8:24 AM | Permalink

See More Posts From:

This Week | This Month

  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

0