Traffick - The Business of Search Engines & Web Portals
Blog Categories (aka Tags) Archive of Traffick Articles Our Internet Marketing Consulting Services Contact the Traffickers Traffick RSS Feed

Archive for January, 2013

Why Google Loves Remarketing

Thursday, January 31st, 2013

Today, I’ve been going through all of our client AdWords data, looking at the aggregate CPM rates Google is commanding for both Search and Display advertising. CPM (cost per thousand impressions) is a lesser-used metric in our field today, but it can provide additional perspective as a benchmark.

That exercise reminded me that many of the dominant forms of “display” advertising in client accounts today are in the various types of remarketing. That makes aggregate figures misleading, because remarketing pulls the average CPM pricing up.

The more these higher-value forms of display advertising crowd out the lower-value stuff, the happier Google is, financially. Could it be that this will also help the publisher ecosystem? One hopes.

Just a back of the envelope calculation, but here is roughly what I’m seeing:

  • The strongest forms of remarketing are priced at 10X (or more) what display advertising is typically selling for in the case of advertisers not being particularly performance-focused on the latter
  • For less valued forms of remarketing, the ratio is still 5X
  • Even when advertisers are managing tightly to some performance metric (not as demanding as search, but tight) in display advertising, remarketing typically goes for 3X the price of the other display advertising, and at least 2X

Here’s where advertisers need to be careful. Remarketing is harvesting existing demand, leveraging past investments, and speaking to certain kinds of audiences. It’s “low hanging fruit.” That’s why it’s worth spending the money. But it shouldn’t be confused with a serious effort to build out display advertising. Many of us believe that advertisers under-invest in display advertising compared with peers who do it well. Remarketing isn’t really the same thing. It’s good, but it also shouldn’t be an excuse to get complacent. If you can find great prices on the regular display inventory, then there may indeed be a benefit.

As for Google, and publishers, this must be good for profit margins. There is too much near-worthless display inventory out there. Getting some of those clicks to shift over to audience-based targeting is a better way to monetize user attention… financially speaking only, of course.

Does BlackBerry’s Super Bowl Ad Matter?

Wednesday, January 30th, 2013

BlackBerry will be one of the companies lining up for the privilege of paying several million dollars for a brief advertising slot at the Super Bowl.

Chances are that ad, despite its fleeting nature, might rival the company’s digital ad spend for an entire year in a country like, say, Canada.

Are there really any drawbacks to this? Unlike most TV advertising, these ads become something of a cultural touchpoint, get huge exposure, get additional views online during and after the event, and garner additional references by the tens of thousands as “earned media.” The $4 million or so won’t exactly put a huge dent in the company’s cash reserves (still in the billions).

In light of that, it could be argued that it’s good bang for the buck on paper, and in this case, particularly timely. It’s almost tempting to come around to the “pro-Super-Bowl-commercial” line of thinking.

Ultimately, though, it might pose a risk in two ways.

  1. If there isn’t anything truly new or remarkable in the commercial, then you’ve reached out to the 99% of the phone buying public who simply aren’t rabid BlackBerry fans, giving them ever more reason to bray about the new devices’ perceived shortcomings.
  2. It can serve as a distraction from the much more important challenge: the much more broad-ranging, “on the ground” ebb and flow of outreach across many channels, in every conceivable forum for public opinion formation & info gathering.

The second is the most important. Despite the hype, people don’t really get their information from Super Bowl commercials. The “real action” is all over the place. Especially online.

People stopped getting their information from TV spots a very long time ago. And starting 15 years ago, folks in rarefied fields began using news aggregator tools (or Bloomberg terminals) to find stuff out. Now everyone looks everything up on a constant basis, joins the fray, exercises intent by opting into a notification list or buying immediately, etc.

Is there anyone in the market for a new smartphone who is not now aware that Blackberry’s new devices and new OS are out? Is there any particular value to building the “brand” with a steady onslaught of TV and billboard ads, for example… as opposed to engaging in all other forms of more direct marketing and customer care?

Imagine if you could do for TV what you could do for some online channels: “negative out” certain demographics or intents, to reach a subset of more likely candidates. Or go after certain IP addresses that betray a likely business user. Let’s face it — when it comes to large-audience, network broadcasts,  TV’s concept of targeting is laughable. There are still folks who think you’re “targeting a business audience” by advertising insurance, enterprise software, and Cadillacs on the golf broadcasts (clearly the province only of top execs).

Well, you can’t do the “negative out thing” or the “B2B targeting thing” on the Super Bowl. So you’re paying $4 million to show a 30-second propaganda film to everyone instead of much less to reach out with a richer piece of information for some key decision-makers in the enterprise. But you knew that.

What of the mass commercial market? Not much better.

A commercial has very little connection to what we see today on BlackBerry’s blog, for example, where loyalists rush to the defense of the new Q10 devices (the ones with the physical keyboards coming out in a few weeks). What a blessing for BlackBerry that they still have a not-inconsequential tribe of people eager to jump on a comment thread with comments like (real comment): “The BlackBerry physical keyboard and call buttons are what silverware is to eating food. Yes, I can eat with my hands, but it’s much more civilized to eat with silverware.” And of course there are a lot of laments about the shape and size of just about everything. In short, a lot of real-world back and forth.

Ha! I’m guessing that’s not how the Super Bowl ad will be. It will — shocker — try to wow us with how good the device is. And in a world of people who know very well that information doesn’t come from commercials… that makes it pretty much irrelevant.

Let’s hope the company thrives down in the weeds, where the real action happens. Like here:

blackberry gorilla

Getting the story out one user, one search result, one tweet, one carrier, one feature rebuild, one developer, etc. etc. etc. … at a time. By contrast, a Super Bowl ad — while it seems BIG — is easy to do. A little bit expensive, but really nothing to quibble about. And such an easy check to write.

As such, I can’t see it making any difference. Most viewers will still be talking about the Oreo ad the next day — or whichever one was really the best.

The pointless 30-second spot neatly does solve the problem with so many forms of non-traditional advertising… there are a lot of cheques to write. For many harder-to-execute feats. Sometimes the available “advertising” inventory in a certain online channel is much smaller than your wallet is (or maybe you just aren’t looking hard enough at how to spend it). When your budget is big and timelines compressed, the margin of safety says, just in case, write that big check and get it over with.

No harm done (unless the ad is laughable and sinks your brand in one day). But the other stuff — the harder stuff with all those little to-do’s and little checks to write — is what really matters.

What are your thoughts?

For Non-Brand “Brands” Building Their Brands… Much Work to Be Done

Tuesday, January 29th, 2013

If you’re in marketing, especially of the digital variety, chances are you won’t have much trouble figuring out something new to do this week.

With the explosion of the interactive world into all of its social and mobile splinters, there is always another tool, another tactic, and another way to keep busy. So much so that it might seem to the cynical to be a bit of a competition to see who can look busiest, who can learn the most tools, and who can chase the latest fad.

But if you look at the “to do list” from a coherent standpoint — understanding that there is an overarching, transformative task that is x% on the way to being achieved at your company — the bits and pieces don’t seem endless anymore. It can become more obvious that your company is roughly 10%, or 75%, along the road to reaching a state of (if you will) “full online personhood”. So for some time, that’s a big part of what you’ll be going to work every day trying to fill out. You might as well gamify it.

Your online (social, reputational) “presence” — and the task of completing it — isn’t so much more complicated than filling out a LinkedIn profile, at least in the sense that you can get roughly x% through the task if you keep at it.

That has become increasingly obvious to some kinds of companies — especially larger ones. Some analysts of online competence — when they write and speak — direct their exhortations to “brands,” as if brands are people with souls. “Brands should… ”

It sounds funny, but understanding the context, it’s not far off. At one point in time, going online might have meant building a website, or several. Today — and the proliferation of social media presence & monitoring dashboards/tools like Radian6 is a testament to that — one’s online presence as a company forms a sort of multidimensional profile with all sorts of offshoots and strange surfaces and textures. If a company speaks in a disjointed voice, can be found in one place and not another, leaves little breadcrumbs of its humanity over here, but not over there… it all culminates in the overall impression left with the customer, or potential customer.

If all of that “looks funny,” or barely exists at all, then it really doesn’t matter what the reality of the good people and their good products is, for the hypothetical researcher who might somehow be able to visit the company’s executives in person or magically source perfect word-of-mouth through old-fashioned means. If a tree falls in the forest, and all.

So that’s why brands should.

Of course, we were warned. Long before there was a Facebook, a Twitter, or a Yelp, the Cluetrain Manifesto authors did alert us to the fact that “markets are conversations.” This isn’t something the folks over at Hootsuite just discovered.

If you went out and took a hard look of the (gamified) state of many brands’ building from the one-dimensional (“website and search engine”) visibility paradigm (circa 1998) up to a state of contemporary, full online “personhood,” you’d see many of them at 50%, or maybe just a bit better. More than enough, in most jurisdictions outside of Palo Alto, to be lauded as maintaining a transparent, full-featured, bona fide online presence. Maybe even a likeable one.

But not every company is a “brand.” Why analysts and gurus speak directly to brands (Kleenex? The Keebler Elves? Adidas? Boeing?) probably has something to do with a belief that brands have budgets for agency and guru services. Big ones.

But the non-brands still need to build their “brands” in their own fashion. They’re sorely lacking in encouragement. Their industry peers and boards of directors might not see a need. It can quickly move past the point of being a need to a crisis. Catch-up is hard if you fall too far behind. Try starting up a Twitter account today and see how many real, engaged followers you have next year.

The non-brand brands out there — medium-sized companies — are probably 25% of the economy, as against the larger companies that make up 40% of it (and putting aside for the moment the 35% of the economy that are small to very small businesses). They have a lot of customers. For what a lot of customers want and need, they are better than so-called brands. They should be proud of that! They should own it. They are better than “brands” at connecting with the Seth Godin proposition that today, We Are All Weird. And small (or at least, medium) really is the new big.

All have a built a reputation they want to keep. But standing still instead of building it out further means you lose ground, since the playing field has shifted so dramatically. And yet that guru speaking at TED is not going to have his sales team call, asking when you plan to come up to speed. After all, the sales team is busy making presentations to “brands.”

And… in the gamified state of their buildout of this generation of their online marketing, these great non-brand-brands are stuck at “10% done” — sometimes less. They won’t be great for long if they don’t update their toolkits. “Quiet confidence” and “quiet competence” is are things you only get credit for when someone, um, hears about them.

The to-do list for these non-brands is now extensive and urgent. They need to get on it. For the exact same reasons “brands” did. And it needn’t seem like a random array of tactics and means of gaining cool points. I like to think of it as a coherent mission to adapt to the new requirements of building a full, deeply textured, and coherent presence. The technology, and customers’ expectations, have made this both possible and necessary.

Facebook Graph Search Doesn’t Address FB’s Achilles Heel

Tuesday, January 15th, 2013

Today’s announcement of Facebook Graph Search looks promising.

From an advertiser and investor perspective, narrow though that may be, it suggests that Facebook will indeed add a compelling and intuitive offshoot of functionality that it can effectively monetize. That’s especially important as Facebook learns to monetize in a more intuitive way; many efforts to date have been awkward.

The limitation here is that for this to contribute incrementally to profit, people will have to spend more time on Facebook than they already do. User attention is finite — there are literally only so many waking hours that people can spend looking in the general direction of content that might have ads nearby. So really, how much upside does this create for Facebook, financially? Some. Not lots.

Without having a chance to play with the tool, it looks from here like it will be fun and easy to use, leveraging some state-of-the-art natural language capabilities. It will put some power and creativity in users’ hands. It will also be in tune with the multiplicity of forms of content — written, visual, audio, etc.

It amounts to Facebook refining and improving the experience for those who are already committed to life inside its walled garden.

The major threat to Facebook is not now, and has never been, that it can’t get good enough at being the leading social network.

The major threat is that people’s appetite for sharing their lives and content on Facebook — the fodder for all that goes on inside — will wane or dissipate. That may not seem imminent. But all the addition of Facebook Graph Search to FB’s overall feature set does is to rest even more weight on one — potentially shaky — foundation. User trust, willingness to be open, willingness to build large lists of “friends” and confide in them as if they were the closest of confidantes. Let’s face it: the searches would look pretty stupid if you only had 4-5 Facebook friends, and if those friends were taciturn about sharing anything.

So Facebook’s usefulness is premised on people building lists of hundreds and hundreds of friends, and most of those people sharing a high volume of their sentiments, content, and behavior. That may very well continue. None of this works very well if people choose to stop friending and sharing.

Paid Inclusion: More Than Meets the Eye

Wednesday, January 9th, 2013

After a long dormant period, the issue of paid inclusion bubbled up to the surface of news about the business of search recently.

Danny Sullivan, an anchor of continuity in an industry that sometimes suffers from fragmentation and Attention Deficit Disorder, has patiently covered this intersection of the searcher’s user experience and search engine companies’ business models since the first debates about it over a decade ago. Sullivan, not shy about invoking the need for the FTC to investigate potential bias in search results, has generally advocated fuller disclosure of search and directories’ business models. Paid inclusion, he has typically argued, should be well disclosed — presumably because many users are under the impression that search results are unbiased and scientific.

As they should be.

Search engines and categorized directory driven companies often have a vested interest in the confidence consumers have in the unbiased nature of the results. Quite simply, “real” search is distinguished from advertising; both have a role, and both become most useful when people know which is which. Many search engine companies actually feel strongly about this.

Danny also gives equal time to the notion that “paid relationships can be good,” because they raise the bar on quality control standards — and that can help protect consumers.

That being said, it’s all too easy to oversimplify the business challenge of coming up with a business model that would support a great search engine or categorized directory company — or any useful content, for that matter. And in search, analysts, consumers, and gadflies have rarely dug into the details of how different approaches work. Rather — and surprisingly — critics lazily dismiss all paid inclusion models they don’t understand as simply biased or compromised.

Missteps and Abuses Eroded Trust

For their part, the search engines and directories made huge missteps when their “revenue teams” got out in front of the “I love the product” people. LookSmart, a categorized directory, lost credibility when it began charging for both directory listings and paid clicks within those listings. Yahoo’s directory merely charged for “premium listings” in its directory, but in the surface-level analysis we heard in those days, hardly anyone asked tough questions about how they rank-ordered results, how editorial standards worked, etc.

In hindsight, one thing we do know is that there were abuses. Anytime there is a way to “dominate” search results, there will be abuses. For a “short time” of about a year and a half, a single Payday Loan company easily dominated its Yahoo category by buying nine listings. That’s like the small town where the nine “different” dry cleaners are all owned by the same company. Not ideal, but certainly, stranger things have happened.

I believe many of those reading Danny Sullivan’s analyses of these matters over time probably had trouble believing such long posts were needed to explain such straightforward matters — long posts made even longer by the liberal use of screen shots. It’s a style some other analysts began to copy, on the mistaken assumption that the style was what made those posts helpful, rather than their substance.

The fact is, to properly and appropriately explain how some search listings and paid inclusion (or paid advertising near search results) work, it might take posts even longer than Danny’s.

The Relative Simplicity of the Yellow Pages Model

Remember the Yellow Pages? It was pure pay-to-play. Not only did you pay to be in there, but you could choose very large ad units, buy for multiple service areas and yes — even advertise in multiple categories! Certainly — though this was before the days of an “algorithm” that could mediate issues of relevancy and make editorial decisions seem to vanish, as we see today at companies like Google and Yelp — there would have to be some basic standards of relevancy at play. If there are “categories” in a directory, then you probably can’t allow a big fish to buy into every category in the book — even if they have the money.

But certainly there were incentives for ego-bidding, buying multiple service categories, and multiple service areas: if someone wanted to throw their money around, a relationship manager at the directory was there to handle their needs and to keep them happy. And those relationships really did get managed over the long term. In their declining years, no one had many good things to say about the yellow books, but one thing you never heard much of was one company complaining that another one was in there “unfairly”. Because the transaction was nearly *entirely* financial, it was all taken care of behind the scenes, with the cards ultimately being held by the directory publisher: if you’re really upset about something, you’re free to buy no listing. Hope your phone keeps ringing.

[In a more contemporary context, I recall coming into contact with a woman who was Director of Editorial at Overture, the pay-per-click search engine that later became Yahoo Search Marketing. I thought to myself at the time: she was utterly unsuited to the task of sorting out who should be allowed to advertise where across a massively scaled, keyword-driven advertising auction, as most humans would be. Google saw the handwriting on the wall there long before others did, and ramped up their development efforts on what would become the AdWords Quality Score formula, a formula that will necessarily be subject to endless refinement insofar as relevance, fairness, appropriateness and user experiences need to be balanced out with Google's business model.]

So: remember back to whether there were inter-company “squabbles” directed at the “mediator” Yellow Pages company. There was no social media to complain on, and no assumption that a nice helicopter-parent-ish “user experience company” would help you get business if you were the “most relevant”. Your competitors wouldn’t be called out as “spammers” or “cheaters” because there was no such thing.

Things are much better (and cheaper) for remarkable, strong word of mouth businesses, in this regard. Yet paradoxically, they complain more about the platforms that help word of mouth spread cheaply. Perhaps it’s because those platforms have set themselves up as paragons of virtue. Those who discover that “don’t be evil” is really just code for “be 10% less evil than the old boss,” and egged on by critics like Doc Searls and the people at Adbusters, who tend to cartoonishly lampoon and reject all advertising, forget (in their disillusionment) to build viable alternatives, or to respect that trial and error and business relationships built on choice and messes of all different shapes and sizes are epistemically preferable to naive, utopian visions dreamt up by well-meaning individuals.

Benefits of Search and Reviews

These kinds of extreme positions (about how evil Google, Yelp, etc. are) too easily forget how lame things were just fifteen short years ago, as the Yellow Pages era was declining.

“Search” isn’t sacrosanct: it’s a great way to be found. Fortunately for many businesses, Google has spent billions of dollars making it a credible enough source of information and advertising that consumers *willingly* come back in huge numbers daily.

“Reviews” are helpful but not gospel. Sorting out real from fake is a vital prerequisite for forward progress in a user-generated-content sector dominated by well-regarded publicly-traded companies like Yelp and TripAdvisor. Like Google, they invest serious resources into editorial oversight and more and more all the time into developing algorithms to improve trust and relevance. That’s a good long term bet, because consumers place far more value on unbiased information than on biased information.

That being said, they’re not out of the advertising business entirely. Without revenues, they wouldn’t be businesses at all. And things have improved greatly over the years.

When Yahoo was experimenting with its premium directory listings, coupled with (for example) Inktomi-or-Google-driven keyword search results, few sought to ask about the rules for buying in multiple categories, how relevance rules were enforced (they had editorial teams, probably an inefficiently high number of them cross-subsidized by Yahoo’s inflated early profits from ineffective banner ads), or how rank order should be determined when an advertiser was in a second or third category. Few were sophisticated enough to ask. And although there were a few online forums and so on, the amazing thing is there was no Facebook and Twitter (and no slavish fear of them so that every move a company makes needs to worry every day about “what everyone is tweeting”), so you did not have a lot of deep dives or food fights over how people’s listings showed up. Needless to say, things sucked much worse then, and people knew less.

Progress, Accountability and Transparency

The key difference today is that (1) things suck much less; (2) companies like Google, Yelp, TripAdvisor, and pretty much everyone else can’t help but hearing constant streams of input and feedback, much of it negative; (3) people think they know much more about information retrieval.

The problem is — with (3) — people think they know more about information retrieval because more people are using these sites and advertising on them. Unfortunately, few know any more about information retrieval than we knew a few years ago. Most every business is in the same mode businesses have been in their dealings with Google Search since 1999: if a competitor is doing better on Google Search, then Google Search must be broken, or corrupt. It’s just far easier to point out problems than it is to design a massive system geared to please everyone.

But search and directory companies are trying to improve as they attempt to balance revenues with ever more transparency, relevance, and trust. They will have to do so with 80% technology, and 20% editorial oversight. Consistent, published rules will be helpful, and must be applied to everyone without exception. Neither inter-advertiser fairness nor the user experience are subjective matters; both can be measured.

If search, directory, and review sites don’t follow through on those objectives, then users will leave. The services will become pure advertising, as the Yellow Pages were; services that few people would voluntarily use. These aren’t monopolies. Other services are only a click away, as Sergey Brin is fond of pointing out.

On a regular basis, business owners have useful and important feedback that helps change how search (etc.) companies deal with paid listings. Sometimes there are significant problems with a large publisher like Google abusing its power, and a groundswell is needed to force change, such as this petition to allow advertisers the old ad rotation option in AdWords. (I signed that one — I felt strongly about that issue. Naturally, there will be other petitions, as there are always going to be unresolved platform complaints. I probably won’t sign the next one, because I’ve been writing publicly to a wider audience as well as communicating with Google for years, not signing protest petitions. They don’t always listen, but I believe you aren’t heard anymore if you just complain about everything constantly, or stage “protests” on matters that should be taken care of with routine, respectful input.)

But for the most part, let me go against convention by rejecting the idea that it is fair to take to Twitter every time you don’t like how a competitor shows up in Google, how Yelp’s review filter affected *just your business*, etc., like social media is some kind of “higher court” that should be used to get a specific case looked at in more depth.

The really interesting questions are deeper ones of how these pop-up problems could be dealt with by handling them consistently over the long term — like how do categories work, how does relevance work, what do users find most useful, where are there exceptions that treat some businesses unfairly when other businesses take advantage of loopholes, etc.

Like I said, even the Yellow Pages stuff wasn’t quite as simple as it looks, in its day. “Categories” had to have meaning, and listings had to have some standards. But all of these squabbles took place behind the scenes.

Does anyone, to this day, remember how Yahoo used to rank-order the businesses paying for premium directory listings? No one gives it a thought, but you can be sure that someone at Yahoo could have (or should have, or maybe did) spent a fair bit of thought trying to sort this out, so that the user was given relevant results and the listing businesses (who all paid something) were treated fairly in relation to one another. But outside of those behind-the-scene efforts, no one appears to care very much. The listing businesses suddenly care when their competitor shows up more prominently.

All the hue and cry in the world (business owner tweets, negative press by those journalists who are squeamish about profit-making publishers who also provide great resources to the world) won’t change the missions of companies like Google, TripAdvisor, and Yelp. They do things that set them apart from the Yellow Pages, travel agencies, and the (probably bribed) concierge at the hotel.

HomeStars Seeks a Better Way

And as for HomeStars, which is what motivated me to post this in the first place: HomeStars is significantly different from the many “bought and paid for” contractor referral services that have come down the pike over the years. The core mission is to highlight real reviews from real homeowners, and the business model is supported by paid premium listings, which come with certain clear rules. Any home services business is eligible to list on the site without paying. Quality control on reviews must necessarily be achieved through a combination of editorial and algorithmic means.

To bring up one example of a thorny dilemma in how to implement multiple category membership: let’s say a business (an electrician) is listed in a single category [electricians] and doing well, and wants to upgrade to be included in a second category so customers in a related area [pools, which often require wiring] also see their listing (a privilege that comes with an extra fee). In the Yellow Pages era, the decision would be binary. Either they can pay to do it (period), and editorial says it isn’t too far out of the realm of relevance, or an editorial decision is a firm “no” (locksmiths can’t list under “cupcake stores”). In most cases, the price of the listing is going to take care of the decision. The total price tag for premium listings would climb to the point where irrelevant listings would be (mostly) self-policing.

In the online version of this, with review content, the decision isn’t quite so binary. Consumers demand superior relevance and more information about the business. Business owners may complain that a competitor “shouldn’t be in their category”. There is no black-or-white solution, but there are always ways to improve. HomeStars is considering ways of adding a separate form of feedback by consumers who found that the business wasn’t appropriate for their needs, and that they were misled by their presence in a certain category. If there is enough of that type of feedback, it could form part of the ranking algorithm, or cause the business owner itself to rethink their presence in a category which is too much of a “stretch”.

In any case, similar to Yelp, Google, et al., HomeStars can’t and won’t change its long-term mission just because one business is squabbling with another. That would defeat the whole purpose. Feedback is important to help HomeStars figure out how to do a better job of, for example, enforcing relevance in categories (not just counting reviews, but figuring out who can and should show up in multiple categories and multiple service areas… a seemingly simple matter, but not nearly as simple as it sounds… much harder than it used to be at the Yellow Pages… though as I’ve already argued, some of that complexity was buried behind the scenes in the pre-online world).

Even the mighty Google listens to constructive feedback, as the petition episode showed. Other kinds of feedback, out of necessity to the larger mission, have to get ignored in the noise of “me first” style beefs, and Doc-Searls-style out-of-hand rejections of all advertising. (The family of solutions that Searls proposes to allow customers to signal their intentions, thus obviating the need for intrusive advertising, ironically, just shift power from an interruption-based medium to a lead-generation platform; ‘winning’ business via such an ‘unbiased’ platform is no less likely, in the real world, to be free of bias, nor immune to rising costs and barriers to entry. Incidentally, HomeStars has been building an early prototype of a platform in this genre, called simply “The Project Tool.” It is currently free of charge.)

Google has shown (though Searls missed it in his book by forgetting that Google launched its CPC auction with relevancy scoring in 2002, not 2000, which was a CPM-based, fixed-price prototype) that categorized and keyword driven advertising can get better if they refine and iterate. That’s all we’re trying to do — get better. You can decide for yourself if that changes the world or not.


Traffick - The Business of Search Engines & Web Portals


Home | Categories | Archive | About Us | Internet Marketing Consulting | Contact Us
© 1999 - 2013, All Rights Reserved