PPC vs SEO

[ihelpyou]

Jupiter had a doomsday thing with SEO. Fredrick Marckini of iProspect dismissed their thoughts completely.

http://www.avantmarketer.com/fredrickmarckini.shtml

I liked this part:
Fredrick Marckini: As search engines begin to comply with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and begin to clearly differentiate their paid listings from their pure editorial content - that is, results delivered via their mathematical algorithms - we can expect the [ROI] differences between the two to become more dramatic. The fact is, today, the typical search engine user is often unaware of the advertising that is being fed to them as "sponsored listings".

[peter_d]

the typical search engine user is often unaware of the advertising that is being fed to them

That's true, but remind us what it is we all do for a living?

[glengara]

That page never seemed to stop downloading, so I couldn't save it.
A temporary glitch or a deliberate means to stop people doing so?

[ihelpyou]

Yes Peter, I do agree but PPC is a direct correlation. You pay, you are on the first page. It's a direct thing. It's advertising in the true sense. Just like TV sponsors had to "clearly" say what was paid advertising, so will web sites have to say the same thing. Before too long, it will be mandatory to do so. When that happens you will find ROI's dwindle with ppc advertising. If the regular joesmoe surfer really knew what was happening, he/she would avoid those listings much like they did with banners.

[peter_d]

I agree Doug. It's just where does the demarcation of "advertising" stop?

The fact is, today, the typical search engine user is often unaware of the advertising that is being fed to them as "sponsored listings".

Is product placement of say, a soft drink in a movie, deemed advertising and should therefore carry a warning?

[nzbase]

Is product placement of say, a soft drink in a movie, deemed advertising and should therefore carry a warning?
Nice analogy Peter!

Is product placement of say, a soft drink in a movie, deemed advertising and should therefore carry a warning?
And what is the FTC's opinion of the number of what were once independant news portals which have been bought out by large multi-nationals and are now used for 'news' peices that are in reality some form of subtle advertising using the pretence of an 'indepedant source'?

[Phoenix]

If changes are being made to comply with the FTC, does this mean that it will effect only U.S. search engines/directories? If so, wouldn't this give non-U.S. SEs an advantage in competing for advertising dollars?

MB

[nzbase]

wouldn't this give non-U.S. SEs an advantage in competing for advertising dollars?
This is exactly what I have discussed with others before!

It would be nice to think that search engines outside the US are not going to be affected by a US Government Body's decisions but in reality most of the search engines would be likely to follow the FTC's guidelines so as not to jeopardise US traffic, right?

The other question there is whether or not big search engines are likely to feed the new guidelines through to geo-targeted search sites.

[peter_d]

And what is the FTC's opinion of the number of what were once independant news portals which have been bought out by large multi-nationals and are now used for 'news' peices that are in reality some form of subtle advertising using the pretence of an 'indepedant source'?

Haha. Nice one.

I think the struggle between advertising and editorial will always exist. In the end, it's up to the reader to decide how authoritive and independent they consider the source to be.

I can think of one recent editorial that I'm certain was tempered by a related advertising arrangement. For me, the author lost a lot of credibility, and my business.

[Advisor]

I can think of one recent editorial that I'm certain was tempered by a related advertising arrangement. For me, the author lost a lot of credibility, and my business. This is fairly common with some editorial/opinion pieces on the Internet. And there is a fine line. For instance, people (like me) who review/recommend particular ebooks or software, and use an affiliate link to promote it.

Now one could say that I might say good things about something just to make a buck with the affiliate link, but in the long run, that would only hurt me. Recommend bad stuff and it will get around. So, I do feel like I have a duty to say the good and the bad about the things I review, even if that means I won't sell as many. If something is really bad, I just won't usually bother to review it so as not to embarrass the owner.

I personally like to mention that it is my affiliate link, because I would feel kind of weird if I didn't. It makes me feel better to disclose the relationship and let people make up their own minds about the relationship between me and the product at hand. But I can also understand others who don't mention their affiliate link. I have actually had many people email me saying they appreciate the fact that I make the disclosure. I've been getting tired of saying it each week because I feel like I'm repeating myself, but I there's always new readers and stuff that don't know the routine. I just get tired of sounding like a broken record!

Jill

[peter_d]

but in the long run, that would only hurt me

Exactly.

Also, I've always thought your newsletter is very clear about what is editorial and what isn't.

(..and no, this is not a sneaky forum post sponsored by Jill ;)

[Black_Knight]

Originally posted by ihelpyou
Yes Peter, I do agree but PPC is a direct correlation. You pay, you are on the first page. It's a direct thing. It's advertising in the true sense. Just like TV sponsors had to "clearly" say what was paid advertising, so will web sites have to say the same thing. Before too long, it will be mandatory to do so. When that happens you will find ROI's dwindle with ppc advertising. If the regular joesmoe surfer really knew what was happening, he/she would avoid those listings much like they did with banners.

Hang on. PPC is accountable and visible while SEO is unaccountable and invisible ... hmmm. Yes, that is a perfect summation, and a perfect reason why Overture (then Goto) didn't flop, didn't bite the dust, as all its detractors said it would.

With PPC, anyone can be top of the SERPs, but they pay for the priviledge. If they've got a top slot for a term that won't get them good conversions they've just commited virtual suicide. Great.

On the other hand, perhaps we can remember where SEO had lead before Google came to dominate the market. When Altavista and Inktomi were the kings, if you searched, you generally had to go to the second page of results before you even found a site on the subject.

You see, any high-volume search term was seized upon by unscrupulous SEOs and caused to redirect to any old site. Why not? The traffic was totally free, and there was no comeback except that maybe, after a month or two, you might have to buy a new domain because the old one got banned.

Work it out. If people are prepared to pay several thousand dollars per month on Overture, do you think they'd balk at paying a few hundred a month on new domain registrations to counter spamdex banning?

SEO is a tool open to abuse just as much as it is open to good use. It is NOT a coincidence that the most successful SE's now are those that made traditional SEO (doorways, keyword stuffing and keyword density manipulations) and spamdexing the hardest to affect results.

Google had PageRank to make it harder, Overture just made companies responsible buy making success have a cost.

If you could be #1 for a search term that got you 20,000 visitors per day, for free, you can guarantee that far too many companies wouldn't care if the term applied to them or not. Even a 0.1 percent conversion has a high ROI when there is no I in ROI and it is all returns on zero investment.

[peter_d]

If you could be #1 for a search term that got you 20,000 visitors per day, for free, you can guarantee that far too many companies wouldn't care if the term applied to them or not. Even a 0.1 percent conversion has a high ROI when there is no I in ROI and it is all returns on zero investment.

Nicely stated.

As far as PPC goes, I don't mind SE advertising so long as it is relevant and unintrusive. If the ad doesn't apply to me, I don't click on it. I'm not sure how clear the labels would have to be, but I think Google does a pretty good job.

SEM is all about ROI. If it's profitable, keep doing it.