Advertising Targeting – or creepy harassment?

Posted on August 7, 2008 by JoeDuck

Here’s a thoughful observations from YieldBuild after attending the the OMMA conference. The issue is whether you can do too much targeting of your advertising and scare folks away by being “creepy”.

Although we’ve only begun to scratch this surface I suspect that it’ll be dependent a lot more on the individual than on the targeting mechanism. For example I don’t really mind Google “reading my titles” and offering relevant ads to me as I read my email, though for some this is clearly a major invasion of privacy. (What? You didn’t realize Google is reading all your titles and possible your content, though I’d guess they dont’t do that for liability reasons alone)

Extremism in the defense of the algorithm is no vice?

Posted on July 27, 2008 by JoeDuck

WordPress surfing led me to another interesting sob story from a penalized webmaster and my reply got so long it deserved to become a post:

Marshall Sponder wrote:

Take Know More Media’s case – you have 100+ blogs and 2+ years of content – that’s easy, 30,000 to 50,000 blog posts and Google, with just one or two paid links that pass PageRank, is going to throw the entire blog network out of it’s index over that?

Yep, it appears that’s it – that’s the reason. But is it fair? No.
Strictly from a users point of view I think it is very hard to justify technical penalties on good content. Few users know or care what “hidden text” is, so if a mom and pop webmaster uses this tactic and Google deletes the otherwise informative, relevant website it is hard to argue that users are served well. Even if a black hat SEO created a site filled with illegal tricks but also full of highly relevant quality content I think Google’s case against including that site is weak. As a user I want *quality content* and I don’t care about the site’s technical construction. Where Google is simply banning sites for using spammy tactics I’d agree with Marshall that to be faithful to user centricism they really have to take it a step further and look at the content they are excluding. Even if the content contains paid linking and other violations if it unique, quality content Google cannot exclude it without violating their stated “prime directive” of providing the best for the users.

However, Google has to manage about one trillion URLs, so obviously they need shortcuts in ranking and one of them is a page from AZ Senator Barry Goldwater’s playbook when – many years ago – he tried to justify an escalation of the Vietnam war, perhaps to nuclear level. Google’s coin of the famous Goldwater phrase would be: “Extremism in the defense of the algorithm is no vice”.

I don’t think penalties are generally *fair* or *user friendly*, but I’m willing to concede they may be necessary for Google to function as profitably as they do since it would take a lot of human intervention to help every mom and pop determine what’s wrong with their sites.

However, I feel Google continues to fail in their obligation to communicate more effectively with penalized sites although I think they are s-l-o-w-l-y catching on to the fact that most webmasters of penalized sites remain unclear as to why the site has been penalized or downranked. Removal offers you a shot at “reinclusion” and (very rarely) possible webmaster tools staff feedback. Downranking is algorithmic and Google will not generally offer any advice to help downranked sites. In this case you generally want to re-read the webmaster guidelines and experiment with different approaches in an effort to boost rankings.

My view is that as many thin content database sites have flowed online Google is holding online material to a higher standard of quality, especially if it’s at a new website. This helps explain why you can find well ranked pages that are inferior to pages at a new website.

There is a solution to all of this in my opinion, which is for Google to include a lot more community input and feedback into the process than they currently appear to do. I’d guess the recent discussions to aquire DIGG may have been in part to gain more community feedback tools and data. Historically Google has been brilliant at using algorithms to determine ranking and advertising, but has fallen short of brilliance in their ruthlessness in dealing with website practices they don’t like, leaving a lot of collateral damage – especially related to sites involved in “paid linking” and variations on that complex theme.

At SES San Jose 2009 I’ll hope to get to ask Matt Cutts more about this in person. Matt is Google’s top spam cop and always very open to conversations about ranking and search. In fact the best event of the conference is the Google Party where engineers are on hand to discuss search related issues – including complex ranking technicalities that are sometimes brought to Google’s attention as part of the search conference circuit.

Ballmer: Yahoo a tactic, not a strategy

Posted on July 24, 2008 by JoeDuck

Microsoft Chief Steve Ballmer spoke to the Microsofties today about the companies plans. For Yahoo merger followers there was nothign much new as he simply reiterated this point:

Related to Google and our search strategy are the discussions we had with Yahoo. I want to emphasize the point I’ve been making all along—Yahoo was a tactic, not a strategy. We want to accelerate our share of search queries and create a bigger pool of advertisers, and Yahoo would have helped us get there faster. But we will get there with or without Yahoo. We have the right people, we’ve made incredible progress in our technology, and we’ll continue to make smart investments that will enable us to build an industry-leading business.

Some would argue that the reason Microsoft needs Yahoo is that their online strategy has so far failed to do very much. My take is that they have not moved the online market as they’d hoped, but that they also have not worked nearly as hard in this area as they could have because Microsoft (correctly) sees that their huge presence in the software market is where the big money remains, at least for the next few years. They have chosen in large part to protect their huge revenue ship rather than act more aggressively and nimbly (and expensively) to find online revenues or pull market share from Google. I think many analysts – especially those in blogging – fail to recognize that Google’s revenues simply pale in comparison to Microsoft’s. Google has the lion’s share of online money but Microsoft still has the lion’s share of the lion’s share money, which is in software, gaming, and entertainment. I agree that the power curve is shifting from MS to Google, but MS remains the 800 pound revenue Gorilla. Money beats buzz to the bank every time, and this point is not lost on Microsoft or Google.

Disclosure: Long on YHOO

Malik: Facebook Connect is better than Colin Farrell?

Posted on July 24, 2008 by JoeDuck

I can’t help but think Om Malik is under some kind of Facebook conference spell when he first criticizes their presentation as too stylish (comparing Mark Zuckerberg to that bastion of style and wit Colin Farrell = OUCH!) but then gushes that Facebook Connect is going to be the big winner in terms of bringing web-wide social functionality.

Malik notes:
In addition to offering a simple authentication method, FC allows granular social interactions to be embedded in non-Facebook services. If Facebook can work with its partners to build interesting use-case scenarios that go beyond simple sign-on, it is quite feasible that Facebook can out-execute Google, MySpace and everyone else with its ID ambitions.

I suppose it depends on what he means by “quite feasible”, but I’d still predict that Google Friend Connect (still in Beta) is the system to watch in this space for two very simple reasons:

1) It’s Simple
2) It’s Google

A great example of the first challenge is to read the Malik excerpt above. How many mom and pop websites will read that and say “wow, gotta have it!”. The answer is very few. Instead, I think in a few months they will be working their PPC account at Google and be prompted to “click here for the code to make your site a social masterpiece”.

Even assuming Facebook’s social application will allow very simply integration with any website, it’s going to be very hard to compete with the web’s top brand as web empires as well as mom and pop websites seek to integrate social functions into their sites.

I’m not suggesting Facebook will fail however. I just think that once the game begins in earnest both Myspace and Facebook will struggle to keep up with Google. I think we’ll see social functionality spread quickly across the web, probably starting from the three key places working this angle right now: Google, Facebook, and Myspace. A key question will be how these three will choose to allow their applications to interact, but luckily for users there is a lot of pressure for cross compatibility of social networking.

So, in the end everybody is going to win, and we should soon see a great new layer of social functionality spread across the entire web. And that….is a good thing.

DEN Denver Airport Free WIFI Rocks

Posted on July 22, 2008 by JoeDuck

Denver International Airport – DEN – offers free WIFI throughout the Airport Terminal Complex. Although they ask you view a 30 second ad spot this is hardly unreasonable given the cost savings of about $10 over the pay for WIFI airport installations.

I flew out via BWI this morning and although I really enjoyed the city of Baltimore, I would have had a great impression if they provided ad supported WIFI at the Airport.

Facebook, Facebook Get Ya Facebook Shares at 80% off

Posted on June 28, 2008 by JoeDuck

TechCrunch is reporting that an insider at Facebook is shopping his shares at 80% off the normally quoted (and probably absurd) 15 billion dollar valuation. TechCrunch is also suggesting that even Mark Zuckerberg is willing to sell shares at a price consistent with a 6 billion valuation for the company.

Like Arrington, I’d also like to take one share of Facebook. For me please add a Coke and a Cheeseburger.

The 15 billion never made any sense, and as it becomes clearer that social networking won’t monetize well their perceived value may quickly drop below a billion, though that would still be one heck of a payday for Mark Z and the gang.

Yahoo Announces Reorganization Plan which is sung to the tune of the Who’s “Won’t Get Fooled Again”

Posted on June 26, 2008 by JoeDuck

Yahoo’s plans for reorganizing their reorganization have now been announced. Kara seems to have the best scoops on this.

Meet the new boss Sue Decker, same as the old boss.

I am paraphrasing somewhat, but IMHO this is the gist of the Yahoo reorganization, sung to the tune of the Who’s: “Won’t Get Fooled Again”:

Yahoo’s fighting on the screen.
Over revenues unseen.
All the money that we worship will soon be gone.

And the Yang who spurred us on.
Sits in judgement – Ballmer’s wrong!
They decide and the board all sings the song.

I’ll tip my hat to Yahoo constitution
Take a bow for Yahoo revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around me
Open my laptop and play
Just like yesterday
Then I’ll get on my knees and pray
We don’t get fooled again

[scream guest appearance by Carl Icahn: YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHH!]

Disclosure: Long on YHOO.

Links and SEO

Posted on June 19, 2008 by JoeDuck

From a search ranking perspective links are one of a website’s top concerns- probably the most important concern as linking often trumps content in terms of where a site will place for search queries.

As always, a great source for SEO information is Matt Cutts blog over at Google where a careful read of his SEO posts will bring you a lot of enlightenment about Google do’s and don’ts. His post of a few days ago was particularly interesting as it deals with Google’s crackdown on paid links that try to pass pagerank. This is one of the most contentious topics in SEO and an area where I wish Google would be more transparent since there are so many linking approaches that are not paid but may be questionable in the eyes of Google. The fact that they depend so much on reporting of paid links is also a problem as it allows aggressive SEOs to “game the system” by selectively reporting competitors while creating complex and undetectable linking for their own sites.

However my biggest concern about linking is not something Google can fix, and that is the fact that even in the world of what Google views as legitimate, authority passing links, strategic linking to “friend and associate” websites has largely replaced the early approaches to linking where people work to simply link to a great resource for the reader. As blogging has exploded into prominence and linking importance this problem has become critical, and we now see that early and well established blogs will outrank far better resources that have few incoming links because they are new. Ideally, the older resources would be better stewards and link out to the good new resources but generally the stakes have become too high as links are now correctly seen as more valuable than advertising and bloggers have become too reluctant to link to other resources unless there is some reciprocal benefit.

Yahoo Microsoft: Is the fat lady almost singing at $34?

Posted on March 25, 2008 by JoeDuck

Henry Blodget is whining that the Yahoo Microsoft deal is back to where it started, but I think Henry’s wrong … again!

I’m glad Henry was wrong about the rumor that Yahoo’s Q4 would beat expectations because it was part of the reason I bought YHOO then, and even though the stock dipped due to a bad Q4, it surged on Microsoft’s offer of $31 per share so I’m well in the black. But now he’s wrong to say the deal is not almost done. I think this Yahoo Microsoft merger is coming very soon to an internet near you.

Citibank Analyst Maheney upgraded Yahoo this morning, anticipating a boost in the MS bid to $34. Hey, maybe he read my blog post of about 6 weeks ago where I suggested Microsoft raise their bid to $34?

Unlike Henry, I think this is not back to where it all started at all!

Yang didn’t want to merge, now he sees it as almost inevitable. Yahoo board wanted more, now they know anything past initial offer is gravy. Part of the show was probably the board protecting itself against lawsuits from the unlucky minions who bought their Yahoo at $35+, some at over $100.

Barring a Q1 miracle that would recalibrate Yahoo prices without help of MS bids, I think the fat lady is now almost done singing on this deal.

Disclosure: long on YHOO

Joe Duck

Have Blog. Will Travel. Vaccinate!

Category Archives: advertising