Super Bowl, Super Opportunity
Posted by tim on January 31, 2005 at 01:57 PM
Super Bowl week is upon us. Known as much for the commercials (if not more) as for the games, this is a big week for many advertisers. Buying just a 30 second spot to show during the game is a huge investment for any company. For some, the expense doesn't look nearly as large, but $2.4 million is a lot of money for anyone.
I think one of the really interesting things to watch for will be how companies handle the campaigns after the game. I'm curious to see who ties themselves in to an integrated online effort. It's reasonable to expect many fans of the ads will go looking for more online. Whether they just want to see the ad again, or find out more about it, chances are good the audience will be heading for Google, Yahoo!, or MSN to satisfy their curiosity.
In fact, the apparent target audience for most companies is also the same audience that spends a lot of time online. Advertisers are after 18-45 year olds who can spend money. In fact, a significant portion of the 18-24 year old group says they'll watch the game just for the commercials (from the Retail Advertising and Marketing Association).
Savvy companies have already set up mini-sites and subdomains to help support the "Super" ads. They've taken care to optimize the sites based on lasting memories and obvious tie-ins. They've probably even earmarked budget for PPC campaigns to run in the weeks following the game.
Sadly though, and it may be the cynic in me, I expect a lot of companies are going to miss out on the post game opportunity. They'll have focused solely on their one TV spot and they'll hope that a single view can leave enough of a name impression to bring visitors on their own.
Maybe it will, but on one of the biggest gambling days of the year, that might be one of the riskiest bets of all.
Change is Good
Posted by tim on January 28, 2005 at 04:17 PM
MSN, long working on its own search technology, is in the process of completing a full-scale rollout of the new technology from beta to live service.
Fantastic.
The introduction of a new search index, with such strong backing is very welcome.
Several smaller organizations have introduced their own versions of search engines, but none have the same sort of foundation as MSN. Many of the smaller engines use existing databases, or pull meta data from several sources.
MSN is introducing an entirely new algorithm and database.
Now the million dollar question (drum roll), why does it matter?
Having a new search engine is like being handed a new channel for marketing, at no cost. The search engines seek out content on the web. They find the content, store it, sort it, and rate it. There's really no need to solicit the engine. The technology exists in order to find sites. As long as a site has been well optimized, has strong content, and solid architecture, MSN should find it on its own.
This provides companies with a broader audience, greater reach, and gives users more and varied results. A win-win all the way around.
The Scourge of Click Fraud - Part III
Posted by tim on January 26, 2005 at 09:33 AM
Stopping Click Fraud
It's important for agencies to take an active role in looking for and defending against click fraud. Granted, in an overall marketing/media mix, search may only be a minor percentage of the total budget, but isn't it still imperative to maximize a client's spend?
Aside from protecting and maximizing money though, you've also got to protect the brand for your clients. Often times, especially with big brands, a search campaign can often be about visibility and brand reinforcement. If you have to bring paid campaigns down because of click fraud, your whole strategy is shot.
Being aware of click fraud isn't necessarily going to require your undivided attention, so don't panic. The key to all of it, in fact a crucial component of any search campaign, is tracking. I'll sing it from the mountains and yell in the valleys, you MUST track performance. In fact, I think you'll get the same sermon from anyone in the search marketing game. The fact that you can measure countless metrics in a search campaign is one of it's greatest strengths. If, however, you're not tracking, then your campaign has serious holes, no matter what the strategy.
The field of conversion analytics tools is wide (disclosure - I'm closely associated with the linked site), varied, and full. Shop around, it won't be hard to find exactly what you need.
Once tracking is in place, finding and stopping click fraud really isn't all that difficult. Any good analytics/tracking package will help you see traffic patterns to a site. Pretty quickly, patterns will develop and you'll have an expectation of an average day. Hopefully you'll see jumps in traffic based on your marketing efforts. You shouldn't see huge spikes though. Keep in mind, as I mentioned in an earlier post, a spike is generally very specific.
When you see possible fraud, the first and most important step is to stop bidding on the targeted term(s). This is a minimum step. It may be prudent to put an entire campaign on hold until you can determine the cause. Collect and analyze your traffic from log files. You should be able to see the originating IP address, the time of the visit, and the referring url. From this data, you should be able to pick out the suspicious traffic. When you've got a fairly thorough, and well investigated claim, PPC engines are generally very open and responsive about working with you.
Look! No-handed Vacuuming
Posted by tim on January 20, 2005 at 09:40 AM
The makers of the Roomba robotic vacuum have been making news lately for the great success of a search marketing program.
Hats off to iRobot (the parent company). This is a great example of the power of a carefully crafted and well managed search marketing effort.
AdAge has a nice story about this (free subscription required). I'm not going to excerpt the whole thing here, but I wanted to touch on a few of the key points that I think were most important.
"The 2004 Roomba promotions were supported by a tightly integrated advertising program including heavy TV and radio ads supported by an in-depth product Web site and a much broader search term effort."
I think this is key. Rather than create a web only campaign in the hopes of creating demand, or having a completely unique web campaign apart from their other efforts, iRobot married all of their marketing efforts to create a seamless message. It's a great example of how traditional marketing efforts can be complemented perfectly by online & search marketing.
This most recent effort with PPC was actually the second try for the company. Here's what most struck me,
"The second time around the company bought about 100 search engine keywords and phrases..."
Now, I'm not trying to shoot holes in the theory of having thousands of keywords, portfolios, etc., etc. This is just a shining example of a company finding what's right for them and understanding that they don't have to go with the latest trends. In fact, I do believe that for many companies, they will see much greater success with smaller, more refined and targeted campaigns like this.
The Scourge of Click Fraud - Part II
Posted by tim on January 19, 2005 at 04:01 PM
With all the recent attention, and since I promised earlier, I thought it was a good time to get into some of the different types of click fraud that appear on PPC campaigns.
Spikes
One of the most primitive and obvious methods show up as huge spikes in traffic. As long as a campaign is managed in a consistent manner, it will likely develop some predictable patterns. You'll get an idea of how much traffic you've got coming and the trick then is to improve conversions. With a spike, you'll see a huge surge in traffic, generally on a single term and from one provider at a time (e.g.; Google AdWords OR Overture, but not both).
A quick look at some basic traffic logs will show groups of clicks hitting the site, from a single ad, within seconds of each other.
These spikes are easy to point out and with just a little bit of effort, you can compile a report that will usually stand up as sufficient evidence for the engines to thoroughly investigate the account for click fraud.
Topic Spikes
These work much the same way as a normal spike, huge traffic jumps on limited terms. In the case of a Topic Spike though, there is often a news story, Internet rumor, or some other discussion going on that involves your term. Active and aggressive fraudsters will pick up on this and use the timing as an opportunity to assault your campaign. It will be much more difficult to prove the activity wasn't related to the widespread coverage. That's what the villians are counting on.
There are still steps to take in order to protect yourself. Don't run ads on content networks (especially during a news cycle), analyze IPs for patterns. Compare the number of clicks you are recieving to the unique visitors you count on your site.
Perhaps most importantly, don't be afraid to stop running ads until the storm blows over. Be very honest about your goals and your ability to convert. If all the new traffic is coming from casual searchers, are you sure you can turn them into shoppers? If not, don't waste resources on them.
The Slow Bleed
This is the most difficult to stop, and can be infuriating, but it doesn't have to be. A slow bleed occurs over several weeks or even months. Fraudsters, and sometimes competitors, especially on very expensive terms, will slowly click your ad, perhaps only a few times a day, with significant intervals between the clicks, to slowly take money from your account.
You have to realize going in to a campaign that this is a very real possibility. This is just another reason why tracking is so important. You've got to be able to determine, quickly, if you are seeing positive returns on your campaign. And that doesn't have to necessarily mean you are making money at a rate of $5-$1. If you have specific goals in place (sign ups, contact requests, etc.), make sure you are acheiving your marks. If you can't make your goal, you shouldn't have your campaigns running. Re-evaluate and seek help if need be.
Impression Fraud
Impression Fraud doesn't quite fit with click fraud, but it is related. Impression fraud isn't nearly as prevalent as click fraud, and it's not as directly damaging. Impression fraud is done by people with lots of extra time on their hands.
Instead of draining a budget, the goal of impression fraud is to artificially damage the credibility of your ad campaign in the eyes of the engine. The major PPC players put strong weight on the Click Through Rate (CTR) of ads, and when ads are shown often with few (or no) clicks, the engines will disable the ads.
The impression fraudsters will work to have your ad displayed several times in an effort to push the CTR below the acceptable threshold, thus keeping you from ever being seen by legitimate prospects. So far, this can almost be seen as more of a nuisance than anything, but techniques are probably becoming more sophisticated everyday.
The Scourge of Click Fraud!
Posted by tim on January 19, 2005 at 08:58 AM
Click fraud has been, and continues to be, an extremely hot topic for search marketing and Internet advertising.
Recently, Pete Lerma did an article on the subject of click fraud for ClickZ. Lerma is a principal at Click Here (the Interactive Marketing division of Richard Group).
I think what stands out most is the shroud of mystery and misunderstanding that hangs over click fraud.
Mainstream press, namely Newsweek, have also started to talk about click fraud. This is obviously garnering a lot of attention and it should.
I'm not about to dismiss click fraud. It's a serious issue. We've seen our clients affected by fraudulent activity so I'll be first in line to tell you that it can happen. I don't, however, think it's something that has to necessarily cripple a campaign, or become a huge vacuum for ad budgets.
Thankfully, most click fraud attacks are still fairly basic and obvious. They can be spotted and dealt with fairly quickly and easily IF you're vigilant. There's the key though. You've got to understand that pay-per-click (PPC) and other online advertising strategies aren't like traditional media. You can't just negotiate for space and circulation then sign off on the creative you like. PPC requires active participation.
That's why it's so critical for agencies to either dedicate the manpower that proper management will require, or outsource this to companies that can handle PPC management. With measurement and demonstrable results becoming more and more important with every contract, it doesn't make any sense to leave something like this to chance. Especially when click fraud can be at least contained.
There are other types of click fraud that can be damaging and are much less obvious to detect. These pose a challenge, and something of a threat, but they can still be dealt with.
I'll get into different types of click fraud and some of the strategies to employ in another post.
Seth Godin Gets Violent
Posted by tim on January 14, 2005 at 04:44 PM
Seth Godin comments today on a post Danny Sullivan put up over at Search Engine Watch about search marketing.
In the past, some have seen Mr. Godin as an opponent to search marketing. It seems that more than likely he was just being cautious when looking at a very young industry with a lot of growing up still left to do.
I'm glad he's taken another look. Thanks Seth.
WPP Embraces Search Marketing in a Big Way
Posted by tim on January 13, 2005 at 04:11 PM
Ad Agency WPP has announced they are launching a new division devoted to search marketing.
We'd just like to say congrats and welcome. Granted, they've been working with search in one form or another, but it's very encouraging to see them take on search to this degree.
Hopefully, this, along with the flurry of acquisitions we saw late last year, signals a real step in the maturity and validity of search marketing.
Cheers!
Say it ain't so!
Posted by tim on January 12, 2005 at 08:57 AM
Steve Hall runs the great site Adrants and on Monday he posted this little gem. Steve makes his take on it pretty clear, but I hope the feeling about search marketing, internet marketing in general, and other non-traditional methods isn't quite the same at all the big old-school agencies.
Here's just one highlight (this quote isn't from Hall, but rather an agency exec): "The trend I would love to see die is the frantic production of non-traditional, non-TV marketing ideas. In the quest to be smart, effective and media-agnostic, many marketers have become manic."
It's really just too bad. Some of these non-traditional approaches can have sweeping effect for the good. Then again, I'm already a firm believer, so I could be a little bit biased.
The Rising Cost of Paid Search
Posted by tim on January 06, 2005 at 02:45 PM
John Battelle touches on the MediaPost coverage of a recent Fathom Online report that says prices on ppc keywords surged 24% in Q4 of 2004.
Most of this huge surge can be attributed to a few key areas (travel and retail most notably). It will be interesting to see if the holiday shopping season is largely the reason for this, or if keyword bidding has found another gear.
Regardless, it's a trend not likely to change anytime soon. All the more reason to be extremely vigilant with paid search. Spikes like this can cause a monthly spend to skyrocket in just days, or, if the monthly budgets are capped, traffic numbers can fall off the table. Managing competition like this can be time consuming and almost maddening. Especially when clients start calling demanding answers.
Put together strategies early and be prepared to respond, instead of react. The differnce is subtle, but it can make all the difference.
Proceed Carefullly
Posted by tim on January 05, 2005 at 11:15 AM
I'd like to offer a spot of advice to agencies for the new year.
Ask questions.
Lots and lots of questions.
Search marketing is young and booming. So young in fact, it's still sorting itself out. New partnerships spring up seemingly every week. Old relationships change. Sometimes they're better, sometimes they're just ... different. Things change so much in fact, that what you see offered as a service on the website might be different from the service you sign up for.
That's not to suggest the change is a bad thing. I think the overwhelming majority of companies out there, while trying to further their own businesses are doing so by providing more and better service to their customers. At least that's the driving motivation and overall goal.
The hitch in all of this though, is that it's entirely possible to get more than you bargain for in when you go to work with some of these companies/providers in the search world. More is usually a good thing. In fact (shameless plug warning!!), giving you more is something we pride ourselves on over in my other personality.
At times though, in an effort to help clients get the most out of a campaign or project, companies can inadvertantly cause more problems than they solve.
If there is a moral to the story it's simply, buyer beware. Understand exactly what you are getting when you sign on the dotted line. Ask what sort of relationships the company has and what types they are working on. Make sure they explain themselves until you are satisfied. Then read your contracts and agreements before signing and ask more questions.
Answering a Call
Posted by tim on January 04, 2005 at 09:55 AM
This one is a little bit outside our norm, but I felt like it was worth sharing.
Steve Rubel is a PR Pro and a real evangelist for the power of a blog. He talks a lot about how a blog is such a critical means of communication between company and customer. Couldn't agree more.
(*An additional benefit to blogging is that with just a little care, a blog can be a great tool for search engine marketing as well.)
In a recent post, Steve calls on bloggers to engage all those who are sitting on the edges. It's in that spirit that I make this post. Email me with questions, comments, feedback, complaints, suggestions...anything. Get involved here.
Start your own blog.
Get active.
Here to Help, Just Let Us Know How
Posted by tim on January 03, 2005 at 03:05 PM
More and more it seems like there is talk about search getting into the mainstream agencies. Agencies don't seem to have much to say though. I can't figure why that is.
At SearchEngineWatch there's a thread that's discussing this topic. One of the ideas put forth there is that search just isn't "sexy" or "flashy" enough. I don't buy into that theory though. At least not completely. It seems to me that it has more to do with undertanding the entire search field.
In her most recent ClickZ article, Shari Thurow mentions that in 2005 she wants to, "help agencies and the public in general understand why search optimization is an important part of the Web development process".
What strikes me in all of this though, is why we are just playing a guessing game on what the agencies want/need?
I guess if I have a wish for 2005 it's that traditional agencies start to at least talk about what they need. I'm not going to suggest that we can shine a light on them and open a whole new world of search marketing right away, but we'll all be a lot further ahead if we start the conversation.
