RKG Logo 434-978-4300

As search marketing becomes increasingly sophisticated, I thought it might be useful to throw out some “requirements” for any system meaningfully vying for supremacy in bidding technology. These will come out roughly weekly until I run out of ideas :-)

I’m speaking on this topic at SMX Advanced in Seattle next week, but I can’t go into much detail on that panel, so I’ll take the opportunity to flesh each point out here.

Bidding is second in importance only to an exhaustive, well thought-out keyword list for generating results in search. Contrary to what some would say, not all bidding systems are created equal, and the performance differences are material. If you’re in the market for a SEM let these “requirements” help guide your process.

Requirement #1: Proprietary System with Strong Statistical Foundation

You can’t be the leader in the space if you’re using someone else’s tool. Even if the tool you’re using is pretty good, the fact that you’re not elbow deep in the bowels of the thing means your flexibility is limited, your understanding of how it works is shallow, and you’re beholden to someone else for important new innovations.

Consider for example a tale of two keywords: Keyword 1 has a conversion rate of 5.0 % and an AOV of $30, for a sales per click value of $1.50. Keyword 2 has a conversion rate of 0.2 % and an AOV of $750. The sales per click value is identical, yet most bidding systems will have a hard time reaching that conclusion for keyword 2 consistently. Likely the calculated value will fluctuate wildly and its bids along with it.

We’re constantly making adjustments/improvements to how our system functions. This is a complicated game, the rules change, the objectives change, and we learn more and more as we go. If those changes don’t get folded into the system then you get trampled by the competition.

Some companies present their bidding system as “The Perfect Machine”, give it some cute trademarked name and tout it as the ultimate. I’m deeply suspicious of any firm that wouldn’t describe their system as a work in progress. Sure, we play the marketing game of throwing Alan’s PhD in Stats from MIT at folks and suggesting that our smart math guy is smarter than our competitor’s smart math guy, but the reality is that human behavior is hard to model, and what we’re talking about here is figuring out patterns in human behavior.

We’re still learning and innovating, but that’s what having a proprietary system is all about.

Stay tuned for more in the series, and swing by my panel discussion in Seattle if you get a chance!

George

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.

Comments

  1. Stephen, May 27, 2008:

    Good stuff. I am looking forward to reading the whole series. Thanks for sharing!

Your Comment

Tags

RKG Tags:

Technorati Tags:

Trackback

http://www.rimmkaufman.com/rkgblog/2008/05/26/bidding-technology-requirement-1/trackback/

Blogs Citing This Post

  1. Pingback: Bid Management in 2008: Requirement #2 on June 16, 2008
  2. Pingback: PPC Bid Management: Requirement #3, The Feedback Loop on July 9, 2008
  3. Pingback: PPC Bidding: Requirement #4: Ad level bidding on September 9, 2008
  4. Pingback: Why Position Bidding Wastes Money | Web Data Source on September 29, 2008
  5. Pingback: Why Position Bidding Wastes Money on September 30, 2008

Email Updates

Categories

Recent Comments

  • 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....
  • Mel66: I don’t think this is a bug. It’s been happening for years. It *is* impossible to manage, and I can’t help but wonder if...

Blog Stats

  • Posts: 948
  • Words: 451,089
  • Comments: 2,876

Administration