Google ads?

In article <bj7otn0295b@enews1.newsguy.com>,
"Scott T. Jensen" <stj@charter.net> wrote:

> "Psy" <shough@sigaconsulting.comNOSPAM> wrote:
> > I was clicking around google to get my site submited
> > and I found this..
> >
> >
> https://adwords.google.com/select/ma...subid=rp&hl=en
> >
> > Its enticing... what do you think?
>
> Click-throughs are better than exposures ... but not that much better. What
> you want is purchases, not clicks. You don't know who is clicking on your
> link. It could be an automated search engine ... including Googles! It
> could be a lot of things and none of those being customers. By and large,
> banner ads and "featured" links are only a good investment if you barter for
> them. In other words, give what you think is nothing to you (or costs very
> very little in time or money) for something of more value.
>
> What you want is something along the lines of a click-to-purchase agreement.
> Not only does the visitor click on your link but they go all the way through
> to purchasing the item. You pay the advertising medium ONLY on actual
> sales. You'd pay a much higher rate and open up your traffic log and
> website activity for them to monitor (in other words, to keep you honest),
> but that's fine. It means you've made a sale thus made a profit. When I
> last looked into this, click-to-purchase was being hotly discussed as the
> next step in net advertising. If memory serves me right, some were
> attempting it. Unfortunately, I'm not sure anyone ever got this off the
> ground or, even if they did, offers these anymore. If they don't, my guess
> would be that it's just more evidence of the ineffectiveness of the net as
> first-level advertising medium. I still hold that the net is a good
> second-level advertising medium though.
>
> Anyway, if the cost of Google is very low, go ahead and give it a try.
> However, treat it as an experiment. Advertise on it with money you can lose
> and not need a return on. Keep track of results and let those determine if
> you should continue advertising with Google. And by results, I mean
> purchases received. Number of clicks is only meaningful in how it eats
> through the money you give Google.
>
> Now if Google ever came out with a click-to-purchase advertising offer, I
> would highly recommend all retailers to look into it. However, still keep
> in mind the costs. The click-to-purchase rate will likely be rather high so
> do your accounting to see if you'd turn an acceptable profit with it. If
> you will, go for it. If you don't, don't. It's just that simple.
>
> Good luck!
>
> Scott Jensen

That's a flawed strategy for companies like Google. They provide the
exposure and the click-throughs (though that's assuming you've done a
good job with your keywords and descriptions) but in the end it's your
site that sells or doesn't. Google can't make your site good and
shouldn't be punished if it's ****ty. Click-to-purchase isn't a good
idea for search engine marketers because ultimately it puts their
revenues in your hands.
--
--
Tyler C. Hellard

"Tyler Hellard" wrote
>
> That's a flawed strategy for companies like Google. They provide the
> exposure and the click-throughs (though that's assuming you've done a
> good job with your keywords and descriptions) but in the end it's your
> site that sells or doesn't. Google can't make your site good and
> shouldn't be punished if it's ****ty. Click-to-purchase isn't a good
> idea for search engine marketers because ultimately it puts their
> revenues in your hands.

Tyler,

I agree with what you are saying in regards to what might be the perspective
of a company, like google, that provides advertising. However, the model of
charging per sale vs. per incident of generation of interest has been around
for a very long time and its a solid business model.

I'm not into buying or selling online advertising, but if Scott is correct
in what he said, that google, and others, don't provide this kind of
service, I'm shocked.

Look at what amazon.com did with just this kind of advertising, by the way.
Instead of going to the search engines and listing themselves on a per-click
basis, they went out to the Internet community at large and, in essence,
"bought" many thousands of these click-to-purchase ads on people's web
sites. That was pretty sharp, I thought! I doubt that this was their
original idea, of course, but, business is all about implementation anyway.

By the way, what does Yahoo do with their shopping stores? Do they get a
piece of the action or do they just rent out the space? (If it is the
former, than Yahoo *is* in the click-to-purchase business, no?)

Mike

"Tyler Hellard" <tylerREMOVE@spincity.org> wrote in message
news:bkf7jj01vj3@enews2.newsguy.com...
>
> My point was that the concept of click-to-purchase is loopy.

It's a tried and true affiliate marketing program. Makes me a lot of money
on my travel sites. Makes the NY Times money as well.
Not every site sells advertising on a per click or CPM basis and only get
paid by per sale.

> You can
> look for it, sure, and maybe it exists somewhere. But it certainly
> doesn't exist on a high-traffic site like Google.

Google wouldn't have much credibility if they got paid that way as all their
search results would be suspect.

Regardless, I'm a fan
> of Google AdWords and most search engine marketing. We've tracked some
> very positive results for the clients we've done strategy and creative
> for in this area. But again, it's all kind of moot if you aren't
> constantly optimizing the user experience on your site.

For those not running a search engine, pay per sale works quite well.

--
McWebber
No email replies read
If someone tells you to forward an email to all your friends
please forget that I'm your friend.

In article <bkffho0ct6@enews1.newsguy.com>,
"Scott T. Jensen" <stj@charter.net> wrote:

> "Tyler Hellard" <tylerREMOVE@spincity.org> wrote:
> > My point was that the concept of click-to-purchase is loopy.
>
> Loopy? You've got to be kidding me. You do understand the concept about
> commission sales, right? Click-to-purchase runs on the same theory.
>
> > You can look for it, sure, and maybe it exists somewhere. But
> > it certainly doesn't exist on a high-traffic site like Google.
>
> It's getting there. Online advertisers are simply getting wiser. It wasn't
> too long ago that websites, search engines, banner ad sellers, etc. tried to
> sell advertisers "exposures". Basically how many times a webpage was
> accessed that had your banner ad on it. That was a terrible deal for
> advertisers and now I don't know of any website, search engine, banner ad
> seller, etc. that tries to sell exposures. Click-thru is not as bad, but is
> still a terrible deal for advertisers. When I was monitoring online, the
> trend was showing all the signs of going to click-to-purchase. It is my own
> personal opinion that once this becomes the norm, a lot more advertising
> will be done on the web.
>
> > Regardless, I'm a fan of Google AdWords and most search
> > engine marketing. We've tracked some very positive results
> > for the clients we've done strategy and creative for in this area.
>
> So you advocate online advertising? Ok, now I see where you're coming from.

I advocate online integration, of which advertising is a key component.

> > But again, it's all kind of moot if you aren't constantly
> > optimizing the user experience on your site.
>
> This is a marketing newsgroup with a lot of marketing professions. Keep the
> hyperbole to a minimum here. "constantly optimizing the user experience"???
> *Scott rolls his eyes.*

Ha ha. Yeah, looking back I want to kick myself for that too. Despite
the stench of the statement though, I think it holds true. One of the
clients I work with does tens of millions of dollars in sales through
their Web site every week. We'll often make changes as simple as turning
"Click Here" into "Start Now" and track a small increase in
click-throughs. Even at 1%, that's a lot of money when your talking
about big dollars like that. In one instance we figured that by changing
a button's colour from red to yellow, we increased revenues by just over
$1 million/month. Sounds stupid, but it's true.
--
--
Tyler C. Hellard

Location Location Location...Almost.

A top spot on google can indeed be very valuable, which is exactly what
you are buying with Adwords. Once a visitor comes into your store, you
are on your own, but high traffic means that a number of sales will most
likely be added by the increased traffic.

Are QUALIFIED buyers coming into you store? Or just free info hounds?
You have a say in that as you apply the rules of strategic ad copy. Cut
back with the premium, "freebies", giveaways, etc. on the Adwords Blurb.
Instead, SPECIALIZE, Narrow the promoted items list on the ad to a key
product or 2. Beef up the emphasis on high quality of given product/
service. These are just cautionary steps to reduce some of the
non-buying traffic to your site.

Now here's the ALMOST. Even with a top location, you should set a cash
limit on what you will rent that top spot from google for. You can't do
that unless you have to been diligent with your webstats. If you have
been monitoring stats and sales, your are ready to set your budget for
buying the spot, because you know just what each visitor to your site is
worth.

But what is a profitable price to pay per click? We know that Price of
product less all costs (not including Adwords) equals gross profit.
Gross profit multiplied by number of sales per week equals weekly
profit. Weekly profits divided by number of visitors per week equals the
monetary value per visitor.

So once the value of a visitor is obtained, you have a real figure to
stack against the cost per click-through and see if it's a "go". After
looking at your volume of sales, a determination must then be made as to
how much you are willing to pay to make back the amount a visitor (a
click through) is worth. You may have a lot of flexibility with that
decision, be sure you are not paying more than you budget for in terms
of percentages of value of each customer versus ad cost. You'd be
surprised how many folk actually exceed the clicks worth in pay per
click , which is making yourself the robinhood of google, robbing
yourself and giving unto them. LOL.

Give it a go and benchmark your keywords as best you can as you set this
up.

~zion~

"Tyler Hellard" <tylerREMOVE@spincity.org> wrote:
> "Scott T. Jensen" <stj@charter.net> wrote:
> > "Tyler Hellard" <tylerREMOVE@spincity.org> wrote:
> > > Regardless, I'm a fan of Google AdWords and most search
> > > engine marketing. We've tracked some very positive results
> > > for the clients we've done strategy and creative for in this area.
> >
> > So you advocate online advertising? Ok, now I see where
> > you're coming from.
>
> I advocate online integration, of which advertising is a key
> component.

A "key component"? You would then be a rare marketing consultant.
Everyone I know (myself included) rarely advocate more than a second-level
ad presence on the net and no one I know advocates anything but very very
limited net advertising. In fact, I'm the biggest advocate of net
advertising and that's only when it is done on barter terms. The net just
hasn't proven itself as a good advertising medium except for a very narrow
category of business. Namely porn. And it works for porn due to the
privacy the net provides its customers.

> > > But again, it's all kind of moot if you aren't constantly
> > > optimizing the user experience on your site.
> >
> > This is a marketing newsgroup with a lot of marketing
> > professions. Keep the hyperbole to a minimum here.
> > "constantly optimizing the user experience"??? *Scott
> > rolls his eyes.*
>
> Ha ha. Yeah, looking back I want to kick myself for that
> too.

Glad to hear this.

> Despite the stench of the statement though, I think it holds
> true. One of the clients I work with does tens of millions of
> dollars in sales through their Web site every week. We'll
> often make changes as simple as turning "Click Here" into
> "Start Now" and track a small increase in click-throughs.
> Even at 1%, that's a lot of money when your talking about
> big dollars like that. In one instance we figured that by
> changing a button's colour from red to yellow, we
> increased revenues by just over $1 million/month. Sounds
> stupid, but it's true.

Can you give us the porn website's URL?

Scott Jensen
--
Like a cure for A.I.D.S., Alzheimer, Parkinson, & Mad Cow Disease?
Volunteer your computer for folding-protein research for when it's idle.
Go to http://www.distributedfolding.org/ to sign up your computer.

"Scott T. Jensen" <stj@charter.net> wrote:
> "Tyler Hellard" <tylerREMOVE@spincity.org> wrote:
> > Despite the stench of the statement though, I think it holds
> > true. One of the clients I work with does tens of millions of
> > dollars in sales through their Web site every week. We'll
> > often make changes as simple as turning "Click Here" into
> > "Start Now" and track a small increase in click-throughs.
> > Even at 1%, that's a lot of money when your talking about
> > big dollars like that. In one instance we figured that by
> > changing a button's colour from red to yellow, we
> > increased revenues by just over $1 million/month. Sounds
> > stupid, but it's true.
>
> Can you give us the porn website's URL?

www.dell.com

--
--
Joseph W. ****
The W is for Wank Star
mhm14x9
Smeeter of the non variety
Too lazy to crosspost anymore

In article <bkn2bk0pko@enews1.newsguy.com>,
Joe**** <fatREMOVALREQUIRED@spincity.org> wrote:

> "Scott T. Jensen" <stj@charter.net> wrote:
> > "Tyler Hellard" <tylerREMOVE@spincity.org> wrote:
> > > Despite the stench of the statement though, I think it holds
> > > true. One of the clients I work with does tens of millions of
> > > dollars in sales through their Web site every week. We'll
> > > often make changes as simple as turning "Click Here" into
> > > "Start Now" and track a small increase in click-throughs.
> > > Even at 1%, that's a lot of money when your talking about
> > > big dollars like that. In one instance we figured that by
> > > changing a button's colour from red to yellow, we
> > > increased revenues by just over $1 million/month. Sounds
> > > stupid, but it's true.
> >
> > Can you give us the porn website's URL?
>
> www.dell.com

Apologies... sent from the wrong account.
--
--
Tyler C. Hellard

"Joe****" <fatREMOVALREQUIRED@spincity.org> wrote:
> "Scott T. Jensen" <stj@charter.net> wrote:
> > "Tyler Hellard" <tylerREMOVE@spincity.org> wrote:
> > > Despite the stench of the statement though, I think it holds
> > > true. One of the clients I work with does tens of millions of
> > > dollars in sales through their Web site every week. We'll
> > > often make changes as simple as turning "Click Here" into
> > > "Start Now" and track a small increase in click-throughs.
> > > Even at 1%, that's a lot of money when your talking about
> > > big dollars like that. In one instance we figured that by
> > > changing a button's colour from red to yellow, we
> > > increased revenues by just over $1 million/month. Sounds
> > > stupid, but it's true.
> >
> > Can you give us the porn website's URL?
>
> www.dell.com

The tongue-in-cheek question was to Tyler Hellard and what company he's
servicing that does this amount of business. Or are you one of his aliases
or work for the same company as he does?

Scott Jensen
--
Like a cure for A.I.D.S., Alzheimer, Parkinson, & Mad Cow Disease?
Volunteer your computer for folding-protein research for when it's idle.
Go to http://www.distributedfolding.org/ to sign up your computer.

In article <bkonir0e9b@enews2.newsguy.com>,
"Scott T. Jensen" <stj@charter.net> wrote:

> "Joe****" <fatREMOVALREQUIRED@spincity.org> wrote:
> > "Scott T. Jensen" <stj@charter.net> wrote:
> > > "Tyler Hellard" <tylerREMOVE@spincity.org> wrote:
> > > > Despite the stench of the statement though, I think it holds
> > > > true. One of the clients I work with does tens of millions of
> > > > dollars in sales through their Web site every week. We'll
> > > > often make changes as simple as turning "Click Here" into
> > > > "Start Now" and track a small increase in click-throughs.
> > > > Even at 1%, that's a lot of money when your talking about
> > > > big dollars like that. In one instance we figured that by
> > > > changing a button's colour from red to yellow, we
> > > > increased revenues by just over $1 million/month. Sounds
> > > > stupid, but it's true.
> > >
> > > Can you give us the porn website's URL?
> >
> > www.dell.com
>
> The tongue-in-cheek question was to Tyler Hellard and what company he's
> servicing that does this amount of business. Or are you one of his aliases
> or work for the same company as he does?
>

He's me, I'm him, we're all the same. Simply didn't have the settings
right on this new newsreader and posted under a name I use in a less
serious group. My bad. But Dell.com was the site I was referencing as
one that contantly tracks performance and "constantly optimizes the user
experience" (yech... icky marketing speak... but it's true).
--
--
Tyler C. Hellard