links for 2007-04-30
April 30th, 2007 by Nomadishere
-
Finally, something better than Yahoo! Pipes that makes widgets
Archive for April, 2007
links for 2007-04-27
April 27th, 2007 by Nomadishere
links for 2007-04-26
April 26th, 2007 by Nomadishere
-
young people who have a stake in future of tech and new media
Google Please Show People The Ads I Tell You To Show
April 26th, 2007 by Nomadishere
This is too funny and unsettling not to share with every marketer out there who has had experience buying PPC advertising from the Big G.
While managing one of our many ppc accounts with Google we noticed that they were displaying the wrong ad to a searcher who was looking for what our client offers. Instead of an, “it was just a one time bug” or, “CRAP! We’ll fix this right away!” they sent an apology email with an explanation and a work-around.
A work around?
This wouldn’t be a big deal if it were bug in a new product that’s in beta or if it were an issue that simply hasn’t been addressed by technology yet. But that is not the case here. Google informs us that due to “query parsing” they simply “chose” an ad from a GEO targeted campaign because the searcher put the keyword “MI” (Michigan) into the keyword phrase, when it *should* have displayed the non-GEO ad because *the search originated in Illinois!*
Here at PositionTech we manage quite a few search marketing campaigns. The things we see happen in our industry can get quite interesting, humorous, upsetting - or all of the above. First of all, Google does a pretty good job helping advertisers display ads to people searching for keywords they are targeting, and a pretty good job showing searchers relevant ads. For the most part, they let advertisers choose what ads are displayed when someone searches for something, and they try to help teach advertisers how to write ads and create landing pages that work. With that said, I feel like they let us down here.
The real issue is that after we pointed this out to Google, and basically asked, “Why are you displaying the wrong ad?” They came up with an excuse and a work around instead of saying “OMG, we’ll fix this right away we can’t believe this hasn’t been corrected yet!”
Here’s what they had to say:
The reason that you saw the ad from this regionally-targeted campaign even though you are located in Chicago is because of a feature called ‘query parsing’. When possible, Google analyzes users’ search queries for location-specific information in order to show regionally targeted ads.
Therefore, users may see your ad when they use location-specific search terms on Google, even if they’re located outside your targeted area. In this case, you’re located in Chicago, but you used the location-specific term ‘keyword michigan’, which is why you were still able to see your regionally-targeted ad.
Are you serious? Query parsing? “Users may see your ad when they use location-specific search terms on Google, even if they’re located outside your targeted area.” What?! I want them to see the ad I chose.
And the work-around:
In order to prevent this from occurring in the future, you can simply add the term ‘keyword michigan’ as a negative keyword in your ad group. As you may know, you will enter the keyword with a minus sign before it (i.e. -keyword michigan). This will prevent our system from matching that query to related keywords in the ad group. You can also put the keywords in this ad group into phrase match so that they are unable to be expanded upon.
Thank you for your patience while I followed up with our technical team. If you would like me to clarify any of the information I provided above, please reply to this email and I will be happy to assist you.
I don’t want clarification, I want you to show the ads I told you to show. Google, we all know you rock, and this is precisely why this issue should have been resolved soon after you launched GEO targeting in October of 2003 (over 3 years ago).
Please resolve this issue, I’m sure we aren’t the only advertising who have suffered from the wrong ad being displayed (surely many advertisers are unaware). I hope you will consider this request.
The History of The QWERTY Keyboard
April 19th, 2007 by Nomadishere
The QWERTY design was patented by Christopher Sholes in 1868 and sold to Remington in 1873, when it first appeared in typewriters. The QWERTY keyboard is also a commonly used nickname to name the English language keyboard.
Misleading stories abound that Qwerty was designed to improve efficiency, performance or to create a “home row”; who spread them? And what really happened?
In 1714 Henry Mill took out the first patent (number 385) for a typewriter in England. Most of the 100+ early attempts at typewriters were in ABC order, and some to enable the blind to write. Then Christopher Latham Sholes of Milwaukee, Wisconsin USA, invented a typewriter in September 1867. As with previous attempts the keys were in an ABCDEFG layout, and the typists soon got too fast and jammed the keys. The key levers hit the platen from underneath and then fell back down under gravity. He didn’t think to put return springs on to fix the problem.
Instead he solved this by asking his brother in law to devise a different layout of the keys. Publicly he said it was to put the most commonly used letters far apart on the keyboard to reduce the chances of the levers jamming. The result was Qwerty (the Qwerty layout).”
links for 2007-04-19
April 19th, 2007 by Nomadishere
Quote of the day: “Do you think the world would be a better place if we all worried about ourselves, and worried about everyone else too?”
April 18th, 2007 by Nomadishere
My lovely Cassandra just said something so great I had to quote it for all of you.
“You know how we’re always told ‘just worry about yourself’ - you know, don’t worry about anyone else but yourself? Do you think the world would be a better place if we all worried about ourselves, *and* worried about everyone else too?”
links for 2007-04-18
April 18th, 2007 by Nomadishere
-
This isn’t entirely a doom and gloom story - online advertising revenue as a class is still growing at 34%, and $1.34bn of online ad spend among the independents is still plenty of revenue to go around. But it does underscore the need for websites to ha
-
We remain upbeat about the five-year outlook, and project a 20% five-year base-case CAGR for U.S. Internet advertising revenue growth, with above-average growth rates of about 25% for search and rich media. Internet advertising spending per household coul
-
Marshall McLuhan
Media People Must Read: “Amusing Ourselves To Death” by Niel Postman
April 18th, 2007 by Nomadishere
“What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one. Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism. Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance. Orwell feared we would become a captive culture. Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture, preoccupied with some equivalent of the feelies, the orgy porgy, and the centrifugal bumblepuppy. As Huxley remarked in Brave New World Revisited, the civil libertarians and rationalists who are ever on the alert to oppose tyranny “failed to take into account man’s almost infinite appetite for distractions”. In 1984, Huxley added, people are controlled by inflicting pain. In Brave New World, they are controlled by inflicting pleasure. In short, Orwell feared that what we hate will ruin us. Huxley feared that what we love will ruin us.”
From “Amusing Ourselves To Death” by Niel Postman
5 Insights Into The Google DoubleClick Deal to Take Over Affiliate Marketing And Banner Ads
April 16th, 2007 by Nomadishere
Affiliate marketing and banner ads aren’t *totally* evil… but mostly, right? I mean, we all love seeing tons of search results with different sites all trying to sell the *exact* same product - and banner ads - well those are just the best and most wonderful thing to see plastered all over the web! Right… The blogosphere is great because only people with something good to say make it to anything similar to what could be known as popularity.
Ecommerce is a bit different, but still, no one likes banner ads and not too many people would put affiliate networks in the “Do No Evil” category. 3.1 Billion dollars is a lot of money for Google to spend to purchase display advertising giant DoubleClick (to go along with their pay per action affiliate-ish network). It’s close to the most ever invested in an internet company. So just imagine the kind of bread that Google is planning to make with it - and all the rivals they have pissed off.
1. Google spent too much, agian, but made the right move in terms of accomplishing their “Rule The Universe.”
2. Yahoo! and Mr Softy will have a very hard time ever sitting at the top of the search / web empire… (hence being so pissed)
3. Unless of course MSN buys Yahoo! and AOL (hell maybe even the WSJ and NYT) - then big G will have their work cutt out for them (what a twisted world that would be).
4. Good News! Look for websites (in Google’s search results at least), whose sole purpose is to host ads to affiliate sites and make a buck, to disappear slowly but surely, stop cluttering up our search results, and be replaced by better sites (well prettier sites that actually have an audience) with quality content written by good writers (or at least writers who have something interesting enough to say that they develop *natural* links) - all because only the strong (and friend of big G) will survive.
5. The web just may get better. Of course, it can always get worse.
It’s no surprise that MSN is pissed. They should be. One Slashdot commenter suggests, “Google is the new Microsoft.”
The truth is they have every right to suggest that the deal be reviewed, everyone does. It’s pretty scary in many regards.
Google believes, “you can make money without doing evil,” so then why go after the affiliate and banner spaces you ask? To make *more* money. To increase shareholder value. To, “focus on the user,” “do one thing really, really well” and … wait a minute, that’s not right. To be “democratic on the web” or maybe it’s simply because “great just isn’t good enough.” It can’t be “doing one thing right” anymore, not after they keep trying to play with traditional advertising models like print and radio. It’s gotta be simply part of their goal to be Masters of The Universe.
It sounds more like “capitalism on the web,” plain and simple. But hey, I can understand - you can’t give everything away for free. Just look at Wikipedia and all the problems they have had because they just gave *it* all away for free. Jimbo is doing something about it with Wikia. It truly is always about the balance of providing valuable information *and* supporting the distribution of the information.
Supporting the distribution of anything, or capitalizing on it, does not mean you have to plaster crap all over it. One look at Times Square, or pretty much any other major city, and you can see how the “sell ads on anything and everything” mentality has gotten out of hand. However, with all this said, Google has historically been aware of this fact, with its stark interface and disdain for affiliate marketing in general. Google has a chance here to strip the crap out of affiliate marketing and display advertising. I hope they do.
Just after DoubleClick announces they are setting up an auction-like system for the buying and selling of digital ads (hint: pay per click advertising model), Google buys them. It’s no surprise that MSN is pissed. One Slashdot commenter suggests, “Google is the new Microsoft.” A thought on many people’s minds for years.
DoubleClick will charge a commission for each ad impression traded on its exchange. David Rosenblatt, the company’s CEO, believes they, “may derive the majority of revenue from the new service within five years.” HipMojo reminds us that the New York Times itself was only valued at 3.3B - barely higher than DoubleClick! John Battelle is surprised, “My sources told me that Google was building its own, now it’s clear it wanted the relationships which came via a market leader.” ValleyWag reminds us we are simply repeating history. I wonder how many people will compare this (like everything else the past 5 or so years) to another bubble about to pop.
This bubble isn’t popping anytime soon. As online advertising grows - businesses want as much as they can get of it. Google is simply trying to take over advertising.
They could be just after some buzz to increase their already obese stock price. But I hope not seeing as their stock fell over a buck after the deal.
Maybe investors think Google should stick with the “doing one thing great” approach.
Still, it generated quite a lot of buzz.
The simple and equally scary truth is that Google is so close to a monopoly it’s freaky. The “the giant will get even bigger.”
Yahoo! can always come up with the next wave of the social portals of all social ports, but industry analysts, “predict that Yahoo does not have the cash or the stomach to make major acquisitions.” People wondered if Yahoo! purchased DoubleClick that they *may* be able to really compete with Google - look’s like that’s not an option anymore 
I’m not sure that its DoubleClick trying to be “the eBay for online ads,” but more like Google trying to take over affiliate marketing and banner advertising.
On a closing note, this is all just further evidence that, no matter what Jason Calacanis says, Search Marketing and SEO and eveything that’s in the umbrella in general, will never die.
*Thank you http://persuasion.typepad.com/ for the cool Google/Monkey graphic