• http://www.traffick.com AndrewGoodman

    “I’ve got no problem with either Performics or 24/7. Both are companies with great reputations — and both should thrive on their own. They just don’t belong as part of major search engines.”

    I couldn’t agree more, Danny.

  • http://www.eyefall.com/blog ciaran

    Danny – another great article. I’d wandered away from SEL for a while, but it really is essential reading at the moment (not that you didn’t know that).

    I have one (completely off-topic) question though:
    do you use irrelevant anchor text in external links on purpose?
    ;)

  • http://searchengineland.com Danny Sullivan

    All my anchor text is relevant :)

    Seriously, you mean like when I linked to a page from the word “dumped,” as in above?

    In general, I try to put anchors on words that I think are most associated with what I want you to know more about. So the word might not be relevant to the content of the page, but it is relevant to the context of what you are reading and thinking (if I say Microsoft dumped paid inclusion, I suspect you think “they dumped it” and then look to that word to see if there’s more info about that particular action).

  • http://www.thoughtshapers.com Jeff Molander

    I respectfully disagree, Danny. As we know (or should… I don’t think many are taking this into consideration), the nature of what Performics does is arbitrage. This is the main bread and butter in terms of revs. The game is buy clicks, get paid commissions on actions taken.

    Example: Assuming that Performics’ AE for Jos A Bank can now “see” (inside GOOG) what Men’s Warehouse is paying for “mens pinstripe suit” Jos A Bank has an advantage. Men’s Warehouse now has incentive to work with Performics so as to level the playing field. Do they not?

    The real issue here is as follows: The NATURE of Performics clients.

    Performics clients have been convinced that buying clicks is work. It’s something they cannot possibly understand nor execute. This is why advertisers choose to outsource and especially to Performics. I helped launch the firm as the first company to wrap services around affiliate marketing at no additional cost and this has always been the company’s point of differentiation. It’s carried through into search.

    The result is advertisers flock there to access SEM and affiliate programs under one roof AND under the same cost model — a % of whatever Performics can drive.

    This is causing me to fall on one side of fence fairly quickly. That is, GOOG understands this and will leverage it. It becomes a selling point. Rather, the PERCEPTION is.

    All they need is a perception that this will create advantage to Performics/GOOG clients. GOOG wins more clients this way and keeps Performics at arm’s distance. It can be done.

    aQuantive was told they’d never be able to operate Atlas — all while competing with agencies. They’re walking the line just fine for years now. MSN will do the same with 24/7. I haven’t heard an argument against any of this other than “this will destroy cred.”

    Cred? Who buys on cred? Advertisers buy with scale in mind and who scales ad buying (dumbs it down, makes it easy to boot) better than search engines? Answer: Nobody (yet).

  • http://www.eyefall.co.uk/blog ciaran

    Thanks for the response Danny – I can see what you’re saying – I guess that I’m just a sucker for a several word link, ie:
    Microsoft dumped paid inclusion back in 2004.

    But hey, your blog has 10k subscribers – mine doesn’t!

    ;)