Jeff Molander

http://www.molanderassoc.com/?dref=molanderbio

26 Comments

    • Google Conference Call Reveals Plans For New Ad Initiative [view article]
      I believe it's "converSION optimizer," actually. Without doubt this is Google's biggest and most under-reported (mis-understood) initiatives. Make no mistake this is huge. Here's why:

      On the advertiser-value side, Google's success in Web advertising has largely hinged on ease-of-use. Witness Yahoo's Panama -- their version of Google's "black box" / set-it-and-forget-it-t... solution. Prior to Panema buying ads on Yahoo was WORK. It gave advertisers control over ad placement -- something they don't really want to do as it doesn't scale (takes work). Ease of use for Google is key.

      BUT Google now realizes its cost-per-click ad model leaves money on the table (who's: ValueClick, Linkshare, PerformicsDoubleclick, aQuantive and other cost-per-ACQUISITION ad sellers who get paid based on results -- action taken by the consumer). It's also fraught with risk for advertisers (click fraud). Hence, they're entering the age-old CPA model -- calling it PPA (pay-per-action). Wonder why MSFT is interested in Jellyfish.com (acquiring)? Wonder no more.

      Google IS launching PPA, yes... but that takes serious time and AdSense publishers aren't much for it... BUT by taking their massive and successful cost-per-CLICK business and essentially converting it into a cost-per-acquisition overnight Google offers advertisers serious value.

      Advertisers can now "set it and forget it" -- literally telling Google's system "spend up to $X per click so long as I get X number of actions (a sale, a lead, etc.)."

      Know anyone else providing that to advertisers with similar scale and reach?       Oct 19 11:48 AM
    • Microsoft Might Take Stake in Facebook - WSJ [view article]
      And now that Microsoft has acquired Jellyfish.com what changes? IMO, Jellyfish.com offers a very similar demographic (to Facebook??).

      I'm reading a lot of comments such as "It's not a game changer" (coming from analysts). This conclusion relies on things not changing much in terms of how the Web gets monetized. Even Google understands what's coming next -- a slow-down in pay-per-click ad model spending.

      Proof's in the puddin: Look no further than Google's:

      1) Launching a cost-per-action ("pay-per-action&... ad model

      2) Launching a tool allowing advertisers to manage (automate placement of) pay-per-click ads against a pre-defined cost-per-action

      Google understands the game is about to change and is moving. Is anyone paying attention? MSFT is and they're locking up intellectual property in this move -- one that combines multiple, successful and innovative digital shopping models.

      Jellyfish takes a best of breed approach and "mashes them up" to the amusement of consumers: Ebates + Woot.com and on the advertiser-side, eBay's Shopping.com + Google's AdWords auction environment + Commission Junction's (VCLK) performance-based cost model (cost-per-action) with a twist of Google (auctioning off ads).

      It all ads up to valuable IP that Google, in theory, cannot access.       Oct 03 11:51 AM
    • Google vs. Microsoft: What's Going on Here? [view article]
      Yes, I'm blurring a bit so thanks for bringing me back into focus :)

      Indeed, what's a "promotion" and a "shortcut"? It's all about disclosure and walking that fine line that each company (GOOG and YHOO) walks so very well.       Jul 27 02:55 PM
    • Google vs. Microsoft: What's Going on Here? [view article]
      Related to my prior comment. Here's more details/data on usage of search for navigation and the recent shift to the browser bar. From DMNews.com:

      www.dmnews.com/cms/dm-...       Jul 27 02:48 PM
    • Is Internet Advertising Really Worth Billions? [view article]
      What does this (dependence of brands on Atlas and DoubleClick) say about how consumers use the Web? It says they use search to navigate -- not necessarily to discover.

      Affiliate marketing, domaining -- search marketing agencies for that matter have all discovered and 'monetized' the fact. Where have marketers been? For how long will middle-men get to cash in on what amounts to navigational habit? As I see it, there's a sub-economy working behind the scenes: an 'ignorance economy' wherein what marketers' collectively haven't understood has been leveraged into cash.

      As well, continued dominance of these companies is threatened by Web 2.0 -- namely the death of the browser and adoption of RSS/XML technologies that allow users to view the Web sans browser! Adoption of RSS has been rapid among popular hang-outs (i.e. Yahoo, MSN -- virtually every major portal provides feed aggregators) and relative newcomers like Bloglines.

      With Nielsen et al setting up to focus less on pageviews and more on user "attention" (i.e. length of stay on publisher sites) we're forced to examine how today's major players will cope.

      How is Almighty Google coping? One word: Feedburner. One of their smaller yet most important acquisitions to date.       Jul 27 02:02 PM
    • Google vs. Microsoft: What's Going on Here? [view article]
      A lot of research out there (Jakob Nielsen has published some) indicates tremendous confusion among the masses (not just older folks) as to separation of ads from non-commercial information. Example. As well there's a multi-million (some say approaching billion) dollar industry out there based (to date... things are changing) entirely on arbitrage called domaining. This is built entirely on syndicated paid search ads and capitalizes on typical, routine Web surfer traffic and usage patterns. It's what gives Marchex most of its valuation. So IMO Web marketers are forced to appreciate (even more!) the confusion of what is and is not an ad :)

      As well, let's face it -- GOOG is a public company and they have good reason to not improve non-commercial search results and blur the lines. GOOG is not alone -- YHOO and others are in same boat.

      On the subject of Google not trying to trick or play games with Web users (leverage typical behavior patterns) I'm not encouraged by their investment in AdSense for Domains. More importantly I'm encouraged to look at this support of interested third parties (companies like Marchex) as a short term play for GOOG.

      Nonetheless, GOOG has been on quite a tear and they continue to make very few mistakes. That stated, I appreciate your being a contrarian, Jason!       Jul 27 12:19 PM
    • Google vs. Microsoft: What's Going on Here? [view article]
      Great thoughts, Jason. Indeed, "Everybody's onto the text ad trick by now" but Google has made some interesting acknowledgments of this fact -- and responses to it (by cleaning up AdWords through creating affiliate-focused restrictions and AdSense through offering more control).

      As you seem to be pointing out, it will be interesting to see how social media monetization shakes out considering that it may be monetized in new, innovative ways (beyond the page view and/or cost-per-click). Scott Karp and I seem to believe that Google's new Pay Per Action hedge could explode revs for GOOG in the area of blogs -- opening the door on the gaming of "per action" similar to the way domainers, as an example, have gamed the Pay-Per-Click system. This could spell big opportunity for GOOG in terms of dominating the <strong>smaller&... nooks and crannies of the social Web (vs. the Facebooks)... just as they've done with AdSense.

      Speaking of, considering all of your points above, I think we need to also pay some attention to how GOOG is proceeding to clean up its AdSense network via the Pay Per Action scheme and kicking out the Made-for-AdSense crowd.       Jul 27 10:10 AM
    • Rumor Mill Buzzing With Possibility of Microsoft/Facebook Merger [view article]
      Anyone notice the Zoho partnership? Now Facebook users can "access and edit your documents in Zoho Writer, spreadsheets in Zoho Sheet and presentations in Zoho Show from within your Facebook account. Add that to the ability to manage your calendar with 30boxes' Facebook app, and your Twitter/Pownce with their respective Facebook apps, and you can start to see how you could spend a great deal of time within Facebook."

      Read 'em and weep, Google.

      This puts MS into the Web-delivered office tool game lick-ed-y-split. It seems obvious now that this is inevitable.       Jul 13 12:31 PM
    • The Strange Economics of Paid Search Advertising [view article]
      From SearchengineWatch.com:

      "... Google's switch in May to Universal Search has more than a few marketers awash with panic over loss of rankings – and understandably so – since some have lost visibility due to other digital content such as video, images, or blogs, etc. occupying valuable real estate within the search results.

      If you're feeling much the same, here's a bit of advice: Relax. All this hand-wringing is for naught. Universal Search actually represents a huge opportunity for marketers – that is, if you're smart enough to seize it."

      More: searchenginewatch.com/...       Jul 10 11:19 PM
    • The Strange Economics of Paid Search Advertising [view article]
      Andrew:
      I also find James Altucher's viewpoints to be uninformed. As well, I respect your viewpoint and opinions. That stated, I disagree with many of them and their premises.

      Much of what drives pricing and spending on search (across the board) are habits and strategies that marketers have practiced for years now and show no sign of changing soon. Amazon is a perfect marketer to cite given its long history of, in effect, <strong>outsourc... </strong>much of its "natural" SEO work to third parties -- affiliates/associates. No need for a large SEO budget.

      This may seem like nuance but Amazon's tactic here is not only key in its overall spend (in effect, it pays on performance only... in the form of a cost per transaction to its affiliates) but its top down decision-making strategy. This practice (outsourcing SEO to affiliates) has been mimicked by nearly all major online retailers and most studies that I read indicate a continual <strong>slow-dow... in SEO spending</strong>... overall.

      Why? Marketers suggest that playing the "Google Dance" no longer interests them (it's too expensive).

      BUT what few (outside a handful in my peer group) seem to be discussing is the impact that Google's Universal Search initiative will (is having??!!) have on broader search spending. Quite literally, millions of "page one and two" search results are being pushed off the page by new search results (emanating from Google Maps, YouTube, Google Base, etc. etc.). If anything has the ability to create broad spending change Universal Search does more than anything else.

      On a recent podcast I hosted, Dr. Amanda Watlington (a respected search industry expert) said:

      <i>"You've got to optimize everything… get out of the business of thinking about it as just text (as the only important thing)...

      ... I think it’s (Universal Search) one of the biggest changes that we've ever seen."</i>

      Indeed, this statement is highly (dangerously?) un-informed...
      <i>"Keyword inflation is coming to an end... search users are up to six times more likely to click on the first few organic results than they are to choose any of the paid results."</i&g...

      ... but I believe for other reasons. Namely, the AdSense network and the multi-million (many say nearly billion) dollar business of domaining (i.e. Marchex) is not factored in. While we do not officially know how reliant GOOG is on revenue generated by so-called "Made for AdSense Web sites" you can bet it's significant.

      Bye the way, I think the conclusion you draw in your camcorder pricing example (free results are often more expensive) may also be driven by the virtual monopolization of "free" results pages by third party affiliates (hence, prices at the retailer need to be increased to offset the revenue share with affiliates). In any case, it's an interesting conclusion and one that is worth further thought in terms of predictable (leverageable) consumer behavior (which is critical to most affiliate marketing approaches).       Jul 10 01:11 PM
    • Why Google Will Always Dominate Its Peers [view article]
      c1ue:
      Indeed but I'd like to just point out that Google just voted against sector specific search with Universal. Some think that's a mistake (you will be interested to read this www.searchengineguide....).       Jun 28 04:08 PM
    • Why Google Will Always Dominate Its Peers [view article]
      Andrew:
      What you describe in paragraph 4 is important -- in particular the delicate balance that GOOG is continually striking between ad saturated parked domains (arbitrage sites as an example) and relevant search results pages. Everyone involved -- human searchers, advertisers, distribution partners -- must be closely monitored to extract maximum value (advertising revenue).

      GOOG and YHOO both have much to lose if users search experience reaches a certain pain threshold -- one which Jason Calacanis (mahalo.com) would have us believe is soon to be reached (he, and many like him, believe that search is fundamentally flawed... broken... and a 'human guide' model is the future).

      As an example, you gave an example of how "The human found what it was looking for" -- and how this enables GOOG to dominate. Others will suggest to you that, as you point out, this is not necessarily true given the trickery that Web affiliates and advertising arbitragers use. There's a lot of user ignorance that gets converted into cash -- at the expense of user experience but not to the point of users leaving. Why? Google still maintains the reputation of offering the most relevant search results -- regardless if this is actually true or not it's the defacto "portal to the Web" based on <strong>human habit <strong>(IMO).

      Habits change... but rarely quickly.

      Your comment "In order to make any serious headway in search, Yahoo and MSN (MSFT) must stop losing human market share and start gaining it" is on target but isn't it really a question of when humans will stop using traditional search engines as a Web navigation tool (and start using something else -- i.e. social media)? I suggest this is the REAL question and why YHOO may, in the long term, be better positioned to monetize the social Web.

      GOOG's success has been based largely on its ability to offer advertisers a black box ad solution based on the 1998 premise of its natural search prowess (best search results -- hands down). It's a black box business -- advertisers can't peer inside. Publishers can't peer inside. Nothing is really controllable but guess what? Removing control (i.e. Panama) SCALES much better. It "dumbs down" search for all parties. As well users are easily tricked into clicking on ads offered up by arbitragers (i.e. the multi-million dollar business of domaining which Marchex, a very important YHOO partner, plays so successfully in).

      Combine the "folks who barely know the difference between an email address and URL" with advertisers and publishers who **today** enjoy the black box and you have a complete "ignorance economy" that is responsible for a majority share of all online ad dollars being spent in the U.S.

      My point: Is this advertising revenue model the future? Doubtful. Hence, we have everything from Mahalo to Snap.com being touted as the future -- with a dash of "the pageview is dead" for good measure.

      How long before a more serious shift in models??

      Keep up the good work. Your insights are valued and appreciated.       Jun 28 10:58 AM
    • Six Reasons Why Yahoo Should Buy Joost [view article]
      Shyam:
      While I agree with you strongly on #1 IMO your 4 contradicts 3 in that, indeed, Joost has nowhere near the user base. Youtube without the user base would never have even been considered by Google as I see it nor should YHOO consider Joost at this time -- even with the alliances and founders w/ track record. Just my two cents.

      Your #5 is dead-on target and quite insightful!       Jun 25 09:46 AM
    • Google-DoubleClick Deal Makes aQuantive More Attractive [view article]
      Ben:
      Mostly agree on first set of comments you offer. Here's the BIG trend that nobody seems to be paying much attention to (and perhaps?? what has agencies worried):

      <i>Targeting is quickly becoming part of the "Advertising OS" of the Web and <strong>control is weighted heavily toward the user</strong>. </i>

      Google calls it "personalizing&qu... users' search experience.

      Call it what you like, search itself is quickly becoming a realm that search engines (GOOG) control, not "Web page optimizers" or paid campaign optimizers. THAT is what's got everyone freaking out IMO. There's MORE "black box" control lately, not less. Google says "write a good ad... build a good page" and replies to "how?" with "like this, basically, and leave the rest to us."

      S-C-A-L-E. Simplicity. If I'm an agency I'm concerned.

      Re: Tacoda/behavioral targeting via a network... we're totally on the same page. Yahoo is already doing this across its network (just started -- or so they say).       Apr 20 09:32 AM
    • Google-DoubleClick Deal Makes aQuantive More Attractive [view article]
      Ashkan:
      Thanks and yes... fully agree and it's helpful to know your background. I see where you're coming from better now. I entered "online" as a management consultant but cut my teeth as a co-founder and VP, Sales &amp; Marketing at what is now Performics... DCLK's marketing services division. That only lasted a few years and I'm back as a hired gun again now (consultant).

      Aaaah. I knew there was something to your MTV comment. Thanks. Perspective is EVERYTHING!       Apr 18 04:06 PM
Loading...
Symbols:
Authors:
Quick Links:
Contribute an Article Become a Seeking Alpha Contributor

Transcripts

More Transcripts»