Tagged: keywords Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • NorCalSEM 5:57 pm on September 2, 2008 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , google suggest, keyword list generation, keywords, ,   

    Wrapped up like a deuce…? 

    I just caught up on some reading and wanted to talk a bit about the new Google Suggest.  You’ve probably all encountered this technology at some point on the web while doing a search.  I’ve been using this for some time through the Firefox search box, but didn’t know the history behind it.   As you type the first few letters of a search query, a drop down menu appears offering you suggestions based on your intent.  This can be extremely helpful if your not sure on spelling, or if you are searching for something you’re really not sure about, like song lyrics or famous quotes.  And for those of you looking for an edge in your keyword list generation, you can add this to your list of suggestion tools as well.    After making its way through the Labs at Google, Google Suggest is now available on Google.com.   I use iGoogle quite a bit and I don’t see that feature working there yet, other than showing you suggestions based on your search history.  Another great feature about this, especially for SEM/PPC folks is that it couples those query suggestions with an approximate search volume for each.

    Google Suggest in action

    Check out the Google Suggest feature next time you go to Google.  Do you think this is useful for SEM purposes?

     
  • NorCalSEM 12:24 am on June 5, 2008 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , dynamic insertion, , google dance, keywords, piggybacking   

    Piggyback rides – Nobody rides for free! 

    As a former lead generation pirate, I know a thing or two about piggybacking. And in the online lead generation world, where the world of black hat and white hat gets lost in all the gray haze it bears noting that this does piss people off, namely the person who is giving the piggyback. At some point, they will get tired and decide not only to put you down, but send you a nice letter from their lawyer. Hope you enjoyed the ride. Does Google bear any responsibility to police this since the action is occurring in their AdWords product? Google says no. Don’t shoot the messenger is probably what they think. In my experiences we used a multitude of brand names that corresponded to products we were collecting leads for. It makes sense, because many people type in brand names or head terms into Google and then click on an ad rather than using direct navigation or bookmarks. In some cases, a trademarked term used in your ad creative would cause Google to issue a warning and decline your ad copy due to infringement. But that is the ad, not the keywords, which are usually free game to bid on. A little dynamic insertion technique will render the title you need regardless of Google’s attempt to keep that term out of your ad copy. The net net here is that you can effectively siphon brand name traffic searches into your site…in droves!! I made it a practice [personal ethics] not to officially claim, falsely, that the searcher was going to enter the branded site, but if the ad copy is good enough you can still get the click and pull the customer in under an inference that you are somehow “affiliated” with the company you are bidding on you win, even if you do feel a bit “dirty”. To make this even worth doing, you’ll need content on your site that discusses the brands that you are using in your copy and bidding on in your keyword inventory, or your quality score will suffer immediately before your “gray” hat project even works out for you.

    So what do you do when you get the letter from that company’s lawyer telling you to stop using their name in your ad copy? Well, you can take out the dynamic insertion and play it straight on the ad copy, but continue to advertise your “similar” product by bidding on the trademarked terms (known as a ‘conquest buy’) until your heart’s desire. Google only goes after trademark issues in ad copy and they usually won’t investigate this type of stuff unless they are alerted by a company that has been victimized. Every so often, Google makes changes to it’s algorithm, affectionately known in the industry as a “Google Dance” and you can just cross your fingers and hold your breath. I have heard of and personally witnessed the “Dance” crush some PPC campaigns into tiny little pieces. I mean, it makes sense. As a consumer, don’t you want an environment where you are not subject to any “slight of hand” to complete your transaction? You don’t want to be confused and Google doesn’t want you to be confused either. What I mean is this….doing this is a short-term gain! At some point, you will either be buried in legal paperwork or Google will kill you. When Google kills you and a keyword bid jumps from $.10 to $10, you know you had better get into another vertical. Many online lead gen companies own so many urls that they will vanish and reappear under a new url and new AdWords account, using the same content that worked before. Sometimes this will work and sometimes it won’t. Affiliates will always keep living on the edge of ethics, they need the clicks and many figure the risks are worth it. If you are selling mesothelioma leads then you’re probably right, the legal fees and harassments may be worth every penny.

     
    • EMay 9:45 pm on June 5, 2008 Permalink | Reply

      Way to go Clay! You’re blog is great reading.

      I must offer one contradictory point to your article, which is that some companies who have trademarked terms, have ONLY their trademark going for them. Consumers may click on their ads and be directed to un-navigable sites that neither answer consumer questions nor offer appropriate follow up for their inquiries.

      Take the following case, albeit, this “gray” case: There are third party affiliate sites, who bid on trademarked terms, use DKI in their ads, but use benign language like “compare ‘such & such’ with ‘such & such’ and save”, but who also offers consumers a site with more information (i.e. unique content), more follow up (wholesale lead market/brokers), and a site that is easier to navigate (based on the perceived search engine coding preferences and consumer conversion rates), than the company who’s trademark off of which they’re profiting.

      As long as the consumer is not misled.

      Furthermore, I am also still stuck on the “brand name” search logic. I want auto insurance, so I search for “geico”, not because I want geico insurance, but because Geico is synonymous with online auto insurance…ultimately, I, the consumer, want the cheapest price, regardless of which brand name and/or lizard-friend is stuck in my head.

      In the meantime, I’ve got to go grab a “starbucks” at peets and go add toner to the “xerox” machine.

c
Compose new post
j
Next post/Next comment
k
Previous post/Previous comment
r
Reply
e
Edit
o
Show/Hide comments
t
Go to top
l
Go to login
h
Show/Hide help
shift + esc
Cancel