JohnnyV
05-15-2009, 02:29 PM
Happy Friday everyone. A couple of days ago, Ben Edelman made claims about how Google is driving up conversion rates, and doing so is increasing advertising costs.
I've written a response to his study in today's WPW newsletter which I'll provide here. I'd like to hear your feedback on the situation. And have a great weekend.
Whenever I read conspiracy theories, the 'grain of salt' addage always sits in the back of mind. Did we land on the moon? Is Elvis alive? Is Google's PPC advertising system inflating conversion rates? Hey, when did that theory come about?
Ben Edelman, who has more Harvard degrees then I could obtain in two lifetimes is the father of this latest theory (http://www.benedelman.org/bio/). While 'grain of salt' is still in the back of my head, it's hard to argue with the study his theory is based on (http://www.benedelman.org/news/051309-1.html).
Edelman's post is too long to summarize everything that he mentions, but the heart of his study is this,
"Google and its partners systematically inflate advertisers' conversion rates by interceding in transactions advertisers would otherwise have received for free. This conversion-inflation syndication fraud overstates the true effectiveness of the ads Google delivers -- leading advertisers to pay more than they should."
He mentions four areas in which Google has become more involved than they should be: WhenU, IAC's SmileyCentral Grab, Typosquatting, and Google Chrome. I wish I had the space to talk about all four, but I'll give my two cents about Google Chrome. A web browser that I actually use personally.
Edelman's complaints regarding Chrome is with what's called the 'Omnibox'. Non-Chrome users will know it as an address bar, with a few key twists. The Omnibox provides auto-completion within the address bar itself, and provides various options with a drop-down menu. If you type out http://www.victoriasecret.com in the Omnibox, Google Chrome will execute a couple of interesting auto-complete measures. First, until you get to '.com' the first option in the auto-complete menu is to search that phrase with-in Google. Even if its www.victoriasecret (without the .com).
It's because of the Omnibox directing people to Google results more than it should that Edelman believes advertisers are paying more for clicks than they rightfully should. While I can't argue with his facts, I will argue the opinion as to whether this is right or wrong. What I don't grasp about his argument is -- why would someone stop typing out a web address without finishing the '.com' ? Would common sense dictate that if someone didn't complete the entire address that maybe they'd like to see search results?
Jason Lee Miller has written an interesting response to Edelman's study (http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/2009/05/14/is-google-artificially-inflating-conversions). I won't say that I completely disagree with Edelman but it's my nature to always question when responding to an opinion, or study (thank my Socratic method studies for that). So, now I'll ask you -- Do you believe that Google is driving up conversion rates through the methods that Edelman presents?
I've written a response to his study in today's WPW newsletter which I'll provide here. I'd like to hear your feedback on the situation. And have a great weekend.
Whenever I read conspiracy theories, the 'grain of salt' addage always sits in the back of mind. Did we land on the moon? Is Elvis alive? Is Google's PPC advertising system inflating conversion rates? Hey, when did that theory come about?
Ben Edelman, who has more Harvard degrees then I could obtain in two lifetimes is the father of this latest theory (http://www.benedelman.org/bio/). While 'grain of salt' is still in the back of my head, it's hard to argue with the study his theory is based on (http://www.benedelman.org/news/051309-1.html).
Edelman's post is too long to summarize everything that he mentions, but the heart of his study is this,
"Google and its partners systematically inflate advertisers' conversion rates by interceding in transactions advertisers would otherwise have received for free. This conversion-inflation syndication fraud overstates the true effectiveness of the ads Google delivers -- leading advertisers to pay more than they should."
He mentions four areas in which Google has become more involved than they should be: WhenU, IAC's SmileyCentral Grab, Typosquatting, and Google Chrome. I wish I had the space to talk about all four, but I'll give my two cents about Google Chrome. A web browser that I actually use personally.
Edelman's complaints regarding Chrome is with what's called the 'Omnibox'. Non-Chrome users will know it as an address bar, with a few key twists. The Omnibox provides auto-completion within the address bar itself, and provides various options with a drop-down menu. If you type out http://www.victoriasecret.com in the Omnibox, Google Chrome will execute a couple of interesting auto-complete measures. First, until you get to '.com' the first option in the auto-complete menu is to search that phrase with-in Google. Even if its www.victoriasecret (without the .com).
It's because of the Omnibox directing people to Google results more than it should that Edelman believes advertisers are paying more for clicks than they rightfully should. While I can't argue with his facts, I will argue the opinion as to whether this is right or wrong. What I don't grasp about his argument is -- why would someone stop typing out a web address without finishing the '.com' ? Would common sense dictate that if someone didn't complete the entire address that maybe they'd like to see search results?
Jason Lee Miller has written an interesting response to Edelman's study (http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/2009/05/14/is-google-artificially-inflating-conversions). I won't say that I completely disagree with Edelman but it's my nature to always question when responding to an opinion, or study (thank my Socratic method studies for that). So, now I'll ask you -- Do you believe that Google is driving up conversion rates through the methods that Edelman presents?