| Home
> Traffick
Articles >
Internet Marketing
By Andrew Goodman, 2/25/2001
Just as troubling as the loss of the Go Guide was to those who
used it and worked on it is the uncertain future for one of the
Net's grand old search engine franchises, Infoseek. And as we know,
that's not the only one on the wane.
Leading search engine analyst Danny Sullivan points out that although
the situation in the search space looks bleak today, "we have lost
search engines before." [See The
End for Search Engines?.] But, concedes Sullivan, it is troubling
that so many services, including NBCi , Excite, and Altavista,
are struggling all at once. On the flipside, MSN, AOL, Yahoo, and
Lycos are still feisty players, and Google is stronger than ever.
Sullivan implies that the new era will entail a much heavier dose
of paid search listings, but that this may provide opportunities
for marketers. We agree. For my previous thoughts on the changing
trends, recall this trilogy of Traffick articles:
"Scientists Baffled by Strange GoTo Phenomenon"
http://www.traffick.com/story/08-2000/goto.asp
"Why Search Engine Marketing Works"
http://www.traffick.com/story/10-2000/search_engine_marketing.asp
"Why Search Engines Must Continue to be Referees"
http://www.traffick.com/story/11-2000/referees1.asp
One sea change we haven't yet quite come to terms with is the
new Inktomi regime, in which site owners pay on a per page basis
to guarantee a presence in the Inktomi web index. It doesn't seem
like there is a consensus on how effective this is; more than a
little grumbling can be heard from unhappy webmasters. As long
as Inktomi's staying power in the industry, and its standing with
partners, is in question, we would take everything with a grain
of salt. (Remember, Yahoo! dumped Inktomi for Google.)
We test-drove the Inktomi pay-for-indexing scheme for our site,
paying to list ten pages. We didn't see much action at first from
any of the usual Inktomi partners (such as Canada.com, Hotbot,
or AOL), but suddenly this week, a couple of our pages were getting
50 hits a day from AOL, and Inktomi seems to be the reason. This
may not be scientific, but that's the best we can tell you right
now about the Inktomi "lottery." A "lottery ticket" for ten pages
to be indexed (and refreshed every 48 hours) by Inktomi will run
you $110. If you can score 350 page views a week from AOL for a
year, it’s almost worth the money.
Or is it? Let’s do the math. That comes to around 16,000
annual impressions. What would 16,000 impressions cost if you were
to run banner, newsletter, or similar advertising on a CPM basis?
At a CPM of $10, it would only cost $160, not far different from
the Ink scheme, for that many impressions.
However, we’re saying that we might actually get 16,000 clickthroughs a
year from Ink, not just impressions. Let’s say you were paying
.06 per click on average for 16,000 clicks to your site.
This would come to $960! Seen in that light, the Inktomi scheme
is clearly a bargain for many marketers, and would seem to blow
impression-based advertising out of the water. After all, these
are clickthroughs and they are search engine
driven and hence to some degree targeted and pre-qualified visitors.
Not all webmasters, of course, will get lucky enough to have Inktomi
give them first-page rankings on AOL searches for popular keywords.
We think it’s probably worth risking $110, but we wouldn’t
go much higher than that. If you happen to sell high end items
like luxury world cruises, adjust your thinking accordingly and
spend up to $500 on the Inktomi plan if you have to. And of course,
don’t take my word for it – listen to a variety of
SEO gurus, like ClickZ’s Paul Bruemmer, as the situation
unfolds.
In their Inktomi placement, some savvy marketers will likely want
to submit pages whose content is updated regularly. The frequent
refresh promised by Inktomi means that frequently-changing pages
will place well on some keyword searches in some weeks, and not
so well in other weeks. At least you might not be stuck permanently
in page eight of the search results on your coveted keyword, as
is the case with some infrequently-updated web indexes. Since the
whole index is theoretically changing as pages are refreshed, crafty
search engine optimizers won't be able to gauge the best means
of maintaining a first page ranking for certain coveted keywords.
Though they might not like it, the major search indexes are getting
better at keeping SEO professionals off balance, and this should
offer a more level playing field for everyone.
The search company most people associate with pay-for-placement
is GoTo.com. Yet its future is far from secure, either. Major competitors
like Yahoo! and Google are now offering programs that encroach
slightly into GoTo-like territory. One of the controversial aspects
of paying for traffic at GoTo - and a controversy that will not
die - is the problem of fraudulent clicks. Anecdotal accounts of
such problems are mounting, and most of them are attributable to
questionable affiliate partners that GoTo made deals with in the
days before they had major portal partners like AOL and Lycos.
Our take - as it has been for some time - is that GoTo no longer
needs the majority of its fly-by-night affiliates. They should
dump them and focus on further entrenching themselves in the search
results of reputable branded partners. Unless they signed a stinker
of a deal, GoTo is going to be reaping major revenues from the
AOL partnership alone.
Some advertisers have been hoping that GoTo would offer the advertiser
a choice of which partner sites a listing would appear on (for
example, yes to AOL and Lycos but no to AltaVista and CNET). But
that's probably a long way off. In spite of the bumps in the road,
it seems that many advertisers have figured out that pay-for-performance
advertising of the kind GoTo offers can provide a healthy return
on the investment.
Andrew Goodman is Editor of Traffick.
|
