Site Match Officially Launched - SES Day 2 - Page 3

AcmeSEO · #**101** (**permalink**) 03-13-2004, 04:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cohwill

So what will happen in Inktomi in general? Will their paid inclusion program go away?

It is already gone. Has been for a week now.

R

theo · #**102** (**permalink**) 03-14-2004, 12:10 AM

I am going to be watching closely to see how Yahoo treats sites already indexed. One concern people have is sites indexed and in good ranking being bumped down the list of results. I am in the perfect position to watch this.
Here is why I am somewhat distrustful of Yahoo!:
I own a site about pizza (aboutpizza.com) that use to come in #1 on a search for "pizza" at Yahoo!. A few months ago it was bumped down to #4. The three site beating me out of course are Pizza Hut, Dominoes, and Papa Johns. Forget SEO being a factor since none of the sites are very search engine friendly. I think Yahoo! just picks and chooses. I might bet a slice of pizza that the 3 big pizza companies probably paid a high price for their placement. Just a thought....

cbp · #**103** (**permalink**) 03-14-2004, 12:14 AM

If I typed in pizza into a SE, I would expect Pizza Hut & Dominoes to come out at the top ...

CBP

theo · #**104** (**permalink**) 03-14-2004, 12:39 AM

I would expect that as well but for about a year AboutPizza.com was beating them out. Not sure what changed things.

I think the best thing for me is to wait and see before I start investing in the sitematch program. I have not totally dismissed it but the CPC is just too high for now.

cbp · #**105** (**permalink**) 03-14-2004, 01:00 AM

Quote:

I think the best thing for me is to wait and see before I start investing in the sitematch program. I have not totally dismissed it but the CPC is just too high for now

If you have been bumped to #4, participating in SiteMatch will not change that.

CBP

minstrel · #**106** (**permalink**) 03-14-2004, 01:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theo

The three site beating me out of course are Pizza Hut, Dominoes, and Papa Johns. Forget SEO being a factor since none of the sites are very search engine friendly. I think Yahoo! just picks and chooses. I might bet a slice of pizza that the 3 big pizza companies probably paid a high price for their placement.

Pizza Hut PR=7

Dominos PR=6

PapaJohn's PR=7

AboutPizza.com PR=5

Also, why do you say the top three in this list are not "search engine friendly"?

Mel · #**107** (**permalink**) 03-14-2004, 08:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theo

...
I own a site about pizza (aboutpizza.com) that use to come in #1 on a search for "pizza" at Yahoo!. A few months ago it was bumped down to #4. The three site beating me out of course are Pizza Hut, Dominoes, and Papa Johns. Forget SEO being a factor since none of the sites are very search engine friendly. I think Yahoo! just picks and chooses. I might bet a slice of pizza that the 3 big pizza companies probably paid a high price for their placement. Just a thought....

Backlinks in Google
Pizza hut 741
Domino's 514
Papa John 779
About pizza 172

Backlinks in Yahoo
Pizza hut 28,100
Domino's 19,000
Papa John 12,900
About pizza 8,660

On the other hand it might be about better SEO ;-))

YahooMike · #**108** (**permalink**) 03-15-2004, 01:37 AM

To AcmeSEO and cohwill regarding the Inktomi Search Submit paid inclusion program. This program has been replaced by the new Site Match service. If you previously signed up for Inktomi's Paid Inclusion program your subscription will continue until your expiration date. You can also upgrade to the new Site Match program. You should have received information from your reseller about how to upgrade.

YahooMike · #**109** (**permalink**) 03-15-2004, 01:53 AM

A couple of posts have asked about the value of using Site Match, especially if someone is already using P4P.

Many content providers, SEMs and SEOs have found that they receive an optimal ROI by combining a program like Site Match with a Pay-For-Performance (P4P) campaign. One reason, based on independent research, was presented at the recent Search Engine Strategies (SES) conference in New York. In short, search users may focus on either sponsored (P4P) listings or general search results depending on where they are in the sales cycle. For example, early in the cycle when customers are researching products, they may prefer to select general search results (i.e., they want information, not product advertisements). Later, when they are ready to purchase, customers may be inclined to select paid listings for specific products or brands. It’s important for sites to present the right content at the right time to ensure the best exposure to potential customers.

Another reason to participate in both Site Match and P4P is using Site Match as a source of “keyword-mining” for P4P campaigns. Through the data captured and reporting tools offered using Site Match, customers can discover new keywords and keyword combinations that drive customers to their sites and help convert to sales. Customers can then optimize their P4P campaigns based on this data.

These are just a couple of examples of how the two programs can be used together to deliver the best ROI.

Dave Hawley · #**110** (**permalink**) 03-15-2004, 03:15 AM

Hi YahooMike

Please read the quptes of mine below

Quote:

Why would I want to pay Yahoo a submission price AND 15 to 30c CPC over say something like Google Adwords, which is cheaper?

Nice first post. As you say, it's all about ROI, whether it be SiteMatch, Adwords or any other PPC and/or PFI.

The ROI is the main reason I use Google AdWords. I can pay the min, 10c per click, mention the word Buy and/or $$ in all my ads. I can also exclude third world countries (a well as others that cannot afford to buy) and use negative keywords like -Free, -Sharware, -Freeware etc etc to be as sure as possible that I only attract buyers. So for $50.00 per day I can get 500 good potential customers. I doubt very much that Yahoo's SiteMatch can even come close to that!

Now please convince me why I should use Site Match over AdWords. Asumming of course I can only use 1 or the other.

Mel · #**111** (**permalink**) 03-16-2004, 01:23 AM

I think perhaps you are missing the point.

No one is trying to convince you to use SiteMatch and Yahoo has said it feels 99% of sites should not be, you may well be in that group.

Sitematch is a totally different genre of program than Adwords and they address different market needs. There is no need to choose either one or both, in fact many of us get by quite well without using either.

Dave Hawley · #**112** (**permalink**) 03-16-2004, 02:38 AM

Quote:

and they address different market needs.

Of course they don't. They are BOTH used (by the vast majority) to increase sales via specific product(s)/page(s). That's it period. That statement is just as silly as saying Overture's PPC and Google's Adwords address different market needs.

Quote:

There is no need to choose either one or both, in fact many of us get by quite well without using either.

Some of us, with marketing sense, use PPC etc to increase sales. While I too get along just fine without paying for any advertizing, I'm not so blind as to not increase my bottom line by paying a $1.00 to make $2.00

YahooMike · #**113** (**permalink**) 03-16-2004, 04:31 AM

Dave Hawley, whether Site Match or P4P is going to provide a better ROI is going to depend on many factors including the type of business you have or products you sell. There's no one right answer for everybody. Site Match pricing certainly provides a relatively inexpensive way to try it out and decide whether it provides a good ROI for you or not. In my earlier post I outlined a couple of the reasons we think the P4P and Site Match work well together.

Dave Hawley · #**114** (**permalink**) 03-16-2004, 04:48 AM

YahooMike, thanks.

EcomCity · #**115** (**permalink**) 03-16-2004, 03:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theo

I would expect that as well but for about a year AboutPizza.com was beating them out. Not sure what changed things.

I think the best thing for me is to wait and see before I start investing in the sitematch program. I have not totally dismissed it but the CPC is just too high for now.

Why pay this huge sitematch fee which seems to want to eliminate the affiliate SE spammers? Way too many SEO/SEM artists have paneled the SERPs with trashing duplicate listings with affiliate links. The couponers and doorway page tricksters and those preying on trademarks have finally pissed the SE Gods that rightfully think they trash their listings. Yahoo is a greed driven model that needs more then fine tuning. Hell with SEO/SEM ...make a bookmarkable site of page and take your chances they SE's and shoppers will appreciate the effort.

One of my Clients, Holdup Suspender Company, has enjoyed top Yahoo and SE listings since 1997 regardless of shifts in the marketplace. www.suspenders.com They have never paid for inclusion and ocassionally use both AdWords and Overture for PPCSE. Never any 2nd Tier PPCSE campaigns. Try Yahoo for their main keyword "suspenders" and you'll see them #1. Relivent content and domain name regardless of SEO/SEM seems to survive the SE changes.

I Track their ROI and conversions with a simple house account affiliate link code and can testify Adwords converts clicks to sales at 1/17 and Overture on the same keywords at 1/38. Google traffic is a better buy for them. I rotate suspend/resume between the 2 PPCSE campaigns except during peak shopping periods. Normal traffic to the site from affiliates and SE's has averaged 1/23 for over 5 years making them the highest converting product merchant etailer on the Internet. Don't ask me why as many experts say the site sucks ...but slaughters all challengers.

jdsalr · #**116** (**permalink**) 03-16-2004, 04:33 PM

Ok I hope this question(s) make sense.

Say I own a website that is currently #15 at Yahoo for a pretty competitive keyword, but I think I can do better with the sitematch, one reason being the 48 hour refreshing, because I add many new pages daily.

Once Sitematch is initiated, let's just say I miraculously get a top 10 positition. Would my site or page actually be listed TWICE? My Sitematch submission say #7, along with my free listing still at #15, or does the Sitematch listing automatically take precedense?

Am I to assume that if I run out of funds my Sitematch listing is then pulled until I add more funds? Would all of this be a possible double bonus, or does it just sound stupid?

Thanks in advance.

cbp · #**117** (**permalink**) 03-16-2004, 06:12 PM

Quote:

Would my site or page actually be listed TWICE?

No.

CBP

Mel · #**118** (**permalink**) 03-16-2004, 11:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave Hawley

Quote:

and they address different market needs.

Of course they don't. They are BOTH used (by the vast majority) to increase sales via specific product(s)/page(s). That's it period. That statement is just as silly as saying Overture's PPC and Google's Adwords address different market needs.

Quote:

There is no need to choose either one or both, in fact many of us get by quite well without using either.

Some of us, with marketing sense, use PPC etc to increase sales. While I too get along just fine without paying for any advertizing, I'm not so blind as to not increase my bottom line by paying a $1.00 to make $2.00

Adwords and Overture address the market of companies whose web pages are not ranked highly enough in the organic search rankings to produce the desired results, While Sitematch only helps companies whose pages are well enough optimized that they can be found in the top twenty search results but for some reason are not included in the Yahoo index. This IMO is a very small market.

To compare adwords and sitematch as similar products is about like comparing a Bentley to a Ford Tractor, they are both vehicles but they serve different purposes for different customers,

Adwords and Overture are similar products which serve the same purpose but which cover different markets.

While if you sell an product like software where there is virtually no additional production cost once the product is developed, it makes sense to sell every piece you can, but if you sell physical products where there is a limit to the number that can be manufactured it does not make any sense at all to spend money to advertise in order to sell more than you can provide.

In the case of those of us who sell a service there are similar constraints, there is a limitation to the number of customers who can be serviced at any one time and to pay to advertise to get customers who you cannot accept would be dumb.

Dave Hawley · #**119** (**permalink**) 03-16-2004, 11:07 PM

Mel · #**120** (**permalink**) 03-16-2004, 11:11 PM

Sorry Dave but I can't make it much plainer than that.

rin_tin_tin · #**121** (**permalink**) 03-17-2004, 02:53 AM

My first reaction to the Site Match Program was that it was fashioned in a way to force people to move into the overture ppc model.

Since this program, among other things, comes across as unfair, expensive, difficult to track, etc. The best alternative to getting exposure in Yahoo is to pay for placement. Thus leading to an escallation of bidding in Overtures PPC and leaving only the weathiest to slug it out in a pissing match. The PPC model made Overture extremely successful when others sputtered. Since when has pfi been as successful as the cut-throat revenue model of ppc?

Site Match is certainly doing a good job of scaring people into all different directions as demostrated by these recent postings. This program is also conveniently timed for the spring when many PPC campaigns get heated in extreme competition.

It could be said that Site Match was intented to scare people into using the immediate alternative.
Which might be the strategy. Unless of course it was created to stirr attenation for Yahoo & Overture.

Dave Hawley · #**122** (**permalink**) 03-17-2004, 03:16 AM

The more I read and hear about SiteMatch the more I cannot see it's value. Sure, they will grab some $$ from the unwary, but that is only a short-term solution. There is just no way it can have the ROI that something like Google AdWords can and does bring.

At the end of the day it's all about ROI regardless of the product, ppc, pfi or pfi+ppc

While Yahoo looks likes it's back in the game with it's free index, it's dropped the ball BIG TIME on raising revenvue. They are simply to greedy and in too much of a hurry.

Mel · #**123** (**permalink**) 03-18-2004, 04:36 AM

Now there is something I can agree with ;-))

Garrett · #**124** (**permalink**) 03-18-2004, 12:48 PM

"Yahoo Is Looking For A Few Geniuses, And A Lot Of Idiots"

According to this blog post, the people who will make money from SiteMatch are "the ones who can calculate their ROI to be clearly greater, after fully diluting all the traffic through their own conversion rates, than the $0.15 or $0.30 that Yahoo is asking, and who have large or frequently updated site. If you're making money every click buying clicks is a very smart move. This will be a relatively rare company, but clearly there will be thousands of them."

http://www.precommerce.com/blog/archives/001092.html

He followed this post with "SiteMatch Revisited," which is largely a response to Yahoo's responses in various forums. (YahooMike had strikingly similar comments at other forums).

http://www.precommerce.com/blog/archives/001115.html

I posted these links because I think they're well written and important to look at in this discussion of SiteMatch's value.

downstrike · #**125** (**permalink**) 08-10-2005, 08:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cbp

Quote:

They may have charged more than $49 per year, per URL in the past, but the ongoing policy of promising nothing in return for payment is still unconscionable

They have not previously charged per URL in the past for the search index.

Have you actually bothered to read what you get for the $49? - they do provide something for it.

I think you need to have a more careful read about what SiteMatch is about before jumping to such negative conclusions.

CBP

How does someone that snide, presumptuous, and biased get to be a Moderator?

Yahoo used to charge up to $299 to consider a URL submitted to their index.

Just because you jumped to negative conclusions about people who are too prudent to pay for something we may not receive - your snide remarks about us are scattered throughout this thread - and don't know what research we had already done before we posted, doesn't mean that SiteMatch's other features justified paying for a core service that we may not receive.

cbp · #**126** (**permalink**) 08-11-2005, 12:08 AM

Please get your facts right before you start accusing me of things:

Quote:

Yahoo used to charge up to $299 to consider a URL submitted to their index.

Yahoo have NEVER charged $299 to consider a URL for their index. They have and still do charge $299 for their directory. The directory and search index are very different beasts. The $299 payment has absolutely nothing to do with the SiteMatch program (as it was called then).

You should not be posting such misleadig messgaes when you bump a thread that is over 12 months old.

Quote:

and don't know what research we had already done before we posted

Obviously you did not do yours as if you had you would know that this thread is about the SiteMatch launch >12 months ago and not the $299 payment for the Yahoo directory.

CBP

cbp · #**127** (**permalink**) 08-11-2005, 12:09 AM

Please get your facts right before you start accusing me of things:

Quote:

Yahoo used to charge up to $299 to consider a URL submitted to their index.

Yahoo have NEVER charged $299 to consider a URL for their index. They have and still do charge $299 for their directory. The directory and search index are very different beasts.

You should not be posting such misleadig messgaes when you bump a a thread that is over 12 months old.

CBP

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode