Re: Search engine promotions

From: John Gaskill <gm_at_info-central-usa.com>
Date: Mon 12 Mar 2001 10:46:42 -0600

JOHN GASKILL <gm_at_info-central-usa.com> WROTE:

>Paid search engines must work, up to a point, or formerly
>unpaid search engines would not be adopting the model,
>and many advertisers would not being paying for a higher
>ranking, repetitively.

TO WHICH MICHAEL MARTINEZ <Michael_at_xenite.org> REPLIED:

>Unfortunately, that turns out not to be the case. Goto.Com
>is making the most money off paid submisions right now and
>they are projecting huge losses for 2001. None of the
>other paid submission services are making a profit off
>their paid submissions, and none of them are projecting any
>profits any time soon.

Yahoo is profitable, although paid rankings are only a
small part of their revenue stream at this time.

>These are very shaky business models and most likely only
>a handful of search services will be able to make either
>model (pay-per-click or pay-per-listing) work. And that
>assumes ANYONE can make one of these models work.

Managements make business models work, adapt
them to the marketplace or, ultimately, find new jobs.
No business model works by itself.

>Paid listings don't come with any guarantee of relevance
>to the surfer. Even though the search service may have
>criteria for determining whether submissions are acceptable,
>those criteria don't necessarily agree with what the surfers'
>criteria aRe.

>Take Looksmart, for example. They are unleashing tons of
>Amazon listings on their service as part of their newest
>revenue plan. Last time I checked, Amazon was boasting
>it had something like 500,000 associates. Many of those
>associates are already listed in Looksmart. People pick
>up pretty quickly that they can buy from Amazon through a
>gazillion Web sites. Those Web sites have content that Amazon
>doesn't offer.

>Take a look at how Looksmart has diluted the value of its
>directory with this search on "J.R.R. Tolkien":
>http://www.looksmart.com/r_search?look=&pin=010221x2db6b2097b5eac341b1&key=j.r.r.+tolkien

That is my point exactly Michael. Looksmart's stock
is down to 2 1/16 from a 52 week high of 72. The
success of the paid placement model is not what
made Looksmart suffer. The problem is the quality
of their search output. For many search engines
that is a big problem. And, as the internet continues
to grow, the problem only gets bigger. These problems
result from choices made by managements.

>Anyone who has studied basic Web design and usability
>knows that making surfers click on link after link to get to
>what they want is going to drive people away. Burying the
>real content deep down in the page, and mixing in
>advertisements for Amazon products will be perceived as
>a deceptive practice by many people.

And Looksmart will suffer the consequences.
Amazon may suffer consequences also.

>If paid content were really a big money maker, it would
>be making big money. But it's not.

>Why have so many search services jumped on the idea? Because
>they are desperate for revenues. You can't blame them for
>wanting to try something. But this isn't the answer. At
>least, if the search service industry as it is composed
>today is to survive, these companies are going to have to
>come up with other revenue streams. Otherwise, there will
>eventually be a huge shakeout.

It may not seem to be the answer but as you say,
they have to try something to generate revenue.
If all these pay for placement attempts don't pan
out, there will only be a couple of survivors and
life goes on in the jungle.

Regards all,


John Gaskill
gm_at_info-central-usa.com
Looking for an ad medium that's powerful, targetable,
flexible and affordable? Discover Info-Central.(sm)
http://info-central-usa.com



Received on Mon Mar 12 2001 - 10:46:42 CST