Find me a more varied, cooler crew than these dudes! By Ilan Adler I recently stumbled onto this amazing picture…
How a simple paragraph in the NYTimes shows how bad Wall Street has become By Ilan Adler Like everyone in…
Shit People Googled after the Game of Thrones Season 5 Finale By Ilan Adler Game of Thrones is a wildly popular…
By Ilan Adler
On a recent podcast Bill Simmons was talking about the Mayweather Pacquiao fight with Bryan Curtis. Simmons speculated about what would have happened had this fight occurred before 2008, before the rise of Twitter, social media on a mass scale, and the constant 24 hours news and blog cycle. This was in relation the Internet taking on the villain, Floyd Mayweather, a convicted offender of domestic abuse. Simmons specifically said about Twitter not existing before 2008, which got me thinking, when did I first become aware of twitter?
Its actually pretty sad because I remember it quite vividly, it was right after the Virginia Tech shootings in April 2007. In the news coverage it was reported that some of the students who were in hiding from the shooter were relaying messages to the outside, via a service called “Twitter” which was basically bite size SMS length messages delivered to a group of followers via text or desktop interface. This was the first time I had personally heard of Twitter, and because of the tragic circumstances I remember it to this day.
It only took a few more months before Twitter really blew up and hit the mainstream, mainly on the basis of celebrities loving their new direct line to the crowd, and reporters and others breaking stories live, and having a direct line of communication.
I ended up though actually only joining the service in April 2009, mainly in order to follow Bill Simmons himself, who I believe joined Twitter in April 2009
When did you hear about and join Twitter, or any other social media network? Share your experience in the comments below!
By Ilan Adler
Ever since the dawn of the mainstream Internet, there have been plenty of companies trying to exploit it for short term profit. The latest news hitting the web, is the Superfish Fiasco, where Lenovo sold PC’s with pre-installed Superfish adware. This adware can be exploited to allow 3rd parties to create false SSL certificates which then masquerade as the real thing. This man in the middle attack can be used to steal pretty much any information broadcast between you and the Internet.
The idea behind Superfish browser extension or toolbar, is a visual search tool. Ideally this would actually be a helpful tool allowing you to reverse image things that you are looking to shop for, and shop for them. For example if I wanted to find a cabinet that I saw at a friends house, I could upload the image and then reverse image search it for a place that sells it. This would be an ideal use of the product, and it would work much like Google Image Search.
But that would an ideal scenario, and Superfish did not choose to take that path. Instead Superfish decided to use their product to inject ads all over the internet, use spammy tactics, and make their software extremely hard to remove. I can’t stress enough how annoying I find ad injection systems, they just make for a horrible user experience. The gist of the Superfish sales pitch to advertisers, is that people browsing a site like Amazon, the extension than searched its database for visually similar products, and shows them to users (who are supposed to benefit from the price comparison aspect).
But the thing that pissed people off the most about this, was the fact that many of the users didn’t even actively install this software. It would come either pre-installed like the Lenovo case, or be surreptitiously added on semi-secretly with install packages for browser toolbars, search partners that take over your homepage, and other similar money grabbing products. Long before this specific controversy hit the web, popular google searches were, “remove superfish“, “superfish virus“, “remove superfish chrome“.
All this always brings me back to the same point, when you offer an advertising tool do it right. Don’t count people who didn’t signup or install as users, since as an advertiser I don’t want to reach and intrude on those people. Google and Facebook, while being often times in the center of scandals, and not always being fortright about their goal to milk each user for as much money as possible, are still legitimate advertising platforms, and that’s why they work. Bing should be a legitimate advertising platform, unless it keeps trying to serve advertisers users with fake search intent.
Without getting into a big philosophical argument about online advertising, and whether it’s ok to target based on private data, or companies that sell that data to advertisers, there is still quite a fine line between these tactics, and the money grabbing tactics of Superfish and the like.
The Dark Secret of Bing/Yahoo Search Ads By Ilan Adler This is blasphemy, this is madness! This is B-I-N-G! As…
By Ilan Adler
Back in late 2013 there was a much ballyhooed story about an SEO penalty handed to the site Rap Genius (now simply Genius) by Google. For those who missed it, Rap Genius tried to get people to create Exact match anchor text links to their site, in order to increase their SEO visibility. They sent emails specifically asking for exact match links, sometimes even as footers, in order to increase the linking authority of their site. They were eventually caught by Google, and were basically kicked out of all the results for about 10 days. They posted a lengthy (and very technical but very interesting) explanation of how they were caught by Google, and the steps they took to “clean up” their link profile (basically a lot of disavowal requests).
But the more interesting side of the story for me in this case, was becoming aware of the Rap Genius brand. While the people behind the company are sort of self important, startup d**ches (this video is basically them, and this is the real them), the site is really good, and ever since I read about this debacle, I’ve found myself going there more and more to see different song lyrics and their meanings. I’ve even registered for an account (though admittedly I’ve yet to annotate a song, no time for that). I find their UX very intuitive, and I dig the (pompous sounding) idea of the “Internet Talmud“.
Thus I found the whole story behind their SEO debacle to be fascinating, since I think that they are a good, legit site, which was overzealous to get more traffic and revenue, and they erred in the way by using questionable and illicit SEO tactics. People out there, “Don’t be Greedy”!
In the end, the old adage of “all news is good news” seemed to hold true for Rap Genius as well. They might have lost 10 days of traffic and a few million visitors, but they probably raised their brand awareness, and probably got to their regular organic traffic levels, if not even higher. After all even I ended up linking to them here, though I made sure to nofollow it 🙂
By Ilan Adler
Groupon is a big company. In fact while writing this post I looked up their market cap, which now sits at $4.71 billion. Yes, billion with a B. So why are they messing up their Adwords ads? How can they possibly expect us to take them seriously when they have ads like this, on a search for “monogram necklace”:
So they expect people to click their ad just because they are using Dynamic Keyword Insertion? Or do their creatives think that people searching for this term aren’t really looking for jewelry, but rather want to take a long needed getaway?
I assume that this error originated in targeting a broad term like “Necklace”, having ads with the aforementioned DKI, and using the same description line 1 +2 text as the other generic ads. Regardless the poor ad quality of this campaign is probably causing problems with their campaign, and they are losing money by having to bid higher. All this from an oversight of not putting such high volume keywords such as this on the negative keyword list.
Groupon, I’m calling you out. With such a large marketing team, mistakes like this should be avoided.
By Ilan Adler
Many words have been written about the number two search engine, Bing. Bing was Microsoft’s third effort rebranding its search engine, and getting its hands on all the search advertising money that Google was raking in. With Internet Explorer then powering a large percentage of the browsers, and an already popular domain MSN, Microsoft thought that it could waltz in, throw piles of money at the problem, and take over another piece of the technology world. This led to what we have today, the abomination known as Bing.
Now since this site is about design and digital marketing, I won’t really get into the things that annoy me about Bing from a search results standpoint. Rather I will discuss it from a search marketers standpoint, as one who has worked for over 5 years in the area, and who still cannot fathom how Bing decides to run its business. Let the griping begin.
At the company where I work at, we have had a Google Adwords account manager for the last 4 years, and a Bing AM for the last 2.5 years. The people at Google are just light years ahead of their Bing counterparts. They are much more knowledgeable about the platform, they give you real answers, and they reply quickly. Sure they want you to spend as much as possible so they can earn their commission bonuses, but they also help you get more revenue at good ROI, which in business is the bottom line. At Bing the Account Managers just seem uninterested. They will reply very quickly but their answers are just stall techniques, aimed at showing you that you are getting service, but never getting any substantial information or solutions for the problem. In the last 6 months we have been seeing a slowdown in conversions from some of our campaigns (which are doing well on Google BTW), and we are scratching our heads to why this is occuring. All our emails to the Bing Account Manager receive a stall technique email along the lines of:
Product listing ads (Now branded as Google Shopping) are a huge Google money maker, grabbing click shares of about 40% percent of all product searches. In fact all Google has been trying to do these last 4 years is push these ads more and more to searchers, even rolling out this beta layout that I recently spotted:Note how the product images and the ads are much larger, and more prominent in the search results. My experience is that since product listing ads perform well, they are very competitive, and their CPC are more expensive on average. Google is trying to push more people to click on these more expensive ad units, and thus drive up their return on click value.
Bing famously came out in the winter of 2012 with their Scroogled campaign, attempting to smear Google PLA’s by saying that Google has the audacity to make people pay for these clicks, which were tricking users, and that users who want an “honest” search result should go to Bing. Fast forward to Q3 of 2013, where the hypocrites at Bing decided to launch a beta of their own product ads, one that was basically identical to Google’s. The caveat? Bing product ads is a terrible product with a significantly less polished interface, buggy as hell (the data feed testing feature mysteriously disappeared for an unknown period of time), and most importantly less ROI. I won’t bore you with myriad details, but in the first few months of beta the product was working very poorly, and in a homage to my first gripe about Bing, I didn’t receive adequate support for my issues. But the issues continue, as you can see by a screen shot from today for the search query “Gold name necklace”:
Yes, the first product listing that you see on this search is for a silver necklace…
Even more baffling are the various amounts of weird rejections that we get for some of our products on our data feed. Here is a small sampling:
Again these are the same product feeds that work on Google, and have seen fantastic ROI since the days of Froogle, Google Base, the move to Product Listing Ads, and now Google Shopping. Yet on Bing they continue to perform poorly, and cannot be structured as good as Google. Again this is a product that was basically copied and adapted straight from Google, and should be rather seamless to integrate, yet they managed to screw it up. Which leads me to my final gripe.
This tweet put it best:
Poor old bing ads. Every time they release a new feature they find AdWords beat them to it by a year. #ppcchat
— Google bAdWords (@GooglebAdWords) July 16, 2014
Other gripes that I won’t even mention in length are, the crummy and slow Bing Ads Editor and web dashboard (which was just recently redesigned and improved) , still using paper IO’s up to very recently, no remarketing feature (they couldn’t get it done by the 2014 Holiday season), the fact the their 28% market share has to be a pipe dream or weird statistical anomaly, since they don’t rake in close to 28% of the revenue in the search advertising world (even though their users skew older, so they generally are supposed to have more money). I can summarize this very long post with a simple sentence, that really explains what the problem is with Bing: