{"id":26481,"date":"2019-09-05T16:35:56","date_gmt":"2019-09-05T20:35:56","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/mjtsai.com\/blog\/?p=26481"},"modified":"2021-10-28T16:32:32","modified_gmt":"2021-10-28T20:32:32","slug":"search-ads-for-competing-products","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mjtsai.com\/blog\/2019\/09\/05\/search-ads-for-competing-products\/","title":{"rendered":"Search Ads for Competing Products"},"content":{"rendered":"

Jason Fried<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\n

When Google puts 4 paid ads ahead of the first organic result for your own brand name, you’re forced to pay up if you want to be found. It’s a shakedown. It’s ransom.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n

Tobi Lütke<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\n

It’s totally crazy for google to get away with charging what’s basically protection money on your own brand name. “Nice high intend traffic you got there, would be a shame if something were to happen to it”<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n

John Gruber<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\n

And of course, Google doesn’t let you target any of their own trademarks this way, and won’t even let you mention “Google” in your ad text. And Google no longer visually styles paid results distinctively from actual search results — just the little “Ad” icon before the result URL.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n

I think it’s useful to be able to find out about related products through ads. What feels wrong is that the ads don’t really look like ads<\/a>. It looks like a list of results where the organic one, which is almost certainly what the person wants, is never at the top. So, (a) you have to pay to be where you should have been anyway, and (b) some customers will click the first result and end up somewhere unexpected.<\/p>\n\n

Pieter Gunst<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\n

Lots of misleading ads also...<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n

Jason Snell<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\n

See also App Store ads<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n

Dominik Wagner<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\n

E.g. search for Things, then the first and full scale entry is a competitor that paid.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n

Paul Haddad<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\n

Apple sure is better than Google.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n

At least Apple uses a different color for the ad.<\/p>\n\n

Sascha Rucks<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\n

We even got a call from an Apple sales rep who made clear that we need to bid on our own keywords\/brand name to make sure that we are at first place and not one of our competitors…<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n

For once, maybe it’s good that the Mac App Store doesn’t have feature parity.<\/p>\n\n

Cale Guthrie Weissman<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\n

Data from Jumpshot says that more than 50% of Google searches in June didn’t result in a click. The results show that organic search clicks are going down even as paid Google search clicks are going up, as are searches to result in no clicks whatsoever. For brands, businesses and marketers who rely on organic Google search results to drive commerce, this means recalibrating how they think of Google in their plans.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n

David Heinemeier Hansson<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\n

Google is slowly but surely choking the web. This is what monopoly power inevitably leads to. The noblest of founding intentions is no match for the imperative.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n

Juli Clover<\/a>:<\/p>\n

For basic searches like “maps,” Apple’s apps ranked first more than 60 percent of the time in the WSJ’s testing. Apps that generate revenue like Music or Books showed up first in 95 percent of related searches.<\/p>

[…]<\/p>

Apple says that it uses an algorithm that uses machine learning and past consumer preferences, leading to app rankings that often fluctuate. Apple suggested that its apps ranked first in the WSJ’s testing because those apps are popular with consumers. Apple says that all apps are subjected to the same search algorithm, including its own.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n

Previously:<\/p>\n