Comments on: Google Slap, Microsoft & Yahoo! Search Marketing http://blog.merjis.com/2008/03/25/google-slap-microsoft-yahoo-search-marketing/ Effective Internet Marketing Strategy and Technique Through Experiments, Measurement and Audit Thu, 24 Jul 2008 18:18:42 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.12-alpha by: Joe Bowers http://blog.merjis.com/2008/03/25/google-slap-microsoft-yahoo-search-marketing/#comment-44442 Fri, 04 Apr 2008 16:39:40 +0000 http://blog.merjis.com/2008/03/25/google-slap-microsoft-yahoo-search-marketing/#comment-44442 This does make sense, and I see your point. Thanks for taking the time to clarify! This does make sense, and I see your point. Thanks for taking the time to clarify!

]]> by: Jeremy Chatfield http://blog.merjis.com/2008/03/25/google-slap-microsoft-yahoo-search-marketing/#comment-41469 Wed, 26 Mar 2008 01:11:08 +0000 http://blog.merjis.com/2008/03/25/google-slap-microsoft-yahoo-search-marketing/#comment-41469 Hi Joe, and thanks. I think that your model assumes saturation. IME, most small and inexperienced advertisers look at Google's market share, and the low entry fee (compare G, Y and M initial fees). Given that managing the activity is about the same cost for each network, where would you direct efforts? Only if results collapse, do you feel the economic need to expend more effort. So G gets advertisers, until results turn down, and then advertisers shift somewhere else - to numbers 2 & 3 (to get any kind of volume that compares with G). I think the problem is that your analysis is close to a classic "free market optimisation", but most businesses, like consumers. use micro-economic decisions that include "feeling good about myself" and "do I feel like I've done enough" - not "have I saturated the market". AFAICS, marketing optimisation, for many small businesses, doesn't mean "use all possible channels" - because they actually have to do some work on client satisfaction leading to income, which managing multiple networks does not directly do. The optimisation is to do the least they must do, to drive some new clients - leading to a minimal use of different networks? Does *that* make more sense? Hi Joe, and thanks. I think that your model assumes saturation. IME, most small and inexperienced advertisers look at Google’s market share, and the low entry fee (compare G, Y and M initial fees). Given that managing the activity is about the same cost for each network, where would you direct efforts? Only if results collapse, do you feel the economic need to expend more effort. So G gets advertisers, until results turn down, and then advertisers shift somewhere else - to numbers 2 & 3 (to get any kind of volume that compares with G).

I think the problem is that your analysis is close to a classic “free market optimisation”, but most businesses, like consumers. use micro-economic decisions that include “feeling good about myself” and “do I feel like I’ve done enough” - not “have I saturated the market”.

AFAICS, marketing optimisation, for many small businesses, doesn’t mean “use all possible channels” - because they actually have to do some work on client satisfaction leading to income, which managing multiple networks does not directly do. The optimisation is to do the least they must do, to drive some new clients - leading to a minimal use of different networks?

Does *that* make more sense?

]]> by: Joe Bowers http://blog.merjis.com/2008/03/25/google-slap-microsoft-yahoo-search-marketing/#comment-41427 Tue, 25 Mar 2008 19:56:46 +0000 http://blog.merjis.com/2008/03/25/google-slap-microsoft-yahoo-search-marketing/#comment-41427 I'm not sure that losses in Google's market could translate to gains in Yahoo's or MSN's market- it seems like the limiting reagent in these markets are searchers rather than advertisers. That is- a drop in the availability or value of clicks from Google (as the result of algorithm changes or banning or whatever) may free up marketing dollars to spend on other paid search channels, but it won't increase the competitors supply of clicks, or the value of the clicks they have. This isn't to say if Google stopped all PPC tomorrow that some dollars from fixed marketing budgets wouldn't get redirected, but in many more cases folks leaving the Google market would already be bought in to the Yahoo/MSN markets to some (much smaller) equilibrium. In any case, it seems to me that it's no more likely that the next best opportunity for marketing is Yahoo PPC than that it is a better email program or a highway billboard or whatnot. On the other hand, I could be taking a very narrow view of why and how folks do their PPC, or just getting my economics wrong. Does this make sense? I’m not sure that losses in Google’s market could translate to gains in Yahoo’s or MSN’s market- it seems like the limiting reagent in these markets are searchers rather than advertisers. That is- a drop in the availability or value of clicks from Google (as the result of algorithm changes or banning or whatever) may free up marketing dollars to spend on other paid search channels, but it won’t increase the competitors supply of clicks, or the value of the clicks they have.

This isn’t to say if Google stopped all PPC tomorrow that some dollars from fixed marketing budgets wouldn’t get redirected, but in many more cases folks leaving the Google market would already be bought in to the Yahoo/MSN markets to some (much smaller) equilibrium. In any case, it seems to me that it’s no more likely that the next best opportunity for marketing is Yahoo PPC than that it is a better email program or a highway billboard or whatnot.

On the other hand, I could be taking a very narrow view of why and how folks do their PPC, or just getting my economics wrong. Does this make sense?

]]>