RKG Logo 434-978-4300

A couple weeks back I had a chance to sit through a presentation with one of our clients on Google’s new Web Optimizer tool. We were sworn to secrecy about the project, so I won’t go into details, but suffice it to say the tool set is amazing, and the companies out there who sell similar tools for big money are in trouble.

At one point our client asked the Google reps: “Okay, this is amazing, but why are you doing this? What’s in it for Google?”

The response was two-fold: 1) If companies have the tools to improve their websites the websites will provide a better user experience, and Google angelically will have contributed to the world’s welfare; and 2) As websites improve in quality, conversion rates will improve, average order sizes will improve, and companies will be able to bid more for cpc traffic thus increasing Google’s revenues.

Google gets it. As conversion rates improve retailer’s ROI considerations will allow them to spend more per click, getting them higher placement on the page and more traffic. Getting this virtuous cycle rolling is why we’ve been offering web design advice to our clients for three years, and why we’re expanding these services.

At the same time, elsewhere in the bowels of Google’s systems, they don’t get it. As I described earlier, Google’s broad match has gotten ridiculously broad. Google appears to be dabbling with the notion that any keyword in your campaign is relevant for a search on anything remotely related to your product category. Ads with high bids — often brand terms, or terms that our clients ask us to keep high on the page for brand awareness — are being served over much more targeted keywords with lower bids.

Why do they do this? Simple: as long as the bid differential is greater than the Click-Through-Rate differential, Google makes more money serving the untargeted ad. But this is short-sighted. Because the landing page will be less targeted as well, the conversion rate of this traffic will be worse causing retailers to lower bids on these or other terms to make their ROI goals.

Moreover, the lousy user experience of taking traffic to the wrong page on these websites will encourage users to skip the sponsored links entirely, leaving retailers at the mercy of their organic strength or weakness.

Google needs to trust retailers, SEM’s and free-market forces to pick the most appropriate landing page for traffic on a given term, and give preference to ad phrases that match search phrases exactly. This will benefit everyone in the long run.

The launch of Google’s Web Optimizer shows that some folks at Google understand the importance of landing pages to their revenue stream. Now they need to spread that message back to the folks who determine how broad is too broad.

Technorati Tags: , ,

If you like this post, consider subscribing to our RSS feed. You can also have new posts sent to you via email.


Related Posts

    No related posts.

Your Comment

Tags

RKG Tags: , ,

Technorati Tags: , ,

Trackback

http://www.rimmkaufman.com/rkgblog/2007/03/22/google-gets-it-sort-of/trackback/

Blogs Citing This Post

  1. Pingback: Google Declares Bankruptcy! on August 12, 2008

Email Updates

Categories

Recent Comments

  • Mark Ballard: Cory, I don’t see this as an SEO v. PPC issue. The core of my argument is that CTRs are lower primarily due to misleading...
  • Cory Grassell: What are your thoughts on stats that suggest consumers are more apt to click on organic search results than PPC results? As a...
  • George Michie: Kevin, Marc, thanks for your comments. Help is coming, but not the solution. There are a number of instances when the CTR on the...
  • Marc Adelman: George, You have been an advocate of “the advanced control option” for years now. Depressing right YEARS! Eh…listen...
  • Kevin Hill: Is what they really need is a fourth match type. Here’s google’s help documentation on broad match: This is the default...
  • Kevin Micalizzi, Dimdim Web Conferencing: Jim (& George)- We still offer a free version of Dimdim. Just click Sign Up Now at the top of the...
  • Tomas: indeed, i can’t talk about it either… :)
  • Philip Price: Thank you for the RegHack, it worked for me, tho at first when i made the reg file with the information i copied from above i also...
  • George Michie: Sorry Jim, this post was written in 2007. Apparently some of those products are gone.
  • Jim: Hey, I checked two products like dimdim and cutepdf but none is free. What are you talking about free and open source?
  • George Michie: If they keep hearing the same message, and seeing evidence in the data to back it up, something will have to give. There is hope on...
  • Tomas: I’ve been having the same argument with Google for months now and in the end there does seem to be a feature in the algorithm that...
  • George Michie: Doesn’t have to be, it can be intra-adgroup as well.
  • Josh: George – I take it you’re referencing a scenario where your exact-match keywords are not listed as negative exact match keywords...
  • George Michie: Melissa, you’re right, it’s always happened to varying degrees, particularly since the advent of extended broad match....

Blog Stats

  • Posts: 948
  • Words: 451,089
  • Comments: 2,877

Administration