Calendar
Network
Feeds
- 74
- Sphinn It!
Went Hot: March 12, 2008 - 8:46 am
Posted By: DanielScocco 116 days ago
Topic Type: News Story (Jump to http://searchengineland.com) my network
Category: Google SEO
16 Comments
Who Sphunn This Topic?
-
dannysullivan
-
demib
-
MattCutts
-
DavidWallace
-
BrysonMeunier
-
JohnWeb
-
AdamC
-
mpilatow
-
mattstoddart
-
DazzlinDonna
-
oggin
-
rjonesx
-
HamletBatista
-
danperry
-
MiriamEllis
-
Sergi
-
UtahSEOpro
-
Harith
-
Jehochman
-
bsaric
-
Eavesy
-
adamap
-
DianeV
-
nichenet
-
asnider
-
wilreynolds
-
AndrewMiller
-
ray143
-
robwatts
-
searchcommander
-
mbeharry
-
Rhea
-
traffick
-
MarkBarrera
-
eBrandz
-
LanceLoveday
-
TheNanny612
-
NickWilsdon
-
ATeeple
-
dailymoolah
-
DanielScocco
-
suncao
-
sirroyalbrown
-
Ruud
-
theGypsy
-
LongTail
-
Zonk
-
sza
-
affiliatetip
-
JacobKerr
-
tonyp
-
gunjanpandya
-
trainsem
-
annie7
-
thinkingserious
-
mpind
-
nelisx
-
heathercozad
-
karizmo1129
-
gsicotte
-
dobata
-
DigTheDupe
-
aevans
-
vikramprashant
-
anglemona
-
digits12
-
jboeckman
-
mbeijk
-
tchale
-
leif
-
STACKS
-
nolimitdomains
-
morgad
-
Musa
Comments
If I were a Performics client, I would be heading for the door. A consultant who has an allegiance to another party, a party who's financial interests directly conflicts with my own, cannot do the best possible job. Is Performics helping clients maximize the return on their advertising dollars by cutting costs and allocating budgets efficiently between the search engines, or is Performics helping clients spend their entire budget with Google?
Great post, Danny! I couldn't agree more. Google will have to get rid of Performics - the sooner the better. Untill they do, they will be critizised more than ever. Is that what they think it takes to bring back up the stocks?
Danny - agree, thanks for stating the case so well. Google and Microsoft should divest themselves of the SEM agencies they now own. Perhaps there are pieces of Aquantive like ad networks and technology platforms that will be useful to Microsoft. Obviously these should be kept, but the parts of these companies that interact with clients buying media in complex auction scenarios are in conflict.
As Jehochman says, as a client you probably want to head for the door. You'll be given a biased pitch.
demib, check your email... :)
One thing to consider is that Performics isn't just about search - they have a strong affiliate marketing piece, too.
So, if they were "forced" to pull away from having their hands on SEO, perhaps it would make sense to split Performics, so that Google retains the affiliate asset?
Thank you for bringing this to my attention.
This is a MAJOR concern. Performics is already advertising their relationship with Google on their home page. If I was looking a customer looking for SEO services, I am pretty sure I would use them for that very reason.
Cut your ties Google, this is bad news.
If you stop thinking like competitors for a second... think like a potential customer. Who would you rather put your business with - a company that has to guess what it takes to be number one in Google or a Google company that may be able to get you there?
Remember that there are many companies who are paying "seos" (lowercase emphasis) good money to "optimize" their meta tags rather than work on content, over all site optimization and spider-ability, links, social networks, etc. There are companies that will get their feet wet with SEO via that CostCo/local/$25 "seo". In truth, Performics is in a great position for a lot of business - for good or evil.
Agreed. Google need to step up and clarify this relationship. Spin-off is the solution. I remember i had performics folks come over on site and in subtle ways hinting at performics-google relationship which would help clients. This industry has become so profitable and mainstream that engines are looking to own end-to-end business. yahoo has always marketed their paid inclusion to clients and seems like google might follow suit. so the next question is: will seo's face a organic death?
Dump your Google stocks now, they're going to crash!
Can't wait to see in their next quarterly report how much income doubleclick brings in, and how much of that is performics SEO based.
Google's been getting much to much cocky these days, and I can't believe no one has mentioned how Doubleclick used to have very borderline ILLEGAL ad serving tactics back in the day...
I think you guys need to look into what may and may not be communicated during a merger such as this.
Take a look at this quote from New York Times:
Now, I'm definately no fan of Google myself. And I strongly oppose the EU's decission in this case. But I don't go about thinking that I'm better than Google/DoubleClick at what can and should be communicated during such a big merger either.
Soeren, Google was prevented by law from talking with DoubleClick on how they would integrate the two companies. Nothing prevented Google from understanding that this company contained a search marketing unit and that they probably would have a conflict if they kept that part. I see absolutely no reason they would have been prevented from saying on the outset that part of the deal would involve the sale of that unit.
Correction in my earlier post... I meant to say "sam's club"...
http://www.searchengineguide.com/scott-buresh/sams-club-wants-to-be-your-search-engine.php
Perhaps it's a matter of time before they adjust their wording based on the new realities. I might be taking this out of context but a wile back wasn't the stance 'no banners, no flash ads', etc. I'm sure bringing double click into the fold brings quite a variety advertising based on flash, banners, etc.
Remember the unconditional money back guarantee?
http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/2007/12/20/google-changes-its-mind-about-money-back-seo
Maybe other changes are in the works too. But until people kvetch, they'll stay under wraps.
Danny: Well, I see a couple of reasons why they shouldn't. But again, I'm definately no corporate merger expert.
- Imagine what you would have done if you where an employee of a company, who was told through the press that you company might or might not be sold off. I would start looking for a new job immediately along with several of my colleagues, thus lowering the spinn-off value of the company considerably.
- Imagine if you where a customer, who where about to sign a deal with Performics. Then someone released a press release saying that they are looking to sell the company as soon as they aquire it. I definately wouldn't sign any deals with a company who's future is uncertain, and this would offcourse also lower the spinn-off value considerably.
Now, I don't know Performics myself, but looking at their company website they do more than the questionable SEO. Google might be considering splitting the company up and THEN selling off the SEO-part, but they have been constricted BY LAW so far to look into this in details.
What their official statement reads to me is: "We're not touching Performics even with a firepoker, until we've looked into detail whether there's any technology or employees worth "assimilating". Then we'll make an announcement on our intentions, hopefully in early April".
But then again, English is only my second language. So I might very well be reading things wrong :-)
Nice closing -
If the Google powers that be still hold the creed of "Don't Be Evil" as something they truly believe, then they should be standing and applauding Danny Sullivan.
Outside watch dogs are critical as power, wealth, and a culture of secrecy eat at the "Don't Be Evil" creed that so many of us Google advocates hold dear.
Well timed, well said.
Thanks Danny.
-Tom Hale
Sad to see Google doesn't care to live their own standards.
But what scares me more is the attitude shown in general by its users and even amoung SEO-company's. No reaction or just a few half hearted ones. As if no one realy cares.
I did drop a poll at a well known dutch forum, where i know many seo's read the postings. Just 2 reactions...
- Tonnie Lubbers -
@SoerenS, Thanks for a voice of reason in a otherwise reactionary discussion.