Posts Tagged ‘pay-per-click’


What Can Retargeting Do For You?

Monday, December 10th, 2012

retargeted adsOnce a website is set up and gains traction, it can become a targeted marketing sweet spot for companies looking for exposure. Companies or marketing firms analyze shopping habits by demographic and direct efforts accordingly.

When a website reaches a high hit count, it becomes that sought-after spot for displaying retargeting ads. Marketing firms will maximize retargeting strategies on such sites to realize the best percentage per post. Facebook is one such site. Facebook is such a big player it might shift the entire ecommerce and pay-per-click scenes.

First, What Is Retargeting?

Retargeting is all about making a conversion based on someone’s expressed interest in a product or service. Search retargeting takes the keywords that users search for, and delivers relevant ads in a timely manner to a (hopefully) still searching consumer. Site retargeting shows ads to users who leave a site. Ads can show items abandoned in a cart, products that were clicked on, or even just a targeted ad. Retargeting’s main purpose boils down to converting more window shoppers into buyers.

In Front of More People

Retargeting on a venue such as Facebook is a high-profile maneuver for any business. This is because Facebook is at the forefront of the international social media scene. Joining in on the bidding process could potentially put ads before hundreds of thousands of people, not just once but as many times as is advisable.

The risk in investing in this, on the part of Facebook, is volume. Whether or not enough traffic goes through Facebook cannot be determined outside of assumption. However, the assumption is that there are perhaps millions of Facebook unique visitors on a daily basis. Facebook will regularly have upwards of over 150 million unique visitors per month. That tallies to just over 5,000,000 per day. That’s potential.

Retargeting and Pay-Per-Click

Watch groups claim that the shift from per-click prominence on search engines to high-hit volume sites like Facebook will have drastic effects on the pay-per-click game. Their logic is that search engine optimization (SEO) is limited to those searching for a particular item, whereas random visibility on a Facebook page will target others. And further, this will retarget one-time window shoppers and lure them back. The interest is there and the product is there; the assumption is that this will more likely lead to a sale.

Whether or not this new strategy by Facebook will drive pay-per-click or SEO strategies to the outer brink of advertising competition has yet to be seen. But it will be an important game-changer as Facebook and other companies continue to develop this strategy.

Some Shaky Ground

Facebook will reap more than just money. As advertisers “follow” more users around Facebook, it runs the risk of having too much access to personal information and behaviors. Facebook has already had to face the scrutiny of conspiratorial thinkers. Concerned users, competitors and governments demanded answers for such an infringement (at least as it is perceived) on personal privacy.

Assumptions can be made for similar attacks on Facebook Exchange, the network’s retargeting interface. Historically, however, Facebook has not shown much compliance to countries or individuals asking them to augment their operations, and there is nothing that says they’ll start now. The way in which this plays out and shapes the world of retargeting will be interesting as Facebook continues to grow.

***

Felicia SavageFelicia Savage is a freelance writer, designer and internet marketer living in Indianapolis, IN. As a contributor to technected.com, she loves to discuss her adventures in public relations and marketing.

Crisis Communications: A Case Study in the Making

Friday, July 2nd, 2010

by Lauren Shapiro*

Flickr Image: kbaird; Original Image: Charlie Riedel / AP

Flickr Image: kbaird; Original Image: Charlie Riedel / AP

British Petroleum has been making front page news since April 22nd as approximately 800,000 gallons of oil poured into the Gulf of Mexico each day. BP was once an organization thought to be a “friendly brand in the oil business” – despite its previous disasters. But as the oil continues to spill into the summer months, and according to government officials into the fall, BP is being scrutinized now more than ever.

One might assume that companies that specialize in goods/services, particularly those that could potentially wreak havoc on the safety of the world’s inhabitants, would have a well prepared protocol for crisis situations. Furthermore, if the company had a predecessor that experienced a similar crisis (i.e., Exxon Valdez, 1989) they would sculpt this protocol by learning from the mistakes previously made. It’s highly doubtful that BP did not have a crisis communication procedure in place, but was and is it a good one?

According to Chris Lehane, Newsweek’s master of disaster, “One of the rules of thumb of crisis management is that you can never put the genie back in the bottle in terms of what the underlying issue is. People evaluate you in terms of how you handle things going forward. And obviously doing everything to be open, transparent, accessible is the type of thing that the public does look for from a corporate entity in this type of situation.”

 As the situation in the Gulf continues to unfold, BP has promised one solution after another with no success – in other words, they over promised and under delivered, a cardinal “no-no” in business or any crisis resolution. Lehane states, “If you tell people what you are going to do, and you suggest it’s going to be successful, you need to be successful. Because once you create those expectations and you don’t fulfill them, when you already have a significant credibility problem, it further degrades your credibility.”

BP’s inability to implement a successful solution to fix the spill isn’t the only thing affecting its credibility. BP came under fire during the U.S. Congressional hearings when executives from BP, Transocean, and Halliburton took turns blaming each other for the incident coined “the worst environmental disaster in U.S. history.” And BP’s executives continue to make one public relations faux-pas after another: (more…)

When It Comes to Online Media, Just The Facts Are Free . . .

Wednesday, March 24th, 2010

The Pew Project for Excellence in Journalism’s annual report is once again upon us. As in the past, it confirms that the majority of us get our information online and that we do not want to pay for it, subscribe to it, or pay-per-click for an article.

The facts may be free, but getting them collected, edited, checked, and delivered to you online or otherwise still costs money. Like almost every else When It Comes to Online Media, Just the Facts Are Freeyou do in this life, you do get what you pay for. The old joke of “hiring’em young while they still got all the answers” may work fine for opining in the blogosphere, but may not cut it in the “knock three times and tell’em Dan sent you” world of investigative journalism.

Then there is this little issue of legality. At the recent OnCopyright 2010 conference put together by the Copyright Clearance Center in New York City, a self-proclaimed investigative blogger lamented the chilling effect of the many defensive lawsuits filed against him. While we may be prejudiced against the larger media organizations at times, they can stand up to this type of intimidation. To preempt the criticism they vet their sources and data prior to publishing and if that’s not enough they have financial resources to support their position.

Back to free; the cry is that everything should be free on the Internet . . . Well it never has been and never will be. The content and information you get every day on the web is being paid for by somebody, usually advertisers. For lots of reasons we can look at later, this subsidy is just not cutting it.

So if we want reliable, vetted information we have to support its creation. In other words, we have to pay for it. The organizations that are creating vetted content are searching for a way to do this. There are a number of models being tried currently.

  1. The pay-wall which is in place at a number of sites and variations are being implemented by the Financial Times and the New York Times.
  2. The pay-by-article model for which you pay only for what you read á la iTunes.
  3. A central subscription service for many participating providers.

I believe all of these are doomed to fail. However, I do believe there is a fourth solution that could prove viable and consumer-friendly. It would be a hybrid of the pay-by-article model and the aggregated subscription combined with some as of yet unreleased technology.

Over the coming weeks, I look forward to examining more closely some of these monetization options and having a bit of discourse on the topic. In the interim, I strongly recommend that anyone whose livelihood, especially journalists and public relations professionals, is tied to media read the Pew Report. And share their thoughts with myself and the readers of BurrellesLuce Fresh Ideas.