Good for Google and PPC - Bad for Retailers and Organic Search Placement? Google Search within Search

So Google has a new "feature" in place where if you type in a major website or corporation name a second search box will appear below the corporate listing for that site that allows you to type in another search term to search "within the website Google identified as you having interest in".

A good way to test this functionality is to type in "Walmart", then type in "flat-screen tv". Google searches again, this time looking at walmart.com for "flat-screen tv".

Cool for the consumer. Bad for Wal-Mart, because when the results are returned not only does the consumer see the organic results - they also see the paid click ads above and to the right of the organic results - all trying to get the consumer to their site (not Walmart's) to sell them a TV. So basically a consumer that starts their searching looking for a specific retail chain and specific product, may get sucked into another companies site before they even hit the retailer they were interested in.

Personally, it's just scary of Googles ability to be this aggressive and it will obviously increase the PPC traffic on adwords.. BUT beyond that, it really hurts the value of organic placement for these larger corporations. And leads to a argument for bigger PPC spend on keywords to capture Internet traffic via search engine traffic.

Of course, my take still is that marketers should be looking at indirect messaging / brand entertainment / sponsored experience strategies to invest in going forward. These will provide better ROI (if executed correctly) and the marketer will have more control over what else is going on for the consumer during that messaging effort.

Sources:
First hand experience
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/24/business/media/24ecom.html?_r=1&pagewanted=1&oref=slogin

The Value of Ad Networks for Top Tier Brands

ESPN has recently announced they are going to stop using ad networks. Concerns are around how ad networks place ads and the value of the brand vs. the return on ad placements. MediaWeek posted a article on the recent event on their site and the article interviews several people close to publishing and ad networks. The various views are interesting but show there is obviously a issue for high value brands. The ad networks, as expected, are saying "you need us". While my impression is ESPN and others are saying "our brand is more valuable than what you are compensating us for it" and "the ads you are displaying along with our content is not valuable/frivolous/does not match".

I personally believe that ad networks are needed for high volume, low value, affordable advertising for specific business models and also for businesses that cannot afford a more integrated campaign and it is obviously critical from a revenue standpoint for publishers/brands/bloggers that are not in the top echelons with the likes of ESPN.

However, I also believe that there is going to be a need in the near future for more one on one matching of those doing the publishing and those that are trying to market their brand and message.

Is there a play for a new breed of company that helps bring together these two needs in more of a customized and targeted way? Or are we going to see more companies investing outside of advertising and investing more into building interactive and social media experiences that they have more control over? Think the Office Max's "Dancing Elves" and Logitech's "Logitech Football Challenge".

Source: http://www.mediaweek.com/mw/news/recent_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003728998

-David

Followup: Here is another blogger with a similar view (and much more opinionated about the publisher's needing to dump ad networks: http://www.calacanis.com/2008/03/24/are-ad-networks-for-loser-weak-publishers/

--------------------------
Net-Recon in Austin, TX
http://www.net-recon.com
Helping our customers build Websites, Web Games, and Social Media Experiences

Is Brand Exposure in Social Media really "Advertisement"

Social Media Insider Writer, Cathy Taylor, wrote a interesting blog entry around whether or not "Advertisement" is a good definition for Marketing / Brand exposure in Social Media.

I think it depends on the tactic. I believe direct messaging would definitely be considered advertisement (banner ads), but when it starts getting into more indirect messaging (this widget/game/fun site/educational site brought to you buy.. or subtle brand logos / product placement in a social media environment.. informational blog posts/articles).. I tend to agree that Advertisement is a bad definition.. In some cases these indirect tactics could be considered Branded Entertainment.. but I agree there is a lack of a good industry term.

As interesting for me.. Cathy questions - "Should putting these deals together always be the role of an ad agency?" and then answers "Not necessarily".

I definitely agree with these thoughts and it is here that we are trying to communicate my company sits (Net-Recon).. snugly between (and hopefully live in harmony with) traditional creative agencies, advertising agencies and direct marketing firms. Of course it is difficult because when talking to people they want to assume that we are some type of ad agency or creative firm.. Hopefully more discussions like this will start to provoke thought about this missing role..

We are aiming right for Internet Marketing / Brand Exposure via Interactive Websites / Games / Social Media. It's here that the additional potential sits for solid ROI on online marketing now and even more so in the future.

-David
Net-Recon (http://www.net-recon.com)
Austin, TX

Source: http://blogs.mediapost.com/social_media_insider/?p=7
Cathy's Blog: http://Adverganza.com