Google vs. Bing: Quo Vadis* Small Advertiser?

Fred Aun at clikz.com reports an observation that Microsoft's re-branded and overhauled search engine Bing seems to be going after "quality" rather than quantity of PPC ad displays. In a test of keyword searches, Bing consistently showed fewer (and subjectively, more relevant) ads on the front page as compared to live.com (Microsoft's previous search engine). Aun's conversations with Microsoft's Bing representatives led him to believe that this is intentional as Bing seeks to differentiate itself from Google (as a "decision engine" as opposed to just a "search engine").

Aun quotes an AdGooroo report that hails Microsoft's decision as "a boon for paid search advertisers, who have far less competition to deal with." But who's getting the boon? Apparently it's the big guys; Microsoft brags about adding Dell, Sears, Hotels.com, Marriott and Home Depot to its roster of advertisers. Fewer slots on the front page means the front page goes to those with pockets deep enough to buy their way on.

This would seem to imply that the advent and initial (relative) success of Bing** means that Google AdWords is even more important for the small advertiser. Correction: the smart small advertiser, the one who knows what he's doing (or is smart enough to hire someone who does) will be working even harder at getting Google right. Yes, it's much harder to get to the top in Google because of the number of competitors, but the good news is that Google is still the place where, like the young American child told anyone can grow up to be President, anyone willing to put in the effort and educate themselves to be better than the competition can still rise to the top.

*Quo vadis is Latin for "where are you going?"

**Microsoft's share of the search engine market increased from 0.3% to 6.5% after the introduction of Bing. It remains to be seen if this will maintain or increase, or if it is similar to Wolfram Alpha's impact ("let's look at it because it's new, but then back to Google").

Looking for help with your Internet marketing effort from people who "get Google"? At Virante, all of our PPC account representatives are AdWords Certified Professionals who specialize in small-to-medium advertising accounts. Ask us how we can help your business rise above your competition on Google. On the web at http://www.virante.com

Free Isn't Always Best

Tested two ads for a client recently. One offered a stay at a resort for $19.95. The other offered it for free. $19.95 was the convincing winner. Go figure.

Lesson learned: Don't assume that giving something away will attract more people than selling it at a good deal OR People generally believe TANSTAAFL (There Ain't No Such Thing As a Free Lunch).

When Auto-Tweeting Fails

I'm a huge fan of the Tour de France; love to know what's happening over there as it's happening. Downside of "over there" though is that most of the happening happens while I'm at work "over here." So I was looking forward to this year's race, sure that Twitter would come to my rescue.

And it did. Sort of. Yes, the official Tour de France site did include a "live as-it-happens" Twitter feed this year (http://twitter.com/tdf_updates), and yes, to some extent that feed feeds my hunger, with "turn-by-turn" news from the peloton. But here's the fail: the tweets turn out to be auto-generated from the headlines of their real-time news on the actual site. Nothing wrong with that in itself; smart use of the technology. However, many of the most interesting headlines are teasers for mini-articles ("List of all crashed riders in 2nd stage"), but the tweeted version contains no link to the article.

This is fail on two levels:

1. The user (me) obviously misses out on the information, making the tweet useless.
2. The site loses the opportunity to draw me to their site. Huge miss for them; the tweet alone does nothing for their visitor count or advertising revnue; does nothing to draw me to their other content.

Moral: Auto-tweeting headlines from your blog or site is fine, but always include the link!

Twitter "Improves" Following/Follower UI by Making It Worse

When it comes to user interfaces (UI), the "U" should also stand for "useful." Flashy is no substitute.

When I heard yesterday that Twitter had "upgraded" the UI for both "Following" and "Follow" pages for users logged in at twitter.com, I assumed this would mean an improvement in usability and usefulness. 

At first glance, the new Following/Followers pages certainly look better, and seem to have added features:

1. You can choose between "Expanded" and "List" views. List give you just the Twitter ID and "actual" names, while Expanded adds location and the most recent tweet.
2. Two new buttons to the right of each follower: "Follow" and and options button with drop down choices to reply, direct message, follow, or block the follower.

So everything looks nicer now, but is it more useful?

No. In fact, it's less useful! Here are things we lose with the new interface:

1. Blocking a user now takes two clicks instead of one.
2. You can no longer easily see who is following you back (used to be indicated by a Direct Message link next to the name).
3. Seeing the most recent Tweet is nice, but would be more useful to see the user's bio. Now have to click through to their page to see that.

Thankfully, all these functions and more are handled (and handled well, in most cases) by third-party Twitter applications. The best I've run across for the functions mentioned above is Refollow.com. Please let me know of others you like in the comments.

Sadly, the new additions at Twitter.com do have one useful function: good teaching example of what happens when "new feature" means more flash but less usefulness.