Feeds- 41
- Sphinn It!
Went Hot: Nov 21, 2008 - 11:52 am
Posted By: ViperChill 484 Days ago
Source: http://www.bizcommunity.com
Category: SEO
Quite disgusting (also read the comments on the site). I also wonder what will happen to the sales of those companies that can’t get certification.
17 Comments
Comments
I think you should all check out the comments as well: http://www.bizcommunity.com/Comments/196/16/80334.html
Wow - this is bullshit. Since when was adding 17% "horrifying"? Sure, it’s more than we charge but not by a significant margin. A good digital agency could easily show ROI even charging 17% of spend... And why choosing only 5? If it’s not a cartel then surely that number should be flexible depending on how many good agencies there are out there.I sincerely hope this kind of practice doesn’t make it the UK.
P.S. Google have been in contact with our clients and tried to offer their own services. Some of our own clients even warned us about Google meetings before this happened.
Most accounts that I’ve seen setup by Google staff are awful. Maybe they would be better spending their time training their own staff?
True Matt,I’ve seen with my own eyes some Google ’essperts’ setup ROI focused campaigns with every single keyword in broad match... Terrible. Plus, generic adds with DKI in every ad group! Do they think everyone is Ebay/Ask ??!!?? If I had let that go live, my clients would have been extremely unhappy, and Google might have gone in through the back door to try and recupe them... maybe thats the idea :POn the Google approaching agencies’ clients to offer their services directly, i’ve seen it done and it’s very bad practice. It makes Google look like a scavenger to the clients, and tarnishes the relationship between agency and service provider. It’s disgusting. Furthermore, I think clients would get a better service from a dedicated, specialist agency who knows the client’s business far better than Google essperts who do what I described in the first paragraph...VC, great sphinn, thx for link to the comments too and thx for bringing this to attention.
Eloi - what you need to remember is that any Google recommendations are driven by revenue - but they always package it in such a way that it seems like they are trying to improve your ROI.Granted - they do offer good advice and always look for ways to help Search Marketers improve accounts - but like you said - sticking everything on broad match (regardless of negatives in the account) is not always the best way forward. For small clients, they sometimes need to start on exact match and build it slowly - managing the ROI risk.Although if Google educate more and more of the masses so they can brief their agencies better and fully understand PPC - would we then not just be able to get on with our jobs and spend time improving PPC campaigns rather than having to answer stupid, misinformed questions and justify our actions?
@ Matt @ EloiYes, they set-up a campaign for one of our biggest clients and it was pretty terrible, only used 30 keywords as well
I’m astounded by some of these commments. Seriously, I can’t believe this person was allowed to say this garbage."Explained his horror at the way some media and advertising agencies were bamboozling their clients as to the cost of online Google campaigns, “adding on 17 - 37% markups” in some cases and not allowing clients to see the true value or results of their Google adwords campaigns, “because they were too complicated for the client to understand”.It sounds like he’s just started in the search space. That’s because he ought to be aware Google doesn’t pay commission, so how are the firms supposed to cover costs for work they perform (and let’s assume this is indeed actually good work, as there are plenty of firms that do this). There’s a mark-up. Not letting clients see what’s going on. Hey, I think clients should see that stuff. But then again, Google itself for years has prevented its own advertisers from seeing full reporting or fully controling their accounts with exactly the same argument, that oh, it would be too complicated for them to understand."There won’t be more than five of them (agencies), to build necessary capability and understanding, so when they go to clients, they position digital correctly."News flash. How Google thinks campaigns should be run isn’t how all agencies agree. But how nice. You want to work with a vendor for help with Google, you can only go to a Google-approved company that undestands the way Google itself wants stuff done? Sort of like saying if you want a financial advisor, you can only use a particular brokerages advisor before buying from that brokerage."What really peeves me, is they say: ‘Give us R100 000 and we’ll sort it out... trust me’. They will not disclose to clients what their Google campaigns entail.”’He seriously said this? I mean, this is entirely how the Google AdWords system works and is, in fact, the exact message they’ve said from time to time. Just give us a set budget, put it into the system, and we’ll optimize your spending. Here, point this tool at your web site, we’ll even pick the keywords to you. Don’t look behind the black box curtain -- it’s all fine."And this is why Google will be empowering key agencies in this space, he says, as well as training marketers and agencies in general going forward on the various Google tools, search engine optimisation (SEO) and key search word advertising.Agencies are making money out of this innuendo and mystery in the digital space. Google is trying to fix this with education,” he emphasised."Listen. SEMs, SEOs and agencies have been educating clients on how Google works on an organic and paid level -- and plenty of them responsibly -- long before Google itself finally got a clue on providing better material. Even today, agencies sometimes know how Google operates better than itself. The materials Google is putting out aren’t really designed for agencies -- they’re more for individual and those without guidance at all. And I’m glad for it, don’t get me wrong. But this person simply has no real sense of the space or the history and probably ought to do a lot more reading before making public comments like this again.
@silvregarding your last paragraph, don’t you think that it would take a little bit too much time to educate the masses on the intricacies of pay per click advertising, especially if the google guys can’t even get it right? Also, we would then be in danger of having everything go inhouse...@viperchill lol, 30 kw... 2 ad groups, one generic ad?
"Not letting clients see what’s going on. Hey, I think clients should see that stuff. But then again, Google itself for years has prevented its own advertisers from seeing full reporting or fully controling their accounts with exactly the same argument, that oh, it would be too complicated for them to understand."= very well said Danny. "14356 other unique search queries" springs to mind.
I KNEW it! Me and my buddy at my old agency I worked with, were visited several times by google, and they seemed more interested in the demographics, specs, spending of our clients than the performance of our accounts. We had a sneaky suspicion that they had a hidden agenda! But is this being applied to the US also?
Google bought an ad agency when they bought DoubleClick.Although they quickly got rid of it.This is just another kick in the nuts.There are a ton of shitheads out there claiming to be experts. And yes people do get ripped off from time to time.But just imagine what would happen if NBC said you must use one of their approved agencies to advertise.
This rape and pillage of your corporate accounts is brought to you today by Google analytics. < /tinfoilhat >
Won’t this just drive advertisers further away from traditional PPC and other Google-approved methods of advertising and toward those agencies that can bypass Google’s usurious "certification fees" by influencing the organic SERPs? It’s like they’re trying to make Google Ads worse than ever. This is like "The Producers," but with Google Ads.
Have you ever read the Google suggestions when it comes to setting up a PPC campaign? Use only a few keywords. This is true if you wish to run a single ad!Unfortunately by only certifying a select few they pretty much kick every other smaller company. But hey, that’s Google for you. And in South Africa where Google search sends about 90% of all search traffic we have little choice.
I raised this point of OfGoog in a guest post on DaveN’s blog:http://www.davidnaylor.co.uk/the-seo-industry-regulator-ofgoog-by-ben-mckay-guest-poster.htmlI do think there needs to be some level of accreditation / formally recognised professionalism but not through Google...that’s stepping over the mark I feel. I was referring more specifically to SEO, but the points stretch to other areas of SEM too...I don’t like the idea of formal regulation/certification of a select few either, as that just plainly wouldn’t work...but accreditation for development and success I do.
One other thing, does anyone think that this is because we don’t have a regulating / ceritfiying body that is taken seriously...I realise Dan Thies’ role in SEOPros but it’s not had the impact I think they were all hoping. Without some form of representing body maybe Google see’s itself as the representing body? Maybe this was always going to happen...Do we let Google carry so much much in this industry because we don’t step-up to do it ourselves? I’m not asking the question because I believe it myself, as I don’t want this to be the case, but it does raise the question.