Six Myths Of Paid Inclusion
by Robert Murray, Friday, September 15, 2006
MYTHS. WEVE ALL been taken in by them. Some have been around forever. Others start out as rumors, and quickly build up speed to the point where we believe them to be fact, and live our lives around them. Remember when you were a kid and thought if you swallowed gum it would stay in your stomach for seven years? I do.
But kids arent the only ones who fall prey to myths. Adults are just as guilty. Think Twinkies have an infinite shelf life? Sorry, Charlie. Thats why we have Mythbusters, the show that exposes the facts on such long-held beliefs in our lives. But unfortunately, myths also exist in the world of search. Today Id like to do a little myth-busting of my own, and debunk a handful related to paid inclusion, specifically Yahoo Site Search Submit.
Myth #1: Paid Inclusion is a waste of money if a site can already be found in the natural search results.
Though all search engines crawl the Web and will--sooner or later--visit and index your site, they often dont get all of it. There are countless site design snafus and dynamically generated page characteristics that impede a search engine from properly capturing the full content of a site.
However, paid inclusion offers exactly that--inclusion into the index. Ever hear of the saying youve got to be in it to win it? Well, being in the index is critical. And getting included in the index is easier through paid inclusion, because the Yahoo crawler evaluates only the pure text of the Web page submitted, and not the often-complicated HTML and code that makes up the page. Being in a paid inclusion feed ensures that within 48 hours every single submitted URL will be included in the search index. In search, more indexed content can mean more traffic, which if leveraged effectively can lead to greater ROI.
Myth #2: Yahoo secretly raises the position of sites in the natural search results that participate in Paid Inclusion
We hear about this all the time, but its just not true. Even if you participate in a paid inclusion feed, that feed still needs to meet the requirements of the Yahoo algorithm to attain rankings. So if Yahoo does not secretly move your pages to the top of listings and there is no guarantee of higher results, why do it?
Once you are in the index, then you can worry about how well your pages rank. Participating in a paid inclusion feed will allow you the ability to manipulate the content of the feed in a much more rapid fashion that will let you see the results of the changes you make much quicker.
Think about the phone book. A business can probably get a basic white pages listing for free, but it can't control what it says with any precision. However, if the same business pays for inclusion, it can control the ad copy, size, and color. In a similar fashion, having creative control of your organic search listing via paid inclusion allows you to dramatically improve the appeal of the listing.
Myth #3: I already do PPC, so I dont need Paid Inclusion
One study revealed that users click on the natural search results with as much or greater frequency than they click on the paid ads.
Paid inclusion feeds can cause more of your site to be presented in the natural results, and if you optimize your feeds really well, you have the chance to gain more total first-page rankings. As we all know, better rankings usually mean more visitors to your site.
Myth #4: Paid Inclusion cannot be measured like PPC search advertising.
Personally, I believe that this issue is not so much about measurement, but rather control and predictability.
In PPC search advertising, you can control, to a greater degree, your position in the search results; the fee youre willing to pay will raise or lower that position. The major confusion that exists around paid inclusion is that you have no control over the position of your listing based on the rate you pay. However, the upside is that you only pay a fixed fee per click, depending on the category. If you have a Web site with even a nominal ability to convert traffic, in most cases, this is bargain-basement pricing.
Consider this: Would you pay 25 cents per click for a No. 1 position on a competitive keyword in the PPC search ads? Maybe. But I am sure your response would depend on what a #2 position costs, or on the volume of clicks at that price. But what if the paid ads for the top three to five spots were routinely commanding north of $3 per click? How would you respond?
Well
what if you could have your listing presented near or at the top of the natural search results where the majority of searchers click? This is exactly the promise of paid inclusion: a fixed cost-per-click and control over your description in the search results. The only thing not guaranteed is your position--but thats what your trusted SEM vendor is there to assist you with.
Myth #5: Yahoos sales team will cause your site to drop out of their search engine and then offer to let you back in if you join their Paid Inclusion program.
Yahoo, like all search engines, has three components to it: a crawler, an index and an algorithm. The crawler will visit the pages of your site and follow links. If the content it finds is of high quality and relevant, it will copy the pages and put them in the index. If your pages are cleaner and more relevant than all of the other pages in the index, then they will be returned at the top of the search results when a query is performed. Period.
Like all search engines, at Yahoo there is a separation between ad sales and content. Just because you will not buy paid listings with Yahoo will not mean that the salesperson can go over to the index team and tell them not to crawl your site, or worse, remove it from the index entirely. It just does not work that way. Yahoo, like all other search engines, must protect the sanctity of its results in order to provide users with the most-relevant results possible.
Myth #6: Most conversions come from branded terms that already rank in the top spot in Yahoo, so Paid Inclusion is of little value to them.
First, people click in both the natural and paid search results, so brands need to be found in both places. In fact, many clients buy their branded terms even when they enjoy the No. 1 ranking, regardless of the search engine.
Second, if your site enjoys the No. 1 ranking on your brand name in Yahoo, chances are its on the sites home page--you are under no obligation to include that one URL in your paid inclusion campaign. However, many clients still pay to keep their home page URL in the paid inclusion campaign because of the control they have in the listing description, which improves click-through rates--even on non-branded searches.
Yes folks, myths are everywhere--even in the world of search. But remember, Paid Inclusion is an effective and cost-efficient offering that, when used appropriately and in conjunction with your other search initiatives, can improve your results. Bottom Line: Consider the facts, experiment and learn, and find out for yourself.
Robert J. Murray is president of search engine marketing firm iProspect and can be reached at rob.murray@iprospect.com.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If this issue was forwarded to you and you would like to begin receiving a copy of your own, please visit our site - www.mediapost.com - and become a complimentary member.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We welcome and appreciate forwarding of our newsletters in their entirety or in part with proper attribution.
(c) 2006 MediaPost Communications, 1140 Broadway, 4th Floor, New York, NY 10001
Blog Editor's Comments:
Sorry, you can't have it both ways. If there is no "advantage" given to pages in paid inclusion, then the pages just need to be optimized and submitted so they appear in the index.
If the pages have problems being indexed, does it not make more sense to fix those problems rather then forever paying the inclusion fee AND the ongoing click charges associated with the program?
I think the single myth is that paid inclusion is something that should ever be considered except in very, very rare cases. Even wonder why Google as no paid inclusion program...? Hmmmm? If this is such a good thing for customers, why don't ALL the search engines offer it?
Reality #1 - The author has not refuted the "myth". For some reason he talks about pages that are NOT included and completely ignores the issue that if your pages are included in the index, there is NO REASON TO PAY TO BE INCLUDED, IF as is stated there is "no advantage" given to paid inclusion pages over those naturally included.
Reality #2 - I have no proof that paid inclusion DOES give pages an advantage, although I have heard from industry insiders that it does. Since Yahoo profits by these pages being clicked on, is it so hard to think the rumors may have some truth to them? Why should they tell anyone as long as they are going to get paid? Who is going to complain if their pages are found better and they are getting more traffic? Wink, wink, nudge, nudge... I do have to admit that if the pages are being indexed more often then there may be some small benefit to being included, but from what I have seen on over 100 client and personal sites is that the damn spiders and robots are always hungry and it's not a problem.
Reality #3 - Ok, what study was that? It's the first I've heard of it. Anyway, I do agree this is a myth, but the answer is not that you need paid inclusion, but good search engine optimization and extensive hand submissions in addition to any PPC campaign.
"Paid inclusion feeds can cause more of your site to be presented in the natural results..." Ok, so what you are saying is that the natural results are REALLY NOT NATURAL RESULTS, because they have pages included that would not be included if it was pure natural results. Or is it that the results are natural, but not the feed? Can you really say results are natural if the source is un-natural? My head is starting to hurt.
Reality #4 - Oh boy. From what I understand paid inclusion can be measured because you get to pay for the clicks on those pages. But you don't have direct control of those pages if you have no advantage in positioning from paid inclusion. You must rely on the optimization of those pages to gain better rankings. But if you are having your SEO ( Not SEM ) vendor optimize your pages anyway and paying for that to be done, why would you also want to pay a click charge on top of that? It makes no sense!
"...what if you could have your listing presented near or at the top of the natural search results where the majority of searchers click? This is exactly the promise of paid inclusion..." Huh? I thought paid inclusion did not promise that? Heck, if it's a darned PROMISE, I'll sign up tomorrow! Do I get to choose what my site is found for, or does someone choose that for me?
Reality #5 - Well, it's been a number of years, but I had a client that was getting very good traffic from Overture, even though they had never had an account with them. Their site was included with others as additional, non-paid results. At one point the wanted more traffic and asked me to set up a PPC account at Overture. They tried it for a while and decided it was not working for them. After the account went inactive we were SHOCKED to find out all traffic from Overture had stopped! They called me in a panic and had me re-start the account. That is the experience that I had. Such things may or may not still be happening, but it left a feeling of distrust in my mind that I doubt will ever go away.
"...at Yahoo there is a separation between ad sales and content." Well, not really is there? If those paid inclusion pages were not paid for like ads, then they would not be in with the content, would they? You can't have it both ways, either they are natural results or they are "un-natural results" or paid ads.
Reality #6 - This myth prompted me to look up to confirm what I remember about Cowbirds. The Cowbird does not build a nest, it finds nests of other birds and when it can lays it's egg in with the other birds. The other birds incubate the eggs and when they hatch, they eat all the food and have a natural inclination to push the other baby birds out of the nest. This myth is a myth, but over and over I keep seeing paid inclusion touted as something like, or better than natural search engine optimization. Now if paid inclusion is really not all that great, why would anyone consider it and why would some (not all) SEM and SEO companies keep promoting it?
Reality #7 - SEM vendors make money from
Paid Inclusion. Yup, I have yet to see ANYONE promoting paid inclusion that was not a "partner" or an "affiliate". I'm not saying vendors don't believe the story they spin about paid inclusion, but any time you have a vendor or consultant with a financial incentive for promoting something it becomes suspect at the very best.
Just like the Cowbird, I feel paid inclusion is NOT natural and could be considered parasitic.
