Here are some basic do’s and don’ts regarding using Google Adwords that we’ve learned through experience. Follow these and you’ll save time and money. We assume that you have run a Google Ad campaign and are familiar with the basic terms.
- Do use search words and search engine advertising. These clicks are worth it if you want to spend your click-money wisely.
- Don’t use content ads, or, if you do, use them with extreme caution. We have deduced through much anecdotal evidence that our content ads were often fraudulently abused through scams that Google was unable to detect. In the last six months or so they seem to have this under control, but in general content ad clicks are not worth it. Too many bored people clicking them with no intention to buy anything.
- Do use the time of day feature. If you have a commercial product for business, don’t run it on weekends. You will get less qualified and more confused buyers. Obviously, if you are targeting home consumers, weekends may be your best bet.
- Don’t try to be first or even second on the page. Set your budget and try to get the cheapest clicks possible. For example if you are selling “spy vision glasses” and you budget $80 per day, you want to barely reach your target each day. For two reasons.
- 1) Potential customers that find you on the second page are very seriously searching for a product and are likely to buy. If you can hit your target budget with clicks on the second (less expensive) page your value per click will be much higher.
- 2) Being the first product displayed will cost you much more per click and will most most likely bring you an early browser rather than somebody ready to buy.
- Do make sure you have some motivation on your home page to entice people to tell you who they are. This could be a prize giveaway or a white paper — basically just something of value for which they will register or provide contact information.
- Don’t hide your price. If your product costs $200 and customers are expecting something for $50, you are not going to upsell them. These clicks to unqualified customers will cost you both time and money.
- Do run multiple ads and route them to specific pages. We call this follow through. Your google ad has very limited word space so, when clicking, the customer should see a follow through on the ad they just clicked. For example, if your product ad says “bumper stickers for baseball fans” don’t send them to your home page if it features 100 other different products. Send them to something specific regarding baseball bumper stickers.
Obviously these tips aren’t foolproof, but we hope they will make the Google Adwords process both easier and more productive.
NetEqualizer News Blog 
Analysis: Vuze’s Allegations Are Anecdotal, But Troubling
May 1, 2008 — netequalizerThe following article recently appeared on ExtremeTech.com.
Analysis: Vuze’s Allegations Are Anecdotal, But Troubling
By Art Reisman
Marvin Ammori of Free Press recently referenced a report issued by a third party company, Vuze, that insinuates with some evidence that ISPs are blocking certain kinds of Internet content.
While I respect Marvin’s right to his opinion, and support the mission of FreePress.net, I was asked to comment on his assertions by the editors of PC Magazine and ExtremeTech.
As to the report issued by Vuze: I read their findings over and they were very careful to point out that their evidence is anecdotal in nature. Other than Comcast, which was outed and forced to admit its practice of blocking peer-to-peer traffic under certain conditions, the report does nothing to convince me conclusively of any deliberate blocking. In today’s world, anybody can assert something from scant evidence and there will be a bandwagon of followers drawing their own conclusions for a variety of reasons. Marvin’s reasons for jumping the bandwagon are noble but I think we must be careful here.
Now let’s get to Marvin’s comments.
“Vuze’s report suggests what many have feared all along: In addition to Comcast, other phone and cable companies may be censoring legal Web traffic over their networks. Many industry practices remain unknown and are increasingly difficult to detect.”
I can not agree more that industry practices are unknown and difficult to detect; that is an understatement and something I alluded to I wrote last year: “Consumers and innovators cannot be expected to police for abuse, nor should they have to accept interference until their network provider is exposed. Until the FCC makes it clear that it will not tolerate Internet blocking, phone and cable companies will continue to engage in this harmful practice.”
However looking to the government to solve this issue with mandates can easily backfire into a quagmire.
The Internet is what it is today exactly because no regulatory body hovers over it at every turn, although it has become vital and one could argue that somebody must protect it. However, the right way to protect it is to use antitrust laws to make sure consumers have a choice. You might also force some truth in advertising laws to insure consumers have accurate information when choosing a provider. Consumers are smart and savvy and will go with the provider that gives them the best service.
However, I would draw the line and not dictate to providers and tell them how to handle traffic congestion. There are legitimate overload situations on a network that can cause gridlock, and an honest effort to avoid these situations is what most ISPs strive for. Yes, some may view this as greedy abhorrent behavior, but you can’t have it both ways. If you want a government-run Internet, then come out and lobby for it — but declare your motives! But for now, these are public companies and over-regulating them will backfire. The way to solve it is with consumer choice and not another office at the FCC.
For example: We have three choices for broadband Internet in my part of Colorado: Comcast, Qwest and Mesa Networks. Mesa is the local wireless ISP here in the Front range. I know for a fact that Mesa Networks does not block or re-direct BitTorrent traffic. The competition is too fierce and being the smaller player, it is in their interest to provide top notch service. Unfortunately, some areas of the country may only have one option and I would concede in this case the FCC needs a soft hand:
1) Do not allow an incumbent to own both wired and licensed frequencies in the same area (if they are the only player). I am aware of several investors that plan to offer high speed internet services over licensed frequencies.
2) Require truth in advertising about contention ratios on a network; contention ratios dictate how many users share an Internet resource.
3) Require ISPs to divulge what bandwidth control techniques they deploy. Note this stops short of telling them what to do.
As for my personal bias, my position as CTO of NetEqualizer, a company that makes bandwidth controllers, seems to insinuate that I am in the pocket of the ISPs. Yes, that is a bias, but for the bulk of this discussion I view the large service providers as a consumer. Big agnostic corporations driven by their stockholders’ greed drive me crazy. Most are not my customers, however I just happen to understand both sides of this equation, as I live and breath bandwidth control for many verticals, and not just public ISPs.
Share this: