Disqus - Latest Comments for craigdanuloff

Re: Avinash Revisited – Part V – Query Reports

craigdanuloff — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 22:09:43 -0000

Just because that's the sample data we have. A friend let's us use his account for demo purposes.

Re: The Match Type Keyword Trap

Photographworks — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 11:05:17 -0000

Jim Hathaway's link goes to hyperlinkguerilla.com

What's that about?

Re: Hal Varian, Bidding, and SearchEngineLand

Mike at echotam.com — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 17:50:44 -0000

Hey Craig thanks for the comment. Yes volume is one of the reasons another reason, most of the time top adds get more attention. Also, maybe trivial but still meaningful is the fact that the screen sizes are shrinikng (ex. smartphone, netbooks) and sometimes the ads on the bottom get cut off, which may affect the volume. I agree that there are cases and various reasons when you don't want to have your ad displayed on the top

Re: Hal Varian, Bidding, and SearchEngineLand

craigdanuloff — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 15:48:10 -0000

Hey Mike, why do you think top 3 positions are best? Just for volume reasons ? I think there are cases where depending on the goals that doesn't work out to be optimal. Love to hear your thinking behind that.

Re: Hal Varian, Bidding, and SearchEngineLand

craigdanuloff — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 15:48:09 -0000

Re: ClickEquations Feature Spotlight: Export

craigdanuloff — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 08:44:32 -0000

Yes the Bullk Editing features work fine on the Mac. We don't offer our ClickEquations Analyst plug-in for Mac Excel, but it will run in VM on the Mac.

Re: Search Query Webinar Recording & Another Key Tip

craigdanuloff — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 13:06:59 -0000

David - Let me suggest our Quality Score whitepaper, you can find it at www.clickequations.com/learn I think it will answer your questions and provide some overall context for how Quality Score is used. Any friend of Avinash is a friend of ours!

Re: More Thoughts on Revenue Allocation / Attribution

craigdanuloff — Tue, 19 May 2009 22:27:33 -0000

Greg: In this second comment you're confusing 'last click' of the entire string of visits with 'last click' of the paid search visits. Both GA and Adwords are 'last click' within the set of ppc visits. Actually this raises a whole new set of questions I'll have to go investigate about how GA really handles allocation across different visit types - not entirely sure - but I know who to ask!

Re: More Thoughts on Revenue Allocation / Attribution

craigdanuloff — Tue, 19 May 2009 22:25:11 -0000

Adwords is last click. Most web analytics (including GA) is last click too. The difference between Adwords and GA is the date the revenue is assigned to - on Adwords it's the date of the click, in GA it's the date of the sale.

Re: Revenue Allocation (Attribution) Models in ClickEquations

craigdanuloff — Wed, 13 May 2009 22:26:48 -0000

Alan - Thanks for visiting and your post. I read George's post and commented on it back then - thought provoking and was run just when our dev system was able to allow me to build the first ClickEquations Analyst templates comparing performance between attribution models. There wasn't much data then, and while that very preliminary look showed some of what George and you mention - keywords where there is little impact, it also showed some keywords where there was dramatic impact.

At this point, we have a little more data on those accounts that were running in our dev environment, but the majority of our clients didn't get this upgrade until last week, and we didn't rerun all attibution models historically, so we're just building up a data history to do more comprehensive studies. I promise we will and post real data as soon as it's practical.

My general comments ("last click must die") are admittedly partially philosophical, but even looking at the data from those 'dev' clients now we do see pockets of keywords where the impact is +100% in terms of the revenue allocated to a keyword linear vs last. So even if it turns out to be 5% of the keywords, turning those off without realizing their impact would in my view be unfortunate. But overally - the announce here is our ability to get and present rich flexible data to learn the truth - any CQ client can now see this and compare for themselves. So let the analysis begin!

On your cross-channel point, 100% agreement. One step at a time, but stay tuned!

Re: Revenue Allocation (Attribution) Models in ClickEquations

craigdanuloff — Mon, 11 May 2009 10:14:45 -0000

Yes, it's a very complicated subject. There's not an easy answer for the reasons in the post, the ones you mention, and those to be covered in the follow-on post. Like many other aspects of online marketing, a very simplistic view has taken hold and there are a lot of decisions being made without any clear understanding that they're being made based on very bad data. Awareness of the issue, and it's complexity, is the first step...

Re: The Perfect Match Type

craigdanuloff — Sun, 26 Apr 2009 19:18:13 -0000

Thomas - I wrote a post about that very issues - http://www.clickequations.com/blog/2009/01/the-... - I believe in separating match types by Ad Group, and have done it with campaigns of 250K KW and higher.

Re: Surprise: Your Bid Doesn’t Determine Your Cost-Per-Click

craigdanuloff — Sun, 26 Apr 2009 19:16:01 -0000

Frank: Something is very wrong - you should not be able to pay more than your MaxCPC. I would pause the campaigns and contact Google.

Re: Why It’s Called First Page Bid Estimate

craigdanuloff — Sun, 26 Apr 2009 19:15:12 -0000

Google sets the minimum required bid for any keyword - and usually not at 0.01. They do this for keywords that have no paid ads, and for those with lots of competitors when they only show a small number of ads. They always set the minimum using a formula known only to them. So the answer it it varies depending on what Google wants to set the price at for that keyword.

Re: The Economics of Quality Score

AndyBeard — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 03:05:37 -0000

Quality Score also doesn't have to be linear and Google often present things in a much more simplistic way than they are actually calculated.

Re: Google Quality Score Video

craigdanuloff — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 19:51:06 -0000

I've been told explicitly by a Sr. Google Rep who works with this stuff, that Landing Page cannot help QS at all, it can only hurt - meaning if the landing page is spammy or has negative characteristics your QS drops. But otherwise the landing page has ZERO impact on Quality Score. I believe this.

Re: Buying Paid Keywords When Organics Are Free

craigdanuloff — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 19:46:25 -0000

Your copy/content is only one element of SEO, and writing/content alone will not bring you rankings. There are some great SEO resources out there - start over at www.seobook.com or www.seomoz.org for much more detail...

Re: The First Step To Better Paid Search Campaigns

craigdanuloff — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 19:44:09 -0000

Yes, excellent point and something we do - competitors names should be their own Ad Group or even Campaign.

Re: The Economics of Quality Score

craigdanuloff — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 14:56:14 -0000

Thanks Alan - You are exactly right, or at least I assume you are - I don't know that Google has every confirmed that QS is internally calculated to more levels of precision, but we assumed that as with PageRank that is true. Didn't think to express that in the tables.

My guess is that by watching carefully we can see if in fact there are steps between the levels. Thanks again for bringing this up.

Re: Bidding On Brand Terms

craigdanuloff — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 18:28:20 -0000

Thanks Anil - Good detailed post on the steps to do a brand/no-brand test.

Re: Why Adwords Isn’t Good Enough (and Yahoo or MSN are worse)

craigdanuloff — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 22:36:37 -0000

Great question. Don't have a great answer, will take that as a challenge for a future post.

Re: Google Quality Score - The Complete Series (Nov. 2008)

Jaap — Mon, 23 Feb 2009 04:50:01 -0000

Thanks for the reply, Craig.

I guess underestimate the power of the other issues in the accounts!

Following this remark, might it be interesting for a campaign's QS to not isolate the brand name in a campaign. In order to use the high CTR to improve the QS for the overall campaign?

Thanks from Holland!

Jaap

Re: Introducing The DeTweet

craigdanuloff — Sun, 22 Feb 2009 13:48:50 -0000

Ironically, lots of RT's but nobody else has DT'd to my knowledge. Of course, it's a good sign if not much to disagree with is floating around...

Re: Introducing The DeTweet

craigdanuloff — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 17:11:39 -0000

Chad: Glad to see your comment. Tried to reply to your tweet but it wouldn't let me since you weren't a follower. Anyway, I don't believe that account level separation of high CTR or high QS keywords will have much effect on any individual keywords. This is based, somewhat, on a panel I participated on at SMX West with Google's Dir of Search Quality, who explained that basically if they have KW level CTR, most of the other factors don't matter much. If they don't (new keyword) they progress outword, to adgroup CTR/QS, then if adgroup is new, to Campaign CTR/QS, and finally if there are just no good clues available, to overall account CTR/QS.

So ultimately each KW gets the QS it deserves no matter where it is. Only case where segmented accounts would help would be if constantly adding new keywords of new contextual nature, and you always did well with them, in which case you'd get 'benefit of the doubt (account QS) initially before custom kw-based was earned.

So the idea that better performing kw in account full of them get better QS, is more self fulfilling than due to the account. Having said that, I agree (and suggest in the presentation I made which is now available on this blog) that poor performing KW's should be paused/deleted, and AdGroup or Campaign Segmentation by performance is a good idea - I just think Account level is a huge step (moving low performers in and out is pretty hard) that really isn't going to benefit anyone much.

BTW: Interesting thing I learned, relative to your way if you or someone wanted to do it, is that if you move a KW-Ad-LandingPage combo EXACTLY from one account to another, the historic QS moves with it - Google recognizes it and applies the history. Any change however and it starts over as new.

Great to have you reading, looking forward to your future tweets and information.

Re: Google Quality Score - The Complete Series (Nov. 2008)

craigdanuloff — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 20:37:01 -0000

I wouldn't trust this to work at all - CTR is the most important driver of QS, and there are issues of the group and account etc - just copying the ad won't tell you much/anything about your competitors. No way to get this info - unless they'll let you log into their account!

Disqus - Latest Comments for craigdanuloff

Re: Avinash Revisited – Part V – Query Reports

Re: The Match Type Keyword Trap

Re: Hal Varian, Bidding, and SearchEngineLand

Re: Hal Varian, Bidding, and SearchEngineLand

Re: Hal Varian, Bidding, and SearchEngineLand

Re: ClickEquations Feature Spotlight: Export

Re: Search Query Webinar Recording & Another Key Tip

Re: More Thoughts on Revenue Allocation / Attribution

Re: More Thoughts on Revenue Allocation / Attribution

Re: Revenue Allocation (Attribution) Models in ClickEquations

Re: Revenue Allocation (Attribution) Models in ClickEquations

Re: The Perfect Match Type

Re: Surprise: Your Bid Doesn’t Determine Your Cost-Per-Click

Re: Why It’s Called First Page Bid *Estimate*

Re: The Economics of Quality Score

Re: Google Quality Score Video

Re: Buying Paid Keywords When Organics Are Free

Re: The First Step To Better Paid Search Campaigns

Re: The Economics of Quality Score

Re: Bidding On Brand Terms

Re: Why Adwords Isn’t Good Enough (and Yahoo or MSN are worse)

Re: Google Quality Score - The Complete Series (Nov. 2008)

Re: Introducing The DeTweet

Re: Introducing The DeTweet

Re: Google Quality Score - The Complete Series (Nov. 2008)

Re: Why It’s Called First Page Bid Estimate