<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Advertisers Cutting Google AdWords Spending With Surge of Keyword Prices</title>
	<atom:link href="http://searchengineland.com/advertisers-cutting-google-adwords-spending-with-surge-of-keyword-prices-10215/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://searchengineland.com/advertisers-cutting-google-adwords-spending-with-surge-of-keyword-prices-10215</link>
	<description>Search Engine Land: Must Read News About Search Marketing &#38; Search Engines</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 23 Nov 2009 05:39:12 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: AndrewGoodman</title>
		<link>http://searchengineland.com/advertisers-cutting-google-adwords-spending-with-surge-of-keyword-prices-10215/comment-page-1#comment-475</link>
		<dc:creator>AndrewGoodman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 09 Jan 2007 03:34:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://searchengineland.com/beta/advertisers-cutting-google-adwords-spending-with-surge-of-keyword-prices-10215.php#comment-475</guid>
		<description>Hmm... seems pretty anecdotal...

Prices have definitely risen in some verticals, especially retail.

But in 2007, the aggregate numbers once again&#039;ll tell the story.

If &quot;advertisers&quot; (across the board) are cutting their spend, eventually that will have to be reflected in GOOG&#039;s quarterly financials.

Time&#039;ll tell. In the end, it&#039;s so granular that it&#039;s hard to go by a couple of verticals.

And then there are those crazy spends on things like $50 million stadium naming rights, as Godin pointed out in a recent post (Prudential). Take half of that wasted budget and apply it to search, and suddenly $10/click doesn&#039;t seem out of line, given the at least measurable payback as compared with the glitz spends.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hmm&#8230; seems pretty anecdotal&#8230;</p>
<p>Prices have definitely risen in some verticals, especially retail.</p>
<p>But in 2007, the aggregate numbers once again&#8217;ll tell the story.</p>
<p>If &#8220;advertisers&#8221; (across the board) are cutting their spend, eventually that will have to be reflected in GOOG&#8217;s quarterly financials.</p>
<p>Time&#8217;ll tell. In the end, it&#8217;s so granular that it&#8217;s hard to go by a couple of verticals.</p>
<p>And then there are those crazy spends on things like $50 million stadium naming rights, as Godin pointed out in a recent post (Prudential). Take half of that wasted budget and apply it to search, and suddenly $10/click doesn&#8217;t seem out of line, given the at least measurable payback as compared with the glitz spends.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
