WebProNews

Category: PaidSearchPro

PaidSearchPro

  • Google Shows ‘Listen Now’ Ads For Music Searches

    Google is now displaying “Listen Now” ads in the Knowledge Graph section of search results pages for some music queries. From there, it offers options from advertisers like Rhapsody, Spotify, and of course, Google Play itself.

    It includes the price to listen for each service. In this Lady Gaga example, you can see that Google will let you listen for $1.29/song, while Rhapsody will let you listen with a free trial, and Spotify will just let you listen for free.

    It’s somewhat interesting that Google chooses to show the purchase price for a single song in this section, rather than plug its new(ish) streaming service alongside these other services.

    The test was reported on earlier by the Wall Street Journal, who got a statement from Google:

    “We’re happy to help users quickly find legitimate sources for their favorite movies, music and more via Google search,” a Google spokesman said.

    Two people familiar with the test described it as having started in the past few weeks. A Google spokesman confirmed that the music services pay for each click they get, the same way Google gets paid for its traditional text link ads.

    Google has shown “Watch Now’ ads for movies and TV shows that are pretty much the same for quite some time now.

    Image via Google

  • Department Of Labor: LinkedIn To Pay $6 Million In Unpaid Overtime, Damages

    Department Of Labor: LinkedIn To Pay $6 Million In Unpaid Overtime, Damages

    The United States Department of Labor announced that LinkedIn has agreed to pay $3,346,195 in overtime back wages and $2,509,646 in liquidated damages to 359 former and current employees. The money will go to people from the company’s California, Illinois, Nebraska and New York branches.

    The DoL’s Wage and Hour Division investigated the company, finding that it violated the overtime and record-keeping provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The company agreed to pay all overtime back wages and due, when notified about the violations. The company has apparently also taken steps to prevent violations from occurring in the future.

    “LinkedIn failed to record, account and pay for all hours worked in a workweek, investigators found,” said the department. “In addition to paying back wages and liquidated damages, LinkedIn entered into an enhanced compliance agreement with the department that includes agreeing to: provide compliance training and distribute its policy prohibiting off-the-clock work to all nonexempt employees and their managers; meet with managers of current affected employees to remind them that overtime work must be recorded and paid for; and remind employees of LinkedIn’s policy prohibiting retaliation against any employee who raises concerns about workplace issues.”

    “Off the clock’ hours are all too common for the American worker. This practice harms workers, denies them the wages they have rightfully earned and takes away time with families,” said Susana Blanco, district director for the division in San Francisco. “We urge all employers, large and small, to review their pay practices to ensure employees know their basic workplace rights and that the commitment to compliance works through all levels of the organization. The department is committed to protecting the rights of workers and leveling the playing field for all law-abiding employers.”

    You would think the “professional” social network would know better. I guess it does now.

    Image via LinkedIn

  • Report: Paid Search Saw Record CTR In Q2

    Report: Paid Search Saw Record CTR In Q2

    Kenshoo released some new research looking at search and social advertising spend in Q2, finding that paid search delivered an all-time high click-through rate, and that Facebook ads continue to experience rapid growth.

    According to the firm, social advertising volumes spiked as new advertisers entered the market, testing ad solutions and audience targeting methods.

    Social ad spend increased 51% year-over-year and 21% quarter-over-quarter, while social impressions increased 13% year-over-year.

    Search ad spend increased 25% year-over-year and 2% quarter-over-quarter, while search click-through-rate increased 26% driving a 15% increase in clicks year-over-year.

    “The power of paid search and social has never been more evident than it was in Q2,” said Kenshoo CMO Aaron Goldman. “Marketers running search and social advertising through Kenshoo increased their ad spend consistently across both channels and saw revenue rise at faster rates, leading to tangible profit and ROI.”

    Kenshoo released this infographic looking at some of its findings:

    Kenshoo released a report last month finding that spending on Facebook ads helps the performance of search ads.

    On Wednesday, we looked at a report from Adobe finding that search spend in Q2 grew by 9% year-over-year, while Google CPCs saw an increase of 4% year-over-year.

    We should learn even more about search spend later today as Google releases its earnings report.

    Image via Kenshoo

  • Adobe Looks At Google’s Search Ad Business Ahead Of Earnings Report

    Adobe Looks At Google’s Search Ad Business Ahead Of Earnings Report

    Adobe is sharing some data on Google’s ad business, including CPC and CTR stats, as well as growth trends for mobile across paid search, advertiser ROI and market share for Product Listing Ads (PLAs).

    The analysis is derived from 200 billion search impressions and $2 billion in annual managed search spend across over 500 of Adobe’s Media Optimizer customers.

    The study found that Google CPCs saw an increase of 4% year-over-year, while Yahoo/Bing saw a decrease of 6%. Retail CPCs, it found, remained pretty much flat.

    An increase in CPCs for Google’s Enhanced Campaigns didn’t materialize as many advertisers had feared, a spokesperson for Adobe tells us.

    Search spend in Q2 grew by 9% year-over-year. Google held 78% ad spend market share, while Yahoo/Bing had 22%.

    Desktops, according to the report, now represent 70% of paid search, down from 77% in August of last year. Mobile makes up about 30% with tablets at 14% and smartphones at 15%.

    “Click-through rates for Google rose by 20% across the board – devices, industry sectors, etc.,” the spokesperson said. “The shift seems to be the result of Google changing its text ad formats for search queries. CTRs have also increased for Yahoo/Bing due to the increase in traffic from smartphones, which have higher CTRs.”

    You can find the full report here.

    Google will release its quarterly earnings report and hold its conference call on Thursday.

    Image via Adobe

  • Study: Spending More On Facebook Ads Helps Paid Search Performance

    Kenshoo, which recently launched a solution that matches paid search clicks to Facebook audiences in real time, has a new study out looking at how Facebook ads affect paid search conversions.

    Obviously, it’s a bit self-serving, but interesting nevertheless, particularly as Facebook is all but forcing brands to advertise these days. In fact, the study was actually commissioned by Facebook.

    It presents what Kenshoo calls “quantifiable evidence that paid search conversion activity increases as advertisers spend more on Facebook.”

    For three groups of people exposed to both paid search and Facebook ads, total conversions increased 19%.

    The report says, “The average conversion rate of the exposed groups increased by 11%. By setting the value of the additional conversions generated by this difference against the cost of the Facebook ads, individual marketers can assess whether the additional conversion volume is worthwhile. For example, if every 10,000 clicks yielded an additoinal 73 conversions, each with a value of $100, an additional $7,300 would be generated by running Facebook ads alongside paid search. With slightly less than a 90% statistical confidence level, we understand this difference to be directional.”

    It also found cost per acquisition to be down 10% on average and conversion contribution up 8% on average.

    The level of spend on Facebook advertising correlates to the effect on paid search performance, the study finds, but that the data suggests there is a minimum and maximum spend ratio. Here’s a look at the “sweet spot,” as presented:

    You can find the whole report here.

    Image via Kenshoo

  • Kenshoo Solution Matches Paid Search Clicks To Facebook Audiences In Real Time

    Kenshoo announced a new offering called Intent-Driven Audiences (IDA), which it calls an “industry-first solution”. It matches clicks on paid search ads to audiences on Facebook in real time.

    Marketers can create Facebook Custom Audiences made up of those who have clicked on specific search ads. These can be targeted to get ads across Facebook’s entire ad inventory, a spokesperson for Kenshoo explains, including mobile, via Facebook’s advanced filtering capabilities to further refine targeting on top of consumer search intent data.

    According to Kenshoo, Facebook campaigns targeting IDA saw 110% higher ROI and 66% lower CPC in a multi-month test for a “leading national retailer”.

    The IDA campaigns on Facebook also had “significant positive impact” on paid search performance including 19% higher conversion rate and 22% increment lift in revenue.

    “We’re very excited about Intent-Driven Audiences and the ability to leverage signals from search marketing to reach our advertisers’ most valuable customers with Facebook advertising,” said Steve Katelman, EVP of Global Strategic Partnerships at Omnicom Media Group. “Kenshoo’s overall approach to audience management is very innovative, and the solutions they’ve brought to market help advertisers bridge the gap from branding to performance in driving bottom-line results.”

    “Facebook’s Custom Audience targeting capabilities allow marketers to reach the people that matter most to them – their loyal customers. Kenshoo’s Intent-Driven Audiences allows advertisers to bridge audiences across marketing channels by bringing together consumer intent signals from search campaigns and Facebook’s Custom Audience targeting capabilities to drive better results for their marketing efforts,” said Blake Chandlee, VP of Partnerships at Facebook.

    Kenshoo has offered Facebook Exchange access and support since January of 2013. It also support’s Google’s Remarketing Lists for Search Ads (RLSA).

    Image via Kenshoo

  • Dr. Dre Beats Deal: An Apple For Dre Keeps The Dr. Well Paid

    Dr. Dre Beats Deal: An Apple For Dre Keeps The Dr. Well Paid

    Those who “forgot about Dre”, will remember him well after his recent Beats deal with Apple

    When he and Interscope buddy Jimmy Iovine came up with the idea for the Beats by Dr. Dre headphones in 2008, the invention was meant to supplant those god awful ear buds that come with your ipod. The still sought after headphones continue to grace the good doctor’s bank account with additional zeroes years after their inception.

    Last year alone, Beats headphones raked in about a billion dollars.

    That may be why Apple is buying the company that sells the popular product for $3.2 billion.

    Andre Young (which – if you don’t know, now you know – is his government name) pretty much confirmed as much in a recent video posted to Tyrese Gibson’s Facebook page.

    The footage shows the 49-year-old Death Row Records co-founder with party-goers “getting drunk off Heinekens” and celebrating hip hop opulence. And why not, when he’s about to be the “First billionaire in hip-hop, right here on the motherf—–g West Coast!”

    Or is he?

    Conferring with the judges (over at Forbes), I’m being informed: not quite.

    While that final financial figure (after capital gains taxes) may make Dre $200 million short of landing that “billionaire” label, it may still seem a better deal compared to the work and effort of making an album or doing a tour after. That’s a matter sparking a fan schism. After scouring Twitter, I see an even opinion mix supporting both sides. If producing rap’s your passion, the deal’s less appealing. But if making paper’s the priority, the doc’s rocking the rap world.

    Indeed, if the video announcement is true, Dr. Dre will be the hip hop kid with the most toys – if we’re measuring status in cash, not new albums. And I’m not being snarky. I just know a few people who might like to use those majestic headphones to actually enjoy “Detox” sometime before they die.

    But if we consider him as a person (which, I know, is hard in “I/ME” culture), he’s also an artist by trade and a man with a family. As an artist, he’d admittedly “rather be behind the scenes and organizing”. So it’s not altogether surprising that someone with an auditory gift for quintessential sound prefers to propagate protégé’s or fantastic music devices.

    Also, given his age and the tragic passing of his son, perhaps family and time spent with friends is more of a life priority. Our opinions on the life of a man we don’t know are ultimately immaterial, but I’m just offering a different perspective for fans craving ear refills from the hip-hop doctor.

    Plus, hope’s not lost for Detox. He’s still recording:

    Forbes status, new albums, or not – Mr. Young’s an old school hip-hop classic who’s managed to remain relevant in his field. Otherwise, you wouldn’t be reading this.

    Congratulations on your deal, my dude.

    Image via Youtube

  • Should Apple Replace Google Search With Yahoo On iPhones And iPads?

    Rumor has it that Yahoo is focused on trying to convince Apple to switch the default search experience on iOS to Yahoo rather than Google.

    Would you like to see this happen? Let us know in the comments.

    Kara Swisher at Re/code, who frequently reports on chatter from within Yahoo, has sources who say CEO Marissa Mayer and SVP of mobile and emerging products Adam Cahan are leading an “aggressive effort” to convince Apple to do just that. Swisher writes:

    A number of Yahoo insiders I have talked to said her plan to pitch Apple on the idea as its marquee mobile search partner is far along. The company has prepared detailed decks, including images of what such a search product would look like, and hopes to present them to Apple execs.

    That has not happened as yet officially and no deal is imminent — it’s just the big honking goal of the new Yahoo effort, said sources. Still, several said Mayer has already buttonholed a few Apple executives on the topic, including its powerful SVP of design, Jony Ive, who knows the former Google exec well.

    It’s worth noting that Yahoo already provides default data for the iPhone’s weather and stocks apps, and Apple has tried to distance itself from Google reliance in the past. I probably don’t have to remind you about the time they dropped Google Maps in favor of their own maps product (with less than ideal results).

    Google is said to pay over a billion a year to Apple, but Yahoo has hardly been shy about throwing money around since Mayer took over. The company has pretty much been on a non-stop acquisition quest.

    Still, it could be hard for Yahoo to make a legitimate case to Apple when its own search product is powered by Bing, though Mayer is apparently determined to get away from that too.

    Danny Sullivan, who has been covering search for eighteen years now, doesn’t see it happening.

    “The biggest challenge Yahoo has is that it lacks any solid search technology. Sure, Yahoo has some for very specialized things,” he writes. “But the core technology to sift through billions of pages across the web and ferret out relevant results? Yahoo gave all that up as part of its deal with Microsoft years ago.”

    Mayer is said to hate the Microsoft partnership, and Swisher has reported in the past that she has the company working on two secret projects that would help it become more independent. The code names are “Fast Break” and “Curveball,” and they “could potentially get the company back into algorithmic search as well as search advertising,” the report said.

    Yahoo has also recently switched over to Yelp listings for its local search reviews, which could sit better with Apple than Yahoo’s previous offering (even if it doesn’t with business owners) Local search is, of course, very important to the mobile experience.

    Yahoo released its Q1 earnings report this week, with revenue up 1% year-over-year. Search revenue was up 5% at $445 million. Ex-TAC, it was up 9%. It was actually Yahoo’s ninth consecutive quarter of year-over-year growth in search revenue ex-TAC. Paid Clicks increased by 6 percent compared to the first quarter of 2013, and price-per-click increased approximately 8 percent compared to the first quarter of 2013.

    As Yahoo likes to show with acquisition after acquisition, it has pretty deep pockets. So does Google though, and it’s not going to just sit idly by.

    If Yahoo wants to really be taken seriously again in search, however, the kind of exposure being the default option on iOS would be a good start. You can say what you want about Yahoo’s search technology, but in the end is the average user even thinking about it? Probably not. But that doesn’t mean Apple isn’t.

    Would you like to see Yahoo become the default search on iOS? Would you switch it? Let us know in the comments.

    Image via Tumblr

  • This Infographic Compares Search And Social Advertising Across 6 Important Metrics

    Kenshoo has put out an interesting infographic comparing the performance of search and social advertising.

    As it notes in the highlights, spend and advertiser revenue for both have been strong, social is growing faster, and both deliver positive ROI with revenue growing faster than spend.

    The most interesting part, however, is the side-by-side comparison of cost-per-click, spend, advertiser revenue, impressions, clicks, and click-through rate.

    kenshoo social and search advertising infographic

    On a related note, The Search Agency is sharing some findings from its “State of Paid Search” report.

    Image via Kenshoo

  • Is Google’s Paid Search Query Removal Worth Panicking About?

    Google announced that it is extending its secure search efforts to paid search, and that it will remove queries from referers on ad clicks originating from SSL searches on Google.com. In other words, the reason you’ve been seeing keywords “not provided” in Google Analytics now applies to Google ads.

    What do you think of Google’s decision to extend this to paid search? Let us know in the comments.

    A previous report had indicated that Google would eliminate data for third-parties, but as Larry Kim of Wordstream points out, paid seach query data “is not dead.”

    “Stop panicking,” he writes. “Google has been cracking down on who can access search query data for several years now in a few ways – enforcing terms of service on how the data may be used, and limiting access to a smaller number of third-party vendors who implement a required minimum functionality (RMF). Basically, in order to have access to the query data, you need to be a legit software company that has built a functioning AdWords management platform. If you were an SEO agency that used to have an AdWords API token, it’s probably been shut down over the last few years, and if it hasn’t already been shut down, it won’t last long. If Google was going to stop providing this data to all 3rd parties, then that would be new/surprising.”

    “Legit third-party AdWords management platforms (like WordStream, Marin, etc.) will continue to function as normal,” he adds. “Also, if you just use AdWords and no third-party platform, nothing has changed there either. Let’s not overstate the impact of this announcement.”

    So what did Google actually announce?

    “Advertisers will continue to have access to useful data to optimize and improve their campaigns and landing pages,” writes AdWords product management director Paul Feng. “For example, you can access detailed information in the AdWords search terms report and the Google Webmaster Tools Search Queries report.”

    “The AdWords search terms report (previously known as the search query performance report) lets you see search queries that generated ad clicks along with key performance data,” he adds. “And the Search Queries report available in Google Webmaster Tools provides aggregate information about the top 2000 queries, each day, that generated organic clicks.”

    For those using the query in the referer for generating reports or automated keyword management, Google now suggests using the AdWords API Search Query Performance Report or the AdWords Scripts Report Service.

    For those using the query in the referer for customizing landing pages, Google is suggesting using the keyword that generated the ad click rather than the query. The Keyword and match type, it notes, can be passed to your web server by using a ValueTrack parameter in your destination URLs.

    “We understand that some partners may need to make changes to their systems and operations, but we think that this is the right path forward for the security of our users searching on Google.com,” says Feng.

    It’s interesting that it has taken this long for Google to determine that this was the right path considering that Google started doing this with organic search like three years ago. Back in 2011, when Google rolled out secure search as the default for signed-in users, product manager Evelyn Kao wrote:

    What does this mean for sites that receive clicks from Google search results? When you search from https://www.google.com, websites you visit from our organic search listings will still know that you came from Google, but won’t receive information about each individual query. They can also receive an aggregated list of the top 1,000 search queries that drove traffic to their site for each of the past 30 days through Google Webmaster Tools. This information helps webmasters keep more accurate statistics about their user traffic. If you choose to click on an ad appearing on our search results page, your browser will continue to send the relevant query over the network to enable advertisers to measure the effectiveness of their campaigns and to improve the ads and offers they present to you.

    The company has often been criticized for an apparent double standard when it comes to secure search. It has always maintained that the changes were made to protect the privacy of users, but when people were paying for that information, well, that was different.

    Google actually hinted that such a change was on the horizon last month when Amit Singhal spoke at the Search Marketing Expo:

    He didn’t really help us to understand why Google has changed its mind, but he did acknowledge that the search ands ads teams had been talking to one another about the subject.

    Back in the fall, we looked at data from NotProvidedCount.com, which saw the rise of “not provided” queries for sixty sites at about 74%, on a steady increase:

    It’s risen even further since then. As of the time of this writing, it’s at over 80%.

    As far as paid search goes, it sounds like marketers, for the most part, aren’t panicking too much.

    “This impacts mostly those who don’t use those tools [those suggested by Google above] or who relied on basic Google Analytics and/or old fashion technology,” writes Barry Schwartz at Search Engine Roundtable.

    “It just means that people will have to start doing what they should have been doing all along,” writes Ryan Jones in a comment on a Search Engine Land post.

    Do you agree? Is Google making the right move by removing queries from referers on ad clicks? Let us know in the comments.

    Note: This article has been updated in light of further discussion.

    Image via NotProvidedCount.com

  • Google Reportedly Expanding ‘Not Provided’ To 3rd-Party Paid Search

    Update: OK, this just happened.

    Last month at the Search Engine Marketing Expo (West), Google’s Singhal said there would soon be an announcement related to changes with the controversial “not provided” issue.

    Google implemented secure search a few years ago, and by doing so, stopped providing publishers with keywords searchers use to find pages on their sites. It has, however, continued to show such data to advertisers, which is one of the controversial parts. The apparent double standard has often been brought up by members of the SEO industry, but historically Google has pretty much brushed it off.

    Singhal didn’t specify what Google would be announcing, but his words seemed to suggest that getting rid of the data for advertisers may have been the news.

    Now, reports are coming out that Google is taking the paid search data away from third-parties. A.J. Ghergich (via Search Engine Journal) says Google will cease supplying 3rd parties with paid search query data, but that reports within AdWords will remain unaffected.

    “This will also have an affect on website analytics packages but we’ve not yet heard about anything with Google Analytics,” he writes. “Services that use this query data may have no way to access it anymore.”

    He says that his sources received a notice about the change directly from Google, and that he has read the document himself. The change, he says, is expected in the next few weeks.

    If this is really all Singhal was talking about, it’s not going to do much to curb criticism over the double standard accusations. Google has maintained that the switch to not provided is about user privacy, but has continued to give it to those willing to pay.

    Image via YouTube

  • Rachel Canning: Sued NJ Parents, Gets Tuition Paid

    The news that Rachel Canning, the teen who made national news over suing her parents, is now a scholarship student has some huffing indignantly.

    Canning was the subject of much media scrutiny due to her disrespectful behavior towards her parents. The New Jersey couple had enough of their teen’s bad attitude and put her out.

    The 18-year-old then sued to have them pay for her remaining private school education and college tuition. She also requested the court force them to provide her a weekly allowance.

    This effort failed spectacularly in court, but Canning was eventually allowed by her long-suffering parents to return home.

    Since then, Canning has shared that she has chosen a college. On her Facebook account, she announced that she would be headed to Western New England University with a $56,000 scholarship. Canning also shared that she plans to major in biomedical engineering.

    The news raised eyebrows, but Canning’s grades are exemplary. Merit scholarships are given out by WNE to freshman students with exceptional grades. The award total ranges from $22,000 to $66,000.

    It’s also worth noting that the scholarship was apparently given to her by West New England University before the lawsuit was filed.

    As Canning isn’t a very popular person right now thanks to the heavy media coverage of her case, the announcement was eventually removed from public view at around 1:30 pm on Tuesday. If I had to guess the reason, I’d say heavy internet trolling and verbal abuse.

    It’s not unusual for members of the public to want spoiled kids to fail and a huge scholarship to a prestigious college is anything but failing.

    Hold onto your pitchforks, folks. Things really aren’t quite what they seem in this situation.

    Attending WNE while living on campus will cost Canning a little over $45,000 per year. This pans out to a total of a little over $180,000 for a four year degree. The scholarship Canning was granted is towards the four years of school; her college education is by no means completely paid for.

    The $56,000 is a good start that will cover her first year of education, however unless other scholarships start raining from the sky, Canning will likely have to apply for loans and get a job if she seriously wants to further her education.

    In other words, she’s in pretty much the same boat as every other high school freshman trying to figure out a way to pay for college.

    Canning may represent the pretty spoiled little girls that American society hates, but who knows?

    Perhaps four years of toughing it out away from home will gift the New Jersey girl with a lesson on how the world works and inspire her to actually appreciate her parents.

    Image via YouTube

  • Report: Half Of Google Paid Search Clicks Will Come From Mobile By December Of Next Year

    Report: Half Of Google Paid Search Clicks Will Come From Mobile By December Of Next Year

    50% of Google paid search clicks will come from mobile devices by December of next year, according to Marin Software, which has a new report out on the subject. That figure is based on the current growth rate.

    The report (via Search Engine Land) is based on data from advertisers who invest over $6 billion per year in ad spend on Marin’s platform. It also found that cost per click on mobile device s increased at a much higher rate that on desktop last year, with tablet CPCs surpassing desktop in some regions.

    Conversion rates on tablets and smartphones increased throughout last year as users got more comfortable with mobile commerce, the report says. Conversion rates on tablets even surpassed those on desktops.

    Marin CMO Matt Ackley says, “We’re at the cusp of mobile becoming the dominant channel in search marketing. Consumers are becoming much more comfortable using their smartphones and tablets to complete transactions online, and as we see that comfort level rise advertisers will follow suit with continued investment and optimization in mobile.”

    A new report from eMarketer finds that global mobile ad spend increased by 105% in 2013, reaching $17.96 billion, and is on pace to hit $31.45 billion this year.

    Images via Marin Software

  • Here’s How Google Determines Whether Or Not Your Links Are ‘Paid’

    Here’s How Google Determines Whether Or Not Your Links Are ‘Paid’

    Google put out a new 8-minute video about paid links. Matt Cutts talks about the various things that the search engine takes into consideration when determining whether or not links are “paid”.

    99 percent of the time it’s abundantly clear, he says. Sometimes, not so much.

    He notes, “These are some of the criteria, but just like the webspam guidelines, they basically say, ‘Look, anything that’s deceptive or manipulative or abusive we reserve the right to take action on.’ It’s the same sort of thing. If we see a new technique that people are trying to exploit people’s trust or something like that, we’re willing to take action on that as well.”

    He points out that the FTC and other government agencies have guidelines about disclosure, and that Google’s thinking is pretty much aligned with these.

    One thing Google takes into consideration is the actual value of what someone is getting for something.

    “If you go to a conference, and you pick up a free t-shirt that’s probably pretty low-quality, that’s probably not going to change how you behave, right?” Cutts says. “That’s not going to change your behavior. On the other hand, if someone pays you outright $600 to link to you, that is clearly a lot of value. So on the spectrum of a pen and a t-shirt all the way up to something of great value, that’s one of the criteria that we use. Another good one is how close is something to money? So again, the vast majority of the time, people are actually giving you money. Sometimes people might say something like, ‘Hey, I’d like to send you a gift card. Gift cards are pretty fungible. You can convert those to money and back and forth not too easily. On the other hand, something like ‘I’m going to give you a free trial of perfume’ or ‘I’m going to buy you a beer’ or something like that,” that’s less of a connection. But we do look at how close something is to actual money whenever we’re looking at those kinds of things.”

    “If someone goes and buys you dinner, and you write a blog post four months later, and the dinner wasn’t some huge steak dinner with eighteen courses or something like that, that’s probably not the sort of thing that we would worry about.”

    I’d be curious to know how they’d go about figuring that out anyway. It’s unclear exactly how many courses it takes.

    “Another criterion that we use is whether something is a gift or a loan,” he continues. “So imagine, for example, that somebody loaned out a car for someone to try out for a week versus giving them a car. There’s a big difference there because if you’re loaned a car for a week you still have to maintain the insurance on your car, you still have to make sure you have a place to store it , whereas if someone gives you a new car, that is something of a completely different nature. So if somebody’s giving you a review copy, and you have to return it, that’s a relatively well-respected thing where people understand, “Okay, I’m trying this out. I’m a gadget reviewer or whatever, and I get to see whether I like this camera or whatever, but I do have to send it back. Whereas if someone sends you a camera, and says, ‘Oh, you know what? Just keep it,” that’s going to be something that’s much closer to material compensation in our opinion.”

    “We also look at the intended audience, and it can be hard to judge intent, but bear in mind, the vast majority of the time, the intent is crystal clear when someone’s giving you actual money to buy links, but take for example, suppose someone went to a Salesforce conference. You know, so they’re at Dreamforce, and they represent a nonprofit, and so they manage to say, ‘Okay, I’m a nonprofit, and I like to try out your service,’ and so at Salesforce conference or Dreamforce, they got a year’s free use of the service. Now, the intent there was not to get someone to embed paid links within an editorial blog post. The intent was to try to sign somebody up, see how they liked it….they can be someone who could tell other people about it…maybe it’s a subscription or a trial where they get six months free, and then after that they either have to convert or start paying money or something along those lines. That is something where the intent is not trying to get links for SEO value. It’s so that people can try it out.”

    Cutts then goes on to compare such a scenario to Google giving out gadgets at Google I/O – something critics have often pointed out when this discussion comes up.

    “Another thing to consider is whether or not it would be a surprise,” he says. “So if you’re a movie reviewer, it’s not a surprise that somebody probably lets you into a theater, and maybe you watch the movie for free. That’s not something that’s going to be a surprise. If it was a reporter for a tech blog, and they said, ‘Give me a laptop, and I get to keep it,’ that would be a surprise…and it would be something that was not reviewing the laptop. Just like, “I’d write about your startup if you give me a laptop.’ That would be the sort of thing that really should be disclosed.”

    In the end, you probably know if what you’re doing is wrong, but it’s really also about whether Google perceives what you’re doing to be wrong. Hopefully, this will give you a better idea of what to expect on their end.

  • Paid Search Ads May Not be Worth Anything, Shows Study

    Paid Search Ads May Not be Worth Anything, Shows Study

    As advertisers have begun adapting to the internet, paid search ads have become a common way for businesses to advertise to potential customers. Specifically, Google has pioneered the paid search ad category for search engines, giving advertisers an easy way to show up in search results without gaining the popularity that would rank them higher in natural search results.

    As common as paid search ads are, a new study has now shown that they may not be as effective as advertisers assume they are. The study, conducted by economists at the University of California – Berkeley, found that paid search ads may not affect sales at all.

    The study’s authors worked with eBay to test the effectiveness of paid search ads. In 68 “direct marketing areas of the U.S.,” eBay paid search was completely turned off. After 60 days the researchers compared the sales of groups that had no paid search ads placed and those that did have paid search ads. The researcher later also tested eBay’s paid keyword searches, turning them off and then comparing sales data. They found no measurable impact on sales from paid search advertising.

    “We found that when you turn off the paid advertising, almost all of the traffic that came through the paid search is just substituted by the other free channels,” said Steven Tadelis, associate professor at the Haas School of Business at Berkeley. “If advertising is indeed a strong driver of sales, we should have seen sales plummet. But the impact on sales was indistinguishable and not significantly different than zero.”

  • Chinese Mother Left Homeless In Search Of Son

    If there was ever a story that revealed the depth of a mother’s love, this is it.

    A Chinese woman, Ye Jinxiu, has been on a 17-year search for her son who was kidnapped in 1993. In her unyielding search for him, she lost her home, her family her husband and everything that she knew before her boy was stolen from her.

    Ye said she covered more than 10 provinces after her 6-year-old son disappeared, collecting rubbish, washing dishes and borrowing to survive, and sleeping in parks. She nearly died, she said, before her husband begged her to stop and finally left.

    Ye’s tenacity paid off and she finally found her son. When she was reunited with him, Lu Jianning, she recalls he didn’t even hug her… though he stayed with her for a year and then disappeared. She hasn’t seen or heard from him in two years since he left.

    “I don’t regret looking for him. How he lives his life is up to him,” Ye said. “When your child goes missing you can’t stop looking.”

    Many children are stolen in the poorer regions and sold to families on the wealthier eastern seaboard, particularly provinces such as Fujian where Ye lives, said Deng Fei, a Beijing-based journalist who helps locate children.

    It is estimated that tens of thousands of children, most of them boys, are stolen each year in China. Because China has a one-child policy, and many couples do not have boys, these stolen children fill the gap and meet these more successful families desire for a son. Other reasons for the kidnappings include child labor, and selling the children for profit to criminals.

    On a popular website dedicated to the cause 14,000 families have posted notices looking for lost ones.

    Ye is now 59, homeless and alone again roaming the streets of Fuzhou helping other parents search for their children.

    “Having a child kidnapped is worse than having your heart torn out,” she said, gazing at a huge canvas she had laid out by a bus stop, printed with “missing” adverts and chubby-cheeked faces.

    “If someone rips your heart out it takes one second, you die and you’re not aware anymore,” she said. “If your child is kidnapped and not found, then every day as soon as you wake up, your heart hurts from thinking.”

    Image via YouTube

  • Respected Wikimedia Employee Busted And Fired For Paid Wikipedia Edits

    Back in the fall, the Wikimedia Foundation announced that it was shutting down hundreds of Wikipedia accounts over paid edits, and that it was investigating editors being paid for their editing. This came after a site called Wiki-PR was exposed for engaing in the selling of such edits.

    In November, the foundation sent Wiki-PR a cease-and-desist.

    Paid editing on Wikipedia drew a lot of attention in the media, yet just the following month, one of the foundation’s employees apparently engaged in paid editing, and has now been let go.

    Sarah Stierch became an employee last April after a paid fellowship with the foundation. She has gained quite a bit of respect from her peers, which even continues through her firing. She’s been lauded for her efforts to get more women editing Wikipedia, and reportedly coordinated an “edit-a-thon” to create new articles on female historical figures.

    Frank Schulenberg, the foundation’s senior director of programs, wrote a message on a public Wikipedia mailing list (via Ars Technica), saying:

    I’m writing to let you know that Sarah Stierch is no longer an employee of the Wikimedia Foundation.

    The Wikimedia Foundation has recently learned that Sarah has been editing Wikipedia on behalf of paying clients, as recently as a few weeks ago. She did that even though it is widely known that paid editing is frowned upon by many in the editing community and by the Wikimedia Foundation.

    The Wikimedia Foundation values Sarah a great deal. She has been an active Wikipedian since 2006. She is committed to increasing dialogue between cultural institutions and our projects. She has worked hard to increase the presence and voices of women and other minorities in our projects, and she is a warm welcomer of new Wikipedians. Her work in Program Evaluation has been important and necessary. She is a good friend of many of us.

    Everybody makes mistakes, and I would like to believe that the Wikimedia movement is a place of forgiveness and compassion. And so I ask you to respect Sarah’s privacy at what is surely a difficult time for her, and to join me in wishing her every future success.

    I sincerely hope that Sarah will continue her important work as a Wikipedian and member of the GLAM community, and I thank her for the commitment and energy and thoughtfulness she has brought to her work at the Foundation.

    Stierch’s doings were first pointed out by Wikimedia Commons contributor Tomasz Kozlowski in a blog post, where he wrote, “It defies belief that Sarah would be oblivious to these issues, and how they are perceived by the wider community.”

    He linked to a screenshot from freelance marketplace oDesk.com showing she was paid $300 for a “Wikipedia Page for Individual.”

    The page in question remains a mystery. It’s not like Google or other legit native advertising on the web where it’s marked as sponsored. And that’s part of the problem. Wikipedia is one of the most highly-trafficked sites on the web, and its pages often appear among the top of search results.

    Unfortunately, you never know when something was written there because an editor was paid to write it, and that’s likely why Wikimedia, as much a it may respect the work Stierch has done, was forced to let her go. It can’t convey a tolerance for this.

    Image via Wikimedia Commons

  • Should Apple Move On From Google Search?

    Should Apple Move On From Google Search?

    Could Apple take on Google in search? Apple has been making some rather interesting moves of late, and some of them are search-related, and lead one to wonder if Apple could legitimately give the search giant a run for its money in its core business.

    Do you think Apple could ever compete with Google in the search space? Share your thoughts in the comments.

    First off, consider how much searching is done from mobile devices now, and how that will only continue to grow for the foreseeable future.

    The three major search engines have each put out their year-end lists of top trending searches, including in the gadgets category, and Apple’s products dominate all of these. The top searched global consumer electronics trend in 2013 on Google was the iPhone 5s. The iPad Air came in at number 7. On Yahoo’s top ten list for gadget/tech searches, iPhone (including 4, 5, 5s, 5c, 6) was number one. Siri was number 3. iPad cases was number 4, Apple iPad was number 7, and iPad 5 was number 10. On Bing’s most searched entertainment electronics list, iPhone was number 2 (only to Xbox), and iPad was number 3.

    Suffice it to say, Apple’s products are incredibly popular, as if that wasn’t already a well-known fact. In terms of sheer volume, few would be better poised to take on Google in search from mobile (and tablet devices).

    Siri has gotten a lot of attention since it launched, but that doesn’t mean it’s quite as popular as the devices it resides on. Apple’s personal assistant got a big upgrade with the release of iOS 7 this year. It got some major features that an Apple search product would need to truly compete with Google. In addition to understanding more types of commands, it added the ability to search Twitter, Wikipedia integration (one of Google’s favorite sources of search results), and of course Bing web search results. Bing is obviously Google’s main search rival, powering search results on Yahoo and Facebook outside of its own site.

    A couple months ago, a survey found that hardly anyone is actually using Siri, but that could change for several reasons, but most notably, one in particular. Apple could get rid of Google Search as the default search for iOS, and force users into a Siri-based experience. Keep in mind, it’s already given such treatment to Google Maps. Getting rid of Google could mean a significant revenue hit for its main rival and a potential new revenue source of its own, should it choose to go down that road.

    InvestorPlace contributor Brad Moon ponders the scenario that many of us have, pointing out that iOS was responsible for generating 50% of global mobile advertising in Q2 2013, and saying, “This is an opportunity for Apple and a risk for Google. The opportunity is for Apple to snatch a chunk of that mobile advertising revenue by implementing its own search functionality in Safari, Maps and Siri instead of relying on Google Search or Microsoft’s Bing. Google recognizes the threat, which is one reason why it’s willing to give up some of what could be Android’s killer features — Google Now, Google Maps and the Chrome web browser being prime examples — by developing native versions for iOS and keeping them competitive with the Android versions.”

    Of course, we could theorize and speculate all day, but there are some very real pieces of the puzzle already falling into place. Apple has recently made two very interesting, search-related acquisitions: Topsy and Cue (formerly Greplin). Topsy automatically gives Apple something Google doesn’t have – legitimate realtime search by way of Twitter.

    Regardless of what Google wants Google+ to be and what Facebook wants itself to be, there is no service that caters to realtime search like Twitter does. If you want to know what people are saying about something right now, you go to Twitter. Simple as that. Well, you go to Twitter or something that can search Twitter as well or better than Twitter Search itself can. Enter Topsy.

    Topsy launched a new Twitter search engine in September, indexing every public tweet, and making them all searchable, creating what some would consider a better Twitter search engine than Twitter’s own search feature. In fact, various reports have indicated that Twitter almost bought Topsy itself.

    Apple reportedly paid over $200 million for Topsy, and wouldn’t reveal its plans for the acquisition, but a powerful search tool related to Siri and iOS, which already has significant Twitter integration, would give Apple a powerful search weapon that Google wouldn’t apparently be able to compete with. In the realtime vertical that is.

    Apple’s other search-related acquisition is just as interesting. Cue has been doing personalized search for a long time. It was pretty interesting when it launched (as Greplin), and illustrated another seemingly vital search vertical that Google wasn’t delivering on – the ability to search across Gmail, Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, etc., in a way that would let you get results from your personal networks and files. Google has dabbled in related concepts (like with Search Plus Your World and the search “field trial,” which added results from Gmail, Drive and Calendar at varying degrees of helpfulness). But none of these efforts have been as useful as they could be. Google just doesn’t have access to the necessary data, like private Facebook and Twitter data, for example.

    With heavy Facebook and Twitter integration in iOS, this seems like another big opportunity for Apple to do something useful with search that Google isn’t doing.

    Pieces of a puzzle.

    Earlier this year, a report from Morgan Stanley said Google could pay Apple over $1 billion to remain the default search on iOS (as in Safari). That was before Bing became the default for Siri, and started getting the ability to suggest to iPhone users to switch their default to Bing, but Google is still the default for now.

    Google reportedly paid Apple $82 million for it this year, with the price set to go up, based on what is believed to be a per-device deal that keeps growing.

    As Romain Dillet wrote, covering the Morgan Stanley report, “Over the years, Apple has gotten more revenue from Google as Microsoft has been pushing very hard and bidding to make Bing the default search engine. For example, Bing is now the default provider on Nokia and BlackBerry devices. Money is a major incentive for Apple. But selling a Google-free iPhone could dictate the company’s next move.”

    “Yet, Apple shouldn’t shy away from $1 billion,” added Dillet. “As a company, profit is the most important metric. Google provides an easy way for the company to cash in a significant sum of money every year. At the same time, Google pays more money to Apple than it directly generates from iOS users. But user data is worth a lot.”

    So far, Siri has left a lot to be desired, but not really because of Bing, and it seems that Apple will only be working hard (and spending a lot of money) to make it better. With Bing playing a role here, it could open the door for a more unified search experience across iOS from Siri to Safari, and that could mean Google getting shut out (at least at the default level, which is certainly significant). We’ll have to wait and see.

    Either way, Google’s own efforts are improving. It’s only getting better when compared to Siri, which is certainly good news for Android.

    With apps being such an important part of the mobile experience, it’s also interesting to see how Google and Apple stack up to one another when it comes to app store search and app discoverability. The Pfeiffer App Store Maturity Shootout report was released last month looking at these things. According to that, Google is better at search, but Apple is way better at discovery assistance and content curation.

    For search, the study took into account natural language search, queries containing typing mistakes (positive results), support for search operators, advanced search options and the ability to refine search. Here’s how the two (as well as Amazon) looked for that:

    Clearly there’s a lot of room for improvement here, even from the reigning king of search.

    Discovery assistance and content curation which is related to search in some ways, looked at the number of sub-categories, number of specifically selected groups of apps, and number of specifically selected apps. Apple blew the competition out of the water in this department.

    Let’s put it this way, Apple just needs needs to improve search a little to be as good as Google, while Google needs to improve a whole lot to compete with Apple in the other category.

    Since that report, Apple has actually made adjustments to its App Store search algorithm, and has improved how the search engine handles misspellings and typos.

    While Siri, search in Safari and App Store search are all separate things, all of this shows that Apple is taking search more seriously than ever before, and makes you wonder what its next move is, especially with regards to a deal with Google.

    Wired senior editor Ryan Tate says Apple is “betting big on search,” concluding that we should not think of Apple as a hardware company, but “as a tech empire, something that will rival every bit of Google and Facebook.”

    What do you think? Can Apple compete with Google in search? Should it ditch Google altogether? Share your thoughts.

    Images: Pfeiffer

  • Adam Sandler Named Most Overpaid Actor

    Every year, Forbes Magazine calculates how much our movie stars are actually worth. Using data collected from Celebrity 100 research and Box Office Mojo, along with the star’s last three films, they are able to determine just how much each star earned at the box office per dollar of pay.

    This year Adam Sandler was named the top overpaid actor, making $15 million per film. Sandler’s movies, Jack & Jill and That’s My Boy , were the culprits that landed him at the top of the list. Jack & Jill grossed $150 million but the film cost an estimated $80 million to make, leaving only a mere $70 million for Sony. The same thing happened with That’s My Boy when it only grossed $57 million and cost $70 million to make. Sandler’s latest movie, Grown Ups 2, actually did quite well at the box office grossing $246 million with a budget of $80 million. However the cut off for the movies that Forbes considers is June 1, and Grown Ups 2 was not released until July.

    “We estimate that for every dollar Sandler was paid on his last three movies, the films returned an average of $3.40,” Forbes‘ Dorothy Pomerantz wrote.

    Below is Forbes’ complete list of overpaid actors:

    1. Adam Sandler ($3.40)
    2. Katherine Heigl ($3.50)
    3. Reese Witherspoon ($3.90)
    4. Nicholas Cage ($6.00)
    5. Kevin James ($6.10)
    6. Denzel Washington ($8.30)
    7. Steve Carell ($10.00)
    8. Jennifer Aniston ($10.60)
    9. Matt Damon ($10.60)
    10. Ryan Reynolds ($10.70)

    This was the first year that Kevin James and Steve Carrell made the list, and that is in part due to their most recent movie flops, Here Comes the Boom and The Incredible Burt Wonderstone.

    Image via Wikimedia Commons

  • Adam Sandler Tops List Of Most Overpaid Actors

    Adam Sandler has been named the most-overpaid actor in the list that was released by Forbes magazine. He continues to pull in big paychecks as if he were making big hits such as Happy Gilmore or Billy Madison still, despite the fact his past few films have been complete flops.

    Hollywood continues to pay its biggest stars millions of dollars per film, with Sandler being one of them. However, as his films continue to do poorly, fans have to wonder if it is worth it for the studios to pay him the huge upfront paychecks, since it is such a hard task to determine whether a film is going to be a success or not.

    While big names that have been popular often gain big money at the box office, that is clearly not the case all the time as Adam Sandler and other big name stars made some less than stellar films over the past year. The list is made up by examining the last three movies each actor starred in over the three years to June 1st.

    In order to compile a list of the 10 highest paid actors, Forbes had a formula in which they looked at pay, movie budgets and expenses, and calculated a return on investment number for each star, and then averaged those numbers to get an overall return.

    While it is being criticized as one of the worst films of the year and tops Time Magazine’s top 10 worst movies of 2013, Grown Ups 2 was actually Adam Sandler’s recent success at the box office. However, That’s My Boy and Jack And Jill did wonders to hurt his box office numbers, causing him to return an average of $3.40 on his last three movies.

    Closely following Adam Sandler in second place is actress Katherine Heigl, who started off with a very successful career, but her films that have come out recently have not been much to marvel at. She burst onto the Hollywood scene as the queen of romantic comedy, starring in 27 Dresses and Knocked Up, but with films such as Killers and One For The Money, she has not had much success since her earlier films. In fact, for every dollar she earned, she returned an average of $3.50.

    Reese Witherspoon comes in third on the list averaging a $3.90 return on every dollar that she makes. Following Witherspoon in fifth place is an actor that Adam Sandler has worked with on multiple occasions, and is appearing on the list for the first time. Kevin James fell to a return of $6.10 this year, mostly due to his awful looking film, Here Comes The Boom, which deterred many people, and only grossed $73 million at the worldwide box office.

    As the most overpaid actor, Adam Sandler is in a bit of an awkward position. While he enjoys making a lot of money, it can’t feel good to be known as the guy who makes more than everyone else when he doesn’t deserve it.

    Image via Facebook

  • Sofia Vergara:Top Paid While News Obsesses On Weight

    Life is full of ups and downs. This includes finances, weight and things that are just as important that the public eye probably does not care about.

    Modern Family star Sofia Vergara is feeling the highs and lows of stardom these days–Forbes has recently named her the highest paid television actor while some are worried about her apparently hitting the gym and cutting back on her diet.

    The 41-year-old Colombian actress, who is usually praised for proudly displaying her voluptuousness, has experienced a recent surge in attention from the news. In between the usual tweets from adoring fans are website links writing about her weight and giving quizzes asking the world “Is Sofia too Skinny?”

    In the articles, there are “quotes” of twitter users in an outrage about Sofia’s weight-loss, but there seems to be more news articles talking about Sofia Vergara’s weight than actual twitter users. Either all of the tweeters have deleted their posts for some reason, or they never existed– none of them have showed up in twitter’s search engine. The only tweets that do show up about her weight:

    are dated from May and August 2013.

    Vergara has experienced backlash earlier this year for apparently losing her “latin curves” in a Diet Pepsi ad but she assured fans that although she was skinny as a younger girl, that it was just the wardrobe in the ad that made her look so slim.

    After posting up recent Thanksgiving pictures and a poster for her new upcoming series Killer Women, Vergara does look a bit slimmer, but the tweets have been full of marriage proposals and “te amoooooo”s per usual.

    Due to fishy evidence, I say the verdict is still out on if “fans are in an outrage about Sofia Vergara being too skinny.” As Sofia Vergara continues to gain a wider lead on that number one Forbes’ list spot, the only fret truly should be is if doctors have any concern about her weight.

    [image: twitter]