Comments:
Aren’t all paid clicks commercial in nature? What would an example of a “noncommercial” paid link be? Who would pay for the click through?
Brook:
I think I see where you may have been unclear on what I am talking about so thanks for the question. What I’m suggesting here is that anything that gets typed into Google.com will now be analyzed by Google and deemed “commercial” or “non-commercial.” Ads will be served more judiciously for those terms that end up in the “non-commercial” bucket.
This is significant. Google has never before, to my knowledge, ever placed a subjective value on search terms that is used when making ad serving decisions.
I recently read Danny Sullivan’s comments on this and to be candid it sounds like quite a tap dance he’s doing.... or claiming that Google is doing, actually, with regard to reduction of inventory. Kinda makes me wonder if Seachenginewatch is a bit of a tool… to keep the troops from panicking.
Does that make sense?
Specifically in terms of commercial vs non-commercial, no it doesn’t really make sense to me. The theory does, but I don’t see how you’d implement it in practice because language is resistant to such categorization. For example, a car search may or may not be commercial in nature, as might a search for a hospital. The point is that you can’t tell how someone else might commercialize what you don’t.
Ironically, the best litmus test would probably be to see if anyone is buying the term. If so, it’s commercial. (Or an eBay ad.)
Fully agree. Hence the blog and your point. I was waiting for someone to pick up on the fact that this is easier said than done—done with any level of accuracy.
But this *is* Google after all and they’re the most advanced tech company out there right? ;)
Hey Jeff- I am delving into this a bit.
My first question has to be- is the number one spot really the “best” inventory? Anyone talking about the ROAS, etc on various positions?
-wayne
Well… position preference doesn’t just help an advertiser lock up the number 1 slot. It helps to secure top positions.
Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, it really doesn’t matter. Nothing matters in a world that doesn’t measure.
I truly believe we will look back on these days (in the not too distant future) in wide-eyed wonder at the dollars wasted on pay-per-click search—mainly as most of it is purchased A) blindly (not knowing where it actually comes from and if it’s worth anything) and B) without being measured.
OK What I am asking then is what are “top positions” and are the necessarily better?
I guess that is where the measuring comes in eh?
I agree- the concurrent model is rather haphazard but it takes a long time to change (we have seen the change coming.)
If people aren’t measuring then they really don’t know.
-wayne
Wayne:
According to the Guru Marshall it’s positions 4-7. The top slots are labeled by many as “impulse” positions.
http://www.perrymarshall.com/google/
Ironic that Yahoo and Google suggest they’re the best eh? ;)
Oh I agree with Perry...that was the point I was “angling” for. :)
Have to throw my 2 cents back in. I don’t think the waste in advertising will ever go away because that is how money is spent. Television is a waste but advertisers love to spend on it because it’s sexy. Keywords aren’t sexy but they are, let’s say “brainy” and brainy is sexy even if it’s a poor spend.