4 ms·

I've always wondered about those adverts for the website I'm searching for. If I type its name into Google, I'm already 100% committed to going there. Sometimes

I've always wondered about those adverts for the website I'm searching for. If I type its name into Google, I'm already 100% committed to going there. Sometimes I click the advert (it generally depends how much I like the company). The other aspect of online ads that strikes me as ingenious but probably not sustainable is the way Google inflates the auction system with fake money. Anyone who's run a website will have received a letter offering hundreds of dollars of free advertising with Google. Of course, it's an auction so the presence of that money just drives up the cost for everyone. Google wins every time!

cubedrone 7y ago
There was a post about this recently. They need to buy the ad to keep their competitor from being the first result. https://www.seroundtable.com/basecamp-google-ad-28161.html https://www.seroundtable.com/basecamp-google-ad-28161.html
- pizzaparty2 7y ago
  Well, at least there is no law allowing ISPs to serve their site more slowly unless they pay a ransom (I mean business professional tier).
Disruptive_Dave 7y ago
It's a defense strategy. And it's necessary.
- harry8 7y ago
  "Nice organic customer flow you've got there. It'd be a shame if it all went away because you didn't pay us." --Google
  - buboard 7y ago
    "It's not our fault that our ads look entirely identical to our search results"
jammygit 7y ago
It costs the ad creator money every click and rewards google for mixing ads into the search results in a confusing way. This is a sketchy practice when the ad is for the exact product or site you typed into the search bar - as another commentator mentioned, the dynamic forces you to buy the ad to keep competitors from stealing the spot. Toxic
- user5994461 7y ago
  It's more than competitors. When looking for a specific site like ebay, paypal or name of popular software, the first paid results are regularly untrustworthy, if not plain scam or distributing malware. Either the legitimate site pays to be first, or it can watch customers go to hell, literally.
tempestn 7y ago
I had the same thought. Our PPC consultants strongly recommended that we do branded ads and I pushed back against it using this same logic. Ultimately we performed a test, but the results were very different from in the article—we did find that a significant percentage of those who clicked our branded ads would otherwise click the organic results... but far from 100%. And because cost per click on branded ads is so low compared to other ads, it appears that they are still profitable for us, even once we take into account the users who would have arrived through organic links if the ads didn't exist. This was and is surprising to me. The only explanation I have is competitors bidding on our brand keywords and taking traffic that would have come to us absent any ads. Which makes the whole thing look like a nice racket for Google. Regardless, for now we pay since the alternative is apparently to lose those users.
- Marsymars 7y ago
  If I had a brand, I'd be tempted to bid it up with ads directing to ad-blocking extensions. Does Google allow that?

cubedrone 7y ago

There was a post about this recently. They need to buy the ad to keep their competitor from being the first result. https://www.seroundtable.com/basecamp-google-ad-28161.html https://www.seroundtable.com/basecamp-google-ad-28161.html

pizzaparty2 7y ago
Well, at least there is no law allowing ISPs to serve their site more slowly unless they pay a ransom (I mean business professional tier).

Disruptive_Dave 7y ago

It's a defense strategy. And it's necessary.

harry8 7y ago
"Nice organic customer flow you've got there. It'd be a shame if it all went away because you didn't pay us." --Google
- buboard 7y ago
  "It's not our fault that our ads look entirely identical to our search results"

jammygit 7y ago

It costs the ad creator money every click and rewards google for mixing ads into the search results in a confusing way. This is a sketchy practice when the ad is for the exact product or site you typed into the search bar - as another commentator mentioned, the dynamic forces you to buy the ad to keep competitors from stealing the spot. Toxic

user5994461 7y ago
It's more than competitors. When looking for a specific site like ebay, paypal or name of popular software, the first paid results are regularly untrustworthy, if not plain scam or distributing malware. Either the legitimate site pays to be first, or it can watch customers go to hell, literally.

tempestn 7y ago

I had the same thought. Our PPC consultants strongly recommended that we do branded ads and I pushed back against it using this same logic. Ultimately we performed a test, but the results were very different from in the article—we did find that a significant percentage of those who clicked our branded ads would otherwise click the organic results... but far from 100%. And because cost per click on branded ads is so low compared to other ads, it appears that they are still profitable for us, even once we take into account the users who would have arrived through organic links if the ads didn't exist. This was and is surprising to me. The only explanation I have is competitors bidding on our brand keywords and taking traffic that would have come to us absent any ads. Which makes the whole thing look like a nice racket for Google. Regardless, for now we pay since the alternative is apparently to lose those users.

Marsymars 7y ago
If I had a brand, I'd be tempted to bid it up with ads directing to ad-blocking extensions. Does Google allow that?