Yahoo vs AdWords: Part Dieux

Published on April 7th, 2008 by Jeremy Chatfield

Some time ago, I started a review comparing Yahoo!Search Marketing (previously Overture and previously Goto.com, but here known as “Y!SM”) with Google AdWords. Of course, Y!SM, which had been hanging fire on a promising new interface, Panama, promptly rolled the new stuff out. I claim no impact on this, just remark on an accident of timing. There’s been a lot to say about AdWords in the interim, but Y!SM has had a radical makeover over the years. How have they done?

This article takes a quick scoot over the major similarities and differences in interfaces. I expect to dig into specifics in more detailed individual articles. I intend that the next detailed posting will be about how the two systems handle integration with web analytics for tracking and conversion handling, and how easy or difficult the systems make it to track search behaviour.

Identifying the audience differences is somewhat difficult to do, as this may expose too much about our clients. I’ve been wondering about how to discuss the differences in audience behavior, and if I come up with a solution that preserves confidentiality, I’ll find a way to discuss it.

Similarities

AdWords and Y!SM share a lot of features, where previously there was a radical difference of approach. Rather than spend a long time dwelling on what Overture used to do, let’s look at how the new Y!SM compares:

• Grouping Keywords in AdGroups
• Multiple adverts per keyword - supporting parallel A/B testing
• Basic match and extended match (AdWords’ Phrase Match is closest to Y!SM’s Standard Match - both get wild with Broad Match/Advanced Match)
• Dynamic Keyword Insertion
• Conversion Tracking
• Generalised Second Price Auction - Your bid and your advert effectiveness combine for placement.
• An editorial review process - assurance to publishers of quality adverts (revenue and “decency”)
• Separate Display and Destination URLs
• Default subscription to the contextual match service (AdSense or Yahoo!Publisher network)
• Text Adverts for paid search results - graphical adverts are featured on contextual match
• Bulk Upload mechanism (AdWords Editor vs Y!SMs direct import of spreadsheets)
• API - both offer a way to write software that helps or manages the account, but Google makes it easier to access
• Built in click-fraud detection - both deliver billed clicks but neither account for unbilled clicks

Display URL Improvements

Y!SM used to only allow a Destination URL and used an uncertain method to identify the proper Display URL. This was most often a problem when using a third party redirector for advert management - stuff like the Atlas DMT package, or Nedstat’s Web Analytics would sometimes show that the advert was for “Atdmt.com” or “www.sitestat.de”. The new platform removes that problem.

Policies on the use of the Display URL appear to be broadly similar. For example, neither like Duplicate Serving, having two adverts for the same advertised site.

Advert Formats

Y!SM has leaped ahead of Google in certain fronts. The Advert Generator and the wider range of shown formats (short and long form description) allow easier creation and testing of copy, and give opportunities for more publishers to present something that makes sense in their display context. Although Google doesn’t make it clear when composing adverts, they do represent adverts in a variety of formats - Y!SM’s more explicit handling of adverts better supports understanding what the advert will look like.

For example, Google’s Gmail shows AdWords adverts. When using webclips, it will show them in the format “Headline, Display URL, Desc Line 1, Desc Line 2″, as shown above. Advertisers who rely on the headline being followed by the first description line, will get a less readable advert. Additionally some AdSense publishers cut adverts back to just the Headline, or strip the Display URL. Possibly they fear that viewers might key the URL in directly? Possibly it is for space saving - more ads per inch? I don’t really know the reasons to do this. Y!SM’s advert composition and generator is arguably better for making more effective adverts in all the formats that will be published.

Google’s Faster Rate Of Evolution

Google still scores heavily on certain fronts, though:

• Google Campaigns offer country and smaller geotargeting - Y!SM still appears to need multiple accounts for multiple countries
• Google Campaigns offer language targeting - I can’t see that in Y!SM, but I haven’t really used Yahoo outside English speaking countries
• Google very recently added more control over the publishing networks, via the UI (e.g. drop Domain Parks, Error Pages, photo sharing sites, etc)
• Google spend is set at the level of budgets per campaign - Y!SM’s still seems modelled on a budget per account - I use this Google feature for all sorts of purposes.

Summary

Yahoo!Search Marketing, the original pioneer in paid search marketing, is now clearly trailing Google in both global market share and the sophistication of control that can be exercised by the expert marketeer. The newer interface has done a lot to catch up, and in some respects, offers better presentation - though I can’t currently identify better control.

Basic functions are pretty much a mirror of each other. Keywords are assigned to AdGroups, AdGroups trigger a pool of Adverts. Advert selection may be optimised by the search engine. Bidding seems to be based on the Generalised Second Price Auction. This will get some in-depth attention in a later article, as I think there’s a fundamental difference in approach by Google and Yahoo!Search Marketing for the mechanism of the auction, which affects the value the auction returns. I think this may be one place where Google might want to copy Yahoo!Search Marketing’s lead, but would probably involve a significant re-work of the entire auction mechanism.

“Part Dieux”? This is part deux (”Two”, in French) of the series, and is a deliberate pun on “Dieu” (”God” in French). Why this pun is amusing is left as an exercise for the reader.