Apr 022007
I cannot believe that one of our newest clients is (was!) paying over $7 per click for their trademarked, proper name which they already own the organic results for! This fool actually recomends it: http://www.semfire.com.au/blog/?p=38
I am so disgusted with people who will do anything to make a sale I could puke! These guys not only are making sure that they pay over $7 for 
clicks they would otherwise get for free, who already know their proper name; they can sue anybody else for buying the words, and one of their biggest competitors is (was).
Make all the excuses you want: all the justifications will not sway me; THIS IS ABOUT ETHICS! IT IS WRONG TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF PEOPLE’S IGNORANCE!
For the record:
- Do not buy your proper name if it is protected by trademark: you do not need to: a blind optimizer could get you found organically for your name – and nobody can legaly buy the words but you!
- People who already know your name are not your target market, they are already your customers! Use your online advertising to target new prospects, not undercut your sales to your existing clientele!
- If you do not understand what you are buying, don’t buy it, no matter whos money you are spending: CALL ME, I WILL TELL YOU WHAT NOT TO BUY FOR FREE: HERE IS MY CELL: 925-913-0024!
- Type internet advertising consultant  or search advertising consultant or just advertising consultant into Google and get someone who knows what they are talking about before you buy! Call the guy who did not have to pay for every click to get there!
Oh, by the way, that would be me!
I think you’ve been a little harsh. While it sounds like your client was making a bad play, there can be times where this might be beneficial. As the ‘fool’ mentioned, the control over the call to action and the landing page and the ability to target brand misspellings are handy. Plus – your comment about a blind optimizer being able to rank the name organically isn’t true if the brand name is composed of generic (but competitive) words.
I can see a wee bit of usability in buying mis-spelled words. However the landing page can be controlled by scripts as a visitor comes in from a search engine (and those are free, rather than $7 a visitor.)
From an SEO perspective, you can also target all sorts of brand mis-spellings.
You really shouldn’t have this issue on a generic word, as trademarks on generic words are not too common (but I can admit, they do exist)
The most valid reason I can think of a CPC is that it can be instantly applied, if one day you suddenly realize there is a word you forgot on your SEM list.
Let me try to give you an example Barry. I’m really curious what you think about the impact of Apple’s PPC on “apple” in G.
They are currently running an ad for their store. I don’t think a script redirect would work as well in their case, plus they lose the sharp call to action if shut off PPC on the brand phrase.
BTW, in regards to misspellings try a search in G for “aple”. They target students with an educational offer for the misspelling – how funny!
All too often public companies like Apple are spending their stockholder’s money through somebeody that justifies his salary by the size of his (outgoing) budget! I agree with Barry!
It either cash flows or not – this is not rocket science! I say the only way it makes sense is if it cash-flows!
Israel, please have Solomon approve the posts that I have made to the prior post in this blog. I think it especially fair in light of your blind leading the blind comment.
Apple’s PPC in Google?
Is probably a fairly large waste. They buy the word “apple” to show up one line higher than a diet supplement… yet they literally own all the organic search results on page one, with the exception of a wikipedia entry.
I would have to see the metrics involved and the ROI, but would lean towards a script or having a proper traffic-flow done for them so that they are maximizing on organic results.
Currently the word “apple” is a $1.69 – $2.53 CPC, has between 4,240 to 5,462 searches a day, and costs $7,380 to $13,840 daily.
That tells me Apple could be spending $300k a month on PPC for “apple”
I would be happy to compare what a good SEO/SEM campaign would do for them with proper traffic flow analysis on a yearly budget of $3.6 million.
The “Aple” part is an easy target in SEM’ville. All of the regular Apple sites could easily have high ranking for simple mispellings.
Apple however, probably has a team of online marketers closely watching ROI, so it makes sense for them. If they are not watching the ROI like a hawk though, they could be flushing away $3 million in Apple money. (Guess its nice for them to be a Fortune 500)
Thanks Barry! Point well taken that you have to look at what else you could do with the spend that could accomplish the same thing better.
But do you think that the specific call to action and the prominent positioning of it could *possibly* be beneficial to them in that it might create an “impulse shopper” that didn’t already have shopping at Apple on their mind but has become interested specifically by their offer. I know you could funnel the inbounds off with a script, however the Google results convey a more editorial impact so I am not certain if you can draw the exact same effect.
Of course, in the end you still go back to your point that there are probably better ways to spend the dime than on people that are likely inbound to your own website anyway.