Archive for the 'RANT!' Category
Subscribe to This Category

Pay per click advertising works best when you maintain control over your match types, negative keywords, ad rotation, and landing pages. The minute you relinquish control to broad match and other “lazy” modes of traffic, the minute your cost-per-lead/sale can go through the roof. This got worse in the Summer of 2005 when Google started making broad match into “expanded broad match” - greatly increasing the situation an ad will display by loosening restrictions — and now it sounds like things are going to go broader still. I’ve read that on May 20th Google is expanding the beta (or possibly launching) the Automatic Match system…and it sounds like broad match gone amuck meant to improve Google’s profitability.

From Google:

“Automatic matching shows your ads on relevant search queries not already captured by your keywords. It works by analyzing the content of the landing pages, ads, and keywords in your ad group. It then shows your ads on search queries relevant to this information. The system will continually monitor your performance on these queries and adjust its matches accordingly. Automatic matching aims to show your ads only on queries that yield a high clickthrough rate (CTR) and a cost-per-click (CPC) comparable to or lower than your ad group’s current average CPC. This way, your ads receive additional targeted traffic at a similar cost to your current traffic. Automatic matching won’t allow your spend to exceed your budget, and it also won’t affect the traffic you’re currently receiving. In addition, automatic matching will have no impact if your campaigns already capture the majority of relevant traffic.”

I’ve not used this system ( I wasn’t in the beta ) but even just reading this email I can already list at least 9 things I dislike about it.

1. It does the equivalent of keyword research on the fly, trying out keywords to see if “they stick” based on Google’s data. This removes the human from keyword research. My experience is that 80% of keyword research is ELIMINATION of poor quality choices before you spend money on using them in your campaign. In other words, there is a lot of intuition applied based on advertiser domain knowledge and automatic match eliminates that phase. While some may think this approach is a good way to learn keywords to use, I think there are better ways, especially when they involve harvesting keyword data and then doing some smart detective work on the results.

2. The almost impossible task of creating negative keywords that will negate the constant algorithmic display of Google-chosen keywords. Think “automated embedded match without the associated automation on the negative embedded match side…. How often will you check it? How often will amateur or new advertisers? I’m guessing never. So you will very likely end up advertising for phrases where you do not offer the product being searched for - a classic waste scenario.

3. The enabling of the system by default. Many advertisers won’t know what hit them. While Google has assured everyone that this is an optional system, it would be likely that it will be turned on.

4. It further dismantles the smart idea of keyword-specific URLs and landing page parameters, not to mention dynamic keyword insertion. Caveat - I have no idea how Google will handle existing exact match and phrase match keywords - I’m assuming it will use the old rule of most-restriction-first-shown.

5. It spends your budget. All of it, on your behalf. With my clients, I prefer to ease “up” to their daily budget. That means starting with precision matches and loosening them gradually to find a sweet spot between relevance and volume. This way you don’t waste money or possibly reduce quality score while you tweak your campaigns or testing (by throttling our ads.)

6. It encourages lazy adwords management. When your ad campaigns are running, having them unattended can create an unhealthy black box between you and your pay per click. The variety of auctions, bid types and match types already has advertisers perplexed - and adding another dimension will make it worse. I really worry about “rush” and “fire and forget” Adwords solutions. They are insanely wasteful. This is why I hate turnkey PPC setup programs.

7. The only way you can see what queries are generating ads is to turn on a Search Query Performance report and watch for irrelevant queries - then create negative keywords for them as they come up, whack-a-mole-style. A never ending cycle that few advertisers will remember to do.

8. Advertisers will need to look at the special Automatic Keyword Performance data in reports to see how well these automatic matches are working and add special tags to your destination URLs for logfile analysis. This means yet another tag on the URLs.

9. Google does a pretty bad job of limiting broad match. With this already causing grief, are we really going to make things better by loosening it further? Yes, I know - some of you will say that broad match has its place in pay per click marketing. As Brent Hodgson expertly points out, perhaps that it’s a way to cast a net and capture heretofore unknown keyphrases. If you have endless funds, yes. But it’s a bit like testing newly designed bulletproof vests on real humans - it’s nice when you get it right - but when you don’t, it’s bloody expensive. I think other keyword development tools + log analysis + intuition + internal search logs make a hell of a lot more sense.

The right way to do Adwords

Take the time to grow a keyphrase list, divisions into thematic adgroups, and built up a collection of negative campaign and adgroup keyphrases that use phrase and exact match. Easing into your budget using split testing of ads and optimization of landing pages, you can eliminate broad match (conceding: except on your experimental campaigns.) This process alone can improve the conversion performance of your campaigns by a factor of three or four.

I should underscore that I’ve not used the system, but I’m very familiar with adwords and extended broad match issues. Is there a chance that the algorithmic remnant-sale system will work? I guess, but only if your Adwords campaigns were AWFUL to begin with and you’re willing to throw money to the wind and see where it lands.

I have been doing SEO for almost 12 years now. In that time I’ve done dozens of Yahoo! Directory submissions under an embarrassingly large number of Yahoo! Ids (remember when the SPAM solution was just to change IDs?)

But my credit card number has remained the same. So each year, $299 charges appear for Yahoo directory submissions I did after they started charging for it (I have dozens that were grandfathered in.) The trouble is, I am unable to identify which URL they go with - and in a few cases I used my clients’ Yahoo! ID for submissions. I realize now what a horrible mistake that was.

None of the charges appear on my Yahoo! billing screens for any of my current Yahoo! ids. I assume that the most recent charges were done on a client ID, but somehow my billing info was used. So I call the billing department…..

Me: Hi, I have these $299 charges on my card for Yahoo! directory submissions I did.

Yahoo: Can I have your Yahoo! Id?

Me. Sorry. The charge doesn’t appear for any of my Yahoo! ids. However, I do have the charge card information and can PDF you the statement to review.

Yahoo: Can I have your charge card number.

Me: Sure, [I give it]

Yahoo: Ok, I see the Y! directory entry.

Me: Great! [I'm thinking the call will be short and sweet]

Yahoo: Do you know the alternate email address?

Me: I just need to know the URL so I can determine if it should be in the directory or not, and that will probably tell me which client Yahoo! Id I need. I’ve changed email addresses since the late ’90s a few times and in a couple of cases used my client’s Yahoo! ID for submissions. I don’t have access to the old one. But here are my current email addresses [I list them] and my current Yahoo Ids.

Yahoo: Sorry, none of those match the ones on these Yahoo! directory submissions.

Me: Probably not - it’s an oldie. Can you move them to my current account? The billing information should be the same on each account.

Yahoo: Yes, it’s the same

Me: Great!

Yahoo: But we cannot use that information.

Me: [growing concerned] So, even though I’m being charged for this Yahoo! directory entry you cannot tell me which URL it’s for if I don’t have the old Yahoo! id that was used to submit it?

Yahoo: That’s correct.

Me: Doesn’t this seem a little out of whack to you? You have tons of evidence at your disposal to see that it’s me, including my phone number [I offer to have them call me back] and my billing information.

Yahoo: Sorry, that won’t work. I can cancel the Directory listing for you and give you a refund.

Me: [feeling out of options - I don't want $300 charges for clients I don't have anymore]

In the end. They would NOT tell me which URL the charge was for. I ended up having to cancel the listing, possibly affecting the SEO performance of my client and waiting to see which one vanished from the directory.

The URL of a charged directory entry is not a security risk. There is no good reason not to tell this to the party who is being charged.

dead end sign by David Joyce used under Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic Creative Commons License

My email to the client representative for a $10k portal software said:

“The edit RSS page for the portal is giving a page not found error for [I entered url] - what do you think would cause that? Thanks, Scott”

The reply from their customer service email:

“We don’t answer questions like that here, and don’t forward things to the support team as a policy. You need to fill in a support ticket for this. [link]”

The link was to a form that had 54 fields. I felt compelled to let them know who the customer was and went on with my day, pissed. It was all I could think of when we had a budget meeting about whether we should continue using the portal.  We didn’t renew.

Was this kind of behavior the reason we cancelled a $12k/year support arrangement? Not sure, but I certainly wasn’t in the best mood when it came time for me to voice my recommendation for the renewal.

I know support ticket systems pretty well in the small-enterprise variety. I have had a few when I was doing hosting and have interacted with probably 20 different ones. My company has since moved to basecamp to give things a more human touch, and basecamp has recently followed some of the advice in this post. I am guilty of the things in the past. But to you, beloved reader, I will say I see the errors of my ways.

Let me be the first to say that if you have 100s of clients, selling a commodity item such as hosting, I recognize the workflow issues you’re facing. We all need to move support issues through the system as fast as possible when margins are razor thin. But if the support systems creators were a little more aware of the non-tech and/or busy customer community, perhaps things could improve.

(more…)

No wonder we’re a tired nation. It takes 5 minutes to read a no-parking sign. I came across this sign today, and thought it was kind of pathetic. 65 words to say “15 minute parking” .. nuts. Where will it end. By 2028, the sign will reach the ground and you’ll have to check a box agreeing that you read it.

At Great Wolf Lodge today with the kids. A nice place to get away, close to home, and I’ve no complaints about the room or the waterpark.

By the time we got into the restaurant we were starving, and noticed that they were carrying around Thrasher’s-style buckets of french fries. We thought we’d get a couple buckets to share with our burgers, sandwiches and such. It would be fun to eat fries from a bucket, kind of like it’s fun to drink tea from a mason jar.

But as in many things today, all is not what it seems. Our buckets arrived, and before we could get two people set with fries, we hit bottom - a false bottom lined with bowls. We can’t complain about the price of the fries - but they were deliberately deceptive.

It was a lie. It made us think about what other corners they were cutting just beyond the kitchen door. The burgers were fine and the waitress did a good job, but this silly little lie stuck with me. The labor is the major cost of any restaurant and it would have cost very little to fill the bucket and keep the promise. Perhaps they’ve determined there was much waste? But in that case, they should just stop using the buckets completely and just put the fries in a standard container. Then they would have kept the promise for a little container of fries.

Everything you do is part of your marketing.  Even tiny promises can’t be broken.

As much as the decor, logo design, uniforms, and clean tables contribute to it, so does your little lie that saved $0.20 worth of french fries.

Ok, folks - I pose a challenge to the geekdom out there. How to disable, permanently, these obnoxious speaker boxes that are attached to every friggin’ gas pump I’ve been to in the last 6 months. The MUTE buttons are worn out (”dimple collapse”) so you gotta sit there and listen to the bloody things go on, incomprehensively, about worthless crap inside the stores. It was some brilliant marketer’s idea - I can hear it now “We need to bring people into the store from the pump, ’cause that’s where the profits are. ” I know a few out there think it’s a great idea. Muzak was bad enough, but, it was in the distance, and didn’t drown out your cell phone or NPR on the car radio. And next it will be video, where we’ll need a different solution (I am so absolutely sick of TV everywhere I go - yes I own a universal TV-off keychain. ) And finally, Google Gas Pumps will surely be next.

How about an opt-out feature where I can pay you five freakin’ bucks for a year of peace and quiet? It’s unlikely. Nielsen media reports a 70% brand recall for gas station TV. Damn, that’s good. But I wonder how many are remembering the brand so they can avoid any product annoying them at the gas pump. “Never, ever buy friggin’ Dr. Pepper again.”

So I call out to you, the Hardware Gods of the Interweb….

I figure if we can mess with the electronic voting systems, we should be able to fk with these things a bit.

So, electronics wizards, how do you disable them without opening them or beating them with an object or getting electrocuted (and starting a large fire.)

Electronic pulse?
Handheld High Output Laser?
Freon-freeze+ gentle tap?
Secret series of keypresses? (that would be ideal!)

All ideas welcome.

Required Disclaimer, Of COURSE I am not condoning vandalism in any shape or form. This is just an academic discussion.

Lighting Store in the Dark About True Cost of Arcane Policies

I recently went to get my hair cut at one of the most Mayberry-like barber shops you’ve ever seen. It’s the Facebook of the 1950s, stuck in time, the chairs are original. The smiles are authentic. Conversations filled the air. It was a pretty day, and the place was busy.

A person I know well was there with her child, and was talking about how she recently bought a lighting fixture . Once it was up, she didn’t like it. It just didn’t look right when they held it up in it’s proposed location. She it back to the store in original condition. That’s when the trouble started. (more…)

They say playing the lottery is a “special tax” for the “math challenged.” I think that’s true. In the search world Google’s new Automatic Matching setup is a special tax on the uninformed advertiser.

What I’m hearing about the new Google Automatic Matching beta is that they will look at unspent funds in your account, and “spend it for you” on terms its algorithms deem appropriate. I blew this off at first thinking it sounded like a rumor, but am now hearing more buzz about it. (more…)

I am always leveraging a company’s PPC brand (and yes, 1+1=3 when it comes to having organic and PPC presence for brand-related searches) there are roadblocks brought on by PPC networks. In the past few months we’ve been dealing with an interloper who has used broad-match on Google Adwords to get around their trademark blocking policy… Note, none of these links are to the interloper in question, I’m just linking to informative posts related to it)
According to Google’s documentation, Google Adwords will not allow competitors to actually use the trademarked keyword phrases in the text of its ads – but does not prohibit purchasing the keyword itself and presenting an ad. This seems to work most of the time, as illustrated by Shoemoney (where it kinda worked.)

For example, I do marketing for a national franchise, let’s call it “Cheeseworks” (fictional) - and I have a high quality score placement on PPC and organic rank. But competitors are able to bid AND DISPLAY “Cheesework Pizza” on Google Adwords (singular, no ’s’.)

Cheeseworks Pizza
Open a Franchise in Your Town
Excellent Opportunity - Low Cost
http://www.fabuliospizza.com

And then somebody else runs this one:

Cheesework Pizza
Are You Ready to Be Your
Own Boss? Learn More!
http://www.franchise-pizza-leads.com

(this company sells leads to franchises - again this is a fictional representation of a real case)

Yes, we filed trademark complaint about them using the singular version of this mark, but since they do character-by-character checks (apparently) - and rejected the complaint. If someone does broad-match triggering on “Cheeseworks Pizza” the ad with the singular version will show. This is wrong. Trademark/Brands are protected from confusingly similar derivatives. I don’t expect Google to become an arbiter of trademarks - they need a scalable system that does much of this - but this case (it is a real case, just as absurd) they should consider the spirit of trademark law considering “use in commerce” and how their match types work.

The interloper had private domain registration and doesn’t answer emails - we couldn’t prove it but there was evidence they were selling leads to others. We had to spend a lot of effort with attorneys to send a C&D and a real substantial threat. The ad is off now, but it required huge work. We’d not expect them to get involved in the McDowell’s vs. McDonald’s case that was in the Coming to America movie. But this was simply a singular versus plural issue that anyone could see was illegal.

Upon removal of the ad (via our legal work) our brand-specific click through rate jumped 4%. This, over the course of several months, adds up to over $6000 in traffic not to mention possible loss of business to a competitor. There is real talk about suing the other advertiser for the harm done. I know Google wants things to be handled “outside” but this is one case where it shouldn’t be.

At the very least Google needs to block by match type when infringement occurs. They should have disallowed broad match at least.

Note: I’m not an attorney - none of this is legal advice. If someone would like to chime in and clarify these issues I will be happy to hear it.

postscript:  I received an email from Google who has approved the singular version of the trademark block.  It took me three tries, and lots of damage done to my client, but at least it’s gone now.  I want to be grateful but still I’m just mad.  

Image from “Coming to America” a terrific Paramount Pictures film. Highly recommended.

I must admit, Donato’s franchise has great pizza. But when it comes to trusting their online ordering environment, they leave some things to be desired. Below find the email that came to my house after ordering online. We knew it was “real” because it came shortly after the order was placed. But Donato’s made two errors. Make sure you aren’t making them in your business.

• Donatos doesn’t use their own domain name for the feedback link, prompting Vista mail to flag the message with a phishing warning. In a world where trust is a critical part of branding, this is just foolish. My family is very advanced when it comes to the web, but many customers would just delete the message without reading it.
• Donatos sends our usernames and password in plain text in the message. You just don’t do this, especially with all of the other personal information in the same message. My family uses different passwords for our sensitive accounts such as online banking, but I am absolutely sure this isn’t the case for many customers. This means the Donato’s password may have been used for more lucrative purposes, such as paypal, etc. We all know that keylogger exploits can do worse damage, but at least they require an infection and many have basic protection.