6 ms·

The article fails to mention that shortly after this made the rounds in the marketing communities, eBay suddenly got a very large SEO penalty. Conspiracy theori

by vgeek 5y ago

The article fails to mention that shortly after this made the rounds in the marketing communities, eBay suddenly got a very large SEO penalty. Conspiracy theories aside, I once inherited a large Adwords account with nearly 25% of spend dedicated to branded KW bidding. Simply dialing back bids by 90%+ dropped impression share from 95% to 80%, but the paid branded clicks just shifted to organic branded clicks-- confirmed by lining up Google Webmaster Tools click level data (since Google stopped providing organic keyword data in GA 10 years ago). Brand keyword bidding is simply a rent-seeking behavior. Sure, it can help with new entrants trying to grow their visibility (albeit likely ineffectively) as an alternative to an incumbent with more brand recognition, but the majority of brands are simply paying protection money to keep their own site, that users are explicitly seeking, above the fold on search results.

paulpauper 5y ago
I believe spending money on ads is the only way to get any sort of favoritism from a major tech company, and also being a famous/important person
JustARandomGuy 5y ago
>that shortly after this made the rounds in the marketing communities I'd love to read more about this. Do you have any recommended "marketing communities" that I should visit?
- vgeek 5y ago
  https://searchengineland.com/google-ebay-penalty-cost-197031 https://searchengineland.com/google-ebay-penalty-cost-197031 This relates to the ebay penalty. I think one of SEland's founders actually left to take a job at Google as an evangelist. You can probably search for "ebay seo penalty" and find more references. Other notable penalties that were well documented include RapGenius and GV backed Thumbtack and Nest, which quickly had their penalties reversed if I recall correctly. https://seobook.com/blog https://seobook.com/blog is the only place I follow any more, since it is more critical of the digital marketing ecosystem. There are so many snake oil salespeople and clueless marketers, so this is a refreshing commentary. https://seroundtable.com https://seroundtable.com is good for rumors and breaking news. https://www.seobythesea.com/ https://www.seobythesea.com/ a more technical blog that frequently examines Google's patents.
  - JustARandomGuy 5y ago
    Very kind of you. Thanks.
  - marc_io 5y ago
    Thanks for the links, but regarding seobook.com/blog: it is quite strange to see a blog about SEO without HTTPS, which is a ranking signal since 2014 (1). (1) https://developers.google.com/search/blog/2014/08/https-as-ranking-signal https://developers.google.com/search/blog/2014/08/https-as-r...
    - stavros 5y ago
      Not only without HTTPS, but actively stripping it, too!
    - vgeek 5y ago
      No idea why he doesn't have https enabled, but he probably knows it is disabled and explicitly wants it that way. He has covered plenty of technical SEO topics, but is more of a commentary on the industry now. I'd probably filter out the politics, but a good majority of the marketing/advertising content is spot on.
ocdtrekkie 5y ago
Yeah, once you realize the most profitable Google search terms are already the top organic result paying to be on top, you realize Google's business is the guy who shakes down storefronts for "protection" to avoid their windows being broken in by the local gang on a global scale. "That's a nice brand you built there. Ya know, it'd be a shame, a real shame, if one of your competitors was to end up above you on the search results page. I could, uh, make sure that doesn't happen."
- charcircuit 5y ago
  >Yeah, once you realize the most profitable Google search terms are already the top organic result paying to be on top What if you aren't the top organic search and you want to drive traffic. For example "mesothelioma lawyer" is a very profitable keyword that'd you would want to show up on top. If there weren't any ads you would need to out SEO other law firms and hope Google doesn't screw you by adjusting the ranking algorithm.
  - ocdtrekkie 5y ago
    That's the obvious legitimate purpose of selling the ad space. If that's where Google's money was coming from, I wouldn't be irritated. Well that and if they didn't profit on the malware/support scam ads. However, I suspect if we were to remove Google's revenue from those two categories, they would not be in the Fortune 50.
  - tempestn 5y ago
    The problem is specifically with branded searches. When someone searches not "mesothelioma lawyer", but rather, "Kirkland & Ellis LLP.", and they get an ad for some other law firm above that.
- ClumsyPilot 5y ago
  Its worse: you search for a government service, like issuing a passport or a driving lisence, that by law and by logic only the government can provide , and the top result is often a scam.
tempestn 5y ago
We've found exactly the same thing. It's extremely important to differentiate between branded and non-branded keywords. (And to be diligent about filtering out all variations, misspellings, etc., of branded searches from non-branded campaigns.) While our testing didn't show 100% waste in branded advertising, we did find approximately 80-90% of branded clicks would otherwise have come through organically. So we do still do a small amount of branded search advertising, but with an assumed actual CPC of 10x the nominal CPC (and therefore quite a low maximum bid). For non-branded ads, we assume the true CPC is much closer to the apparent one.
- misterbwong 5y ago
  The branded keyword game is very sneaky, though, and one place where google can (and does) make a killing. The trick is, if you have a particularly strong or unique brand, you can count on being the number one organic result. HOWEVER, if competitors bid on your brand and you do not, they end up above your brand in results as part of the the paid/promoted position. This usually forces brands into competing in paid positions on branded keywords that they should "win" naturally. Google rationalizes this by charging more relevant results a lower rate, but it still doesn't excuse the fact that the brand shouldn't have had to pay in the first place.
  - tempestn 5y ago
    So far we haven't found the presence of ads above our organic result seems to make a big difference, but I expect that could vary a lot based on the brand and what competitors are advertising. Probably a good idea for anyone planning to spend significant ad dollars to test for themselves.
  - chii 5y ago
    i wonder if competitors bidding on your brand should be construed as trade mark violations - after all, if a user searches a brand and a competitor's site or product is shown as part of advertising, then aren't they making use of your brand to confuse the consumer (a classic trade mark violation)? The only problem is that the user isn't "seeing" the brand and confusing it, but instead is searching the brand and the search result is confusing deliberately.
cwkoss 5y ago
It's a protection racket that allows others to use your trademark to sell their product if you don't outbid them.
- camhart 5y ago
  I don't think you can use a trademark in ad text. But companies still try to wiggle around this.
  - cwkoss 5y ago
    But you can use a trademark as an ad targeting term... which feels a little trademark-violation-y to me.
    - cwkoss 5y ago
      https://veritasbusinesslaw.com/trademark-and-google-adwords/ https://veritasbusinesslaw.com/trademark-and-google-adwords/ Looks like several companies have tried to sue Google for this, but Google threw a lot of money at the problems to prevent them from winning.
      - nradov 5y ago
        Trademark litigation can be expensive, but you can't win every trademark case just by throwing more money at the problem. If there was a legitimate IP violation then someone would have won a case against Google by now.
        cwkoss 5y ago
        I think that's a very reductive take. The idea that I can buy placement in searches for a competitor is not clearly a "legitimate IP violation" but I think it's also not clearly "not a legitimate IP violation". Is it good for society that I can redirect users who intend to be looking for a competitors' products? Its a complex subject that I'm not sure the courts have examined the repercussions of properly. The counterfeit and deception arguments in some of the suits certainly seem like they have some merit to me.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
somedude895 5y ago
> the majority of brands are simply paying protection money Exactly this. Google should be forced to not allow bidding on other companies‘ brand kw.
- toto444 5y ago
  That would mean you can just buy 'hotelsincornwall.com' and no one will be allowed to bid for 'hotels in corwnwall'. You are now facing a different problem.
  - withinboredom 5y ago
    I don’t think you’d get a trademark for that name…
    - toto444 5y ago
      Why not? 'Apple' is a trademark right?
      - withinboredom 5y ago
        Apple is a distinct name in that industry. You can call yourself Apple and sell toddler toys without violating any trademark. You can’t call yourself “X in Y city” because it’s not distinct in that industry unless you literally are the only unique one in that city.
- dotancohen 5y ago
  Should Basecamp and Trello not be allowed to advertise on searches for "Jira alternatives"?

by vgeek 5y ago

paulpauper 5y ago

I believe spending money on ads is the only way to get any sort of favoritism from a major tech company, and also being a famous/important person

JustARandomGuy 5y ago

>that shortly after this made the rounds in the marketing communities I'd love to read more about this. Do you have any recommended "marketing communities" that I should visit?

vgeek 5y ago
https://searchengineland.com/google-ebay-penalty-cost-197031 https://searchengineland.com/google-ebay-penalty-cost-197031 This relates to the ebay penalty. I think one of SEland's founders actually left to take a job at Google as an evangelist. You can probably search for "ebay seo penalty" and find more references. Other notable penalties that were well documented include RapGenius and GV backed Thumbtack and Nest, which quickly had their penalties reversed if I recall correctly. https://seobook.com/blog https://seobook.com/blog is the only place I follow any more, since it is more critical of the digital marketing ecosystem. There are so many snake oil salespeople and clueless marketers, so this is a refreshing commentary. https://seroundtable.com https://seroundtable.com is good for rumors and breaking news. https://www.seobythesea.com/ https://www.seobythesea.com/ a more technical blog that frequently examines Google's patents.
- JustARandomGuy 5y ago
  Very kind of you. Thanks.
- marc_io 5y ago
  Thanks for the links, but regarding seobook.com/blog: it is quite strange to see a blog about SEO without HTTPS, which is a ranking signal since 2014 (1). (1) https://developers.google.com/search/blog/2014/08/https-as-ranking-signal https://developers.google.com/search/blog/2014/08/https-as-r...
  - stavros 5y ago
    Not only without HTTPS, but actively stripping it, too!
  - vgeek 5y ago
    No idea why he doesn't have https enabled, but he probably knows it is disabled and explicitly wants it that way. He has covered plenty of technical SEO topics, but is more of a commentary on the industry now. I'd probably filter out the politics, but a good majority of the marketing/advertising content is spot on.

ocdtrekkie 5y ago

Yeah, once you realize the most profitable Google search terms are already the top organic result paying to be on top, you realize Google's business is the guy who shakes down storefronts for "protection" to avoid their windows being broken in by the local gang on a global scale. "That's a nice brand you built there. Ya know, it'd be a shame, a real shame, if one of your competitors was to end up above you on the search results page. I could, uh, make sure that doesn't happen."

charcircuit 5y ago
>Yeah, once you realize the most profitable Google search terms are already the top organic result paying to be on top What if you aren't the top organic search and you want to drive traffic. For example "mesothelioma lawyer" is a very profitable keyword that'd you would want to show up on top. If there weren't any ads you would need to out SEO other law firms and hope Google doesn't screw you by adjusting the ranking algorithm.
- ocdtrekkie 5y ago
  That's the obvious legitimate purpose of selling the ad space. If that's where Google's money was coming from, I wouldn't be irritated. Well that and if they didn't profit on the malware/support scam ads. However, I suspect if we were to remove Google's revenue from those two categories, they would not be in the Fortune 50.
- tempestn 5y ago
  The problem is specifically with branded searches. When someone searches not "mesothelioma lawyer", but rather, "Kirkland & Ellis LLP.", and they get an ad for some other law firm above that.
ClumsyPilot 5y ago
Its worse: you search for a government service, like issuing a passport or a driving lisence, that by law and by logic only the government can provide , and the top result is often a scam.

tempestn 5y ago

We've found exactly the same thing. It's extremely important to differentiate between branded and non-branded keywords. (And to be diligent about filtering out all variations, misspellings, etc., of branded searches from non-branded campaigns.) While our testing didn't show 100% waste in branded advertising, we did find approximately 80-90% of branded clicks would otherwise have come through organically. So we do still do a small amount of branded search advertising, but with an assumed actual CPC of 10x the nominal CPC (and therefore quite a low maximum bid). For non-branded ads, we assume the true CPC is much closer to the apparent one.

misterbwong 5y ago
The branded keyword game is very sneaky, though, and one place where google can (and does) make a killing. The trick is, if you have a particularly strong or unique brand, you can count on being the number one organic result. HOWEVER, if competitors bid on your brand and you do not, they end up above your brand in results as part of the the paid/promoted position. This usually forces brands into competing in paid positions on branded keywords that they should "win" naturally. Google rationalizes this by charging more relevant results a lower rate, but it still doesn't excuse the fact that the brand shouldn't have had to pay in the first place.
- tempestn 5y ago
  So far we haven't found the presence of ads above our organic result seems to make a big difference, but I expect that could vary a lot based on the brand and what competitors are advertising. Probably a good idea for anyone planning to spend significant ad dollars to test for themselves.
- chii 5y ago
  i wonder if competitors bidding on your brand should be construed as trade mark violations - after all, if a user searches a brand and a competitor's site or product is shown as part of advertising, then aren't they making use of your brand to confuse the consumer (a classic trade mark violation)? The only problem is that the user isn't "seeing" the brand and confusing it, but instead is searching the brand and the search result is confusing deliberately.

cwkoss 5y ago

It's a protection racket that allows others to use your trademark to sell their product if you don't outbid them.

camhart 5y ago
I don't think you can use a trademark in ad text. But companies still try to wiggle around this.
- cwkoss 5y ago
  But you can use a trademark as an ad targeting term... which feels a little trademark-violation-y to me.
  - cwkoss 5y ago
    https://veritasbusinesslaw.com/trademark-and-google-adwords/ https://veritasbusinesslaw.com/trademark-and-google-adwords/ Looks like several companies have tried to sue Google for this, but Google threw a lot of money at the problems to prevent them from winning.
    - nradov 5y ago
      Trademark litigation can be expensive, but you can't win every trademark case just by throwing more money at the problem. If there was a legitimate IP violation then someone would have won a case against Google by now.
      - cwkoss 5y ago
        I think that's a very reductive take. The idea that I can buy placement in searches for a competitor is not clearly a "legitimate IP violation" but I think it's also not clearly "not a legitimate IP violation". Is it good for society that I can redirect users who intend to be looking for a competitors' products? Its a complex subject that I'm not sure the courts have examined the repercussions of properly. The counterfeit and deception arguments in some of the suits certainly seem like they have some merit to me.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

somedude895 5y ago

> the majority of brands are simply paying protection money Exactly this. Google should be forced to not allow bidding on other companies‘ brand kw.

toto444 5y ago
That would mean you can just buy 'hotelsincornwall.com' and no one will be allowed to bid for 'hotels in corwnwall'. You are now facing a different problem.
- withinboredom 5y ago
  I don’t think you’d get a trademark for that name…
  - toto444 5y ago
    Why not? 'Apple' is a trademark right?
    - withinboredom 5y ago
      Apple is a distinct name in that industry. You can call yourself Apple and sell toddler toys without violating any trademark. You can’t call yourself “X in Y city” because it’s not distinct in that industry unless you literally are the only unique one in that city.
dotancohen 5y ago
Should Basecamp and Trello not be allowed to advertise on searches for "Jira alternatives"?