He is comparing to Google, but I think there is a huge difference. It's not an Ad blended like a content. It's an Ad faked in a content style. He is copying the exact same style, the same kind of content (title, description, category, photo, rating) and not even mentioning it. There is no way to find out if it's an ad or a real post.
Image Ad Blending Works Really, Really Well
81–90 of 215 posts
Re: Image Ad Blending Works Really, Really Well
#82[deleted]
Re: Image Ad Blending Works Really, Really Well
#83Earlier quoted context omitted.
No. Only if Google included barely distinguishable paid placements in their organic results would it be a fair comparison. I'll concede that some minority of users might not be able to distinguish paid results from organic on Google, but no one could do it with these "blended" ads -- that's why he's getting such a high CTR. Users are being tricked.
Did you read the article? Was maybe Patrick too subtle about the point that many (probably most) of Google's users perceive the paid placement at the top of every SERP as a search result? These "blended" ads are labeled as sponsored results as well.
That's why I find advertising such a ridiculous business model for a search engine. Let's spend all this time and money and invent the most amazing technology to find the best results for any search and then... let's sell the top spot to the highest bidder.
I don't have a better business model to offer, but I do think the world would be better off if Google were more honest about ads and made it more obvious that they were ads.
Re: Image Ad Blending Works Really, Really Well
#84[deleted]
1) I'm uncertain as to their thought process. Typically, when people sell me stuff at a particular price, my mentally model is "Hmm, they couldn't sell that same stuff to somebody else for more money." Just for a comparable, I generally advertise on remnant inventory at CPCs below a dime, not at a quarter, so I think it is possible that BusyTeacher understands their unit economics a bit better than your guesstimate does.
2) Ask a simple question, get a simple answer: Alexa is clearly wrong.
Re: Image Ad Blending Works Really, Really Well
#85So let me get this straight. Critics of this tactic want to get rich doing their own startup, while using the very techniques they just renounced to generate traffic and conversions? Seems a bit hypocritical to me. Wake up folks - business success can be 'seedy' sometimes. As long as your product creates more value than customers are charged, then it's a win-win for everyone. What if these so-called 'seedy' technique…
If you want to do naughty things then by all means do them. There's not much harm done when people are slightly deceived into clicking onto a legitimate product. Big deal really.
Just for the love of god don't lie to yourself about it or try to rationalize it.
Re: Image Ad Blending Works Really, Really Well
#86Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Google ad that I note-for-note copied has a CTR in excess of 20%. It should - it is exactly what the user was looking for, presented in a way that makes that obvious. [Edit to add: I thought I might have been exaggerating, so I looked it up. Nope, 21.3% this year for [bingo card creator]. For [bingo creator], which is not a brand term, it is 18.5%. [printable valentine's bingo card]? 8.7%. Do people get the pictu…
Ugh. Can we get some intellectual honesty here? Of course you have a high CTR to bingocardcreator.com when people search for "bingo card creator".
Do you know what a "high CTR" is? Did you read the sentence that followed the one you're citing? Why are you so eager to jump on everything he says? I wish you'd stop. Please. You're sucking the oxygen out of the room.
Re: Image Ad Blending Works Really, Really Well
#87Earlier quoted context omitted.
Did you read the article? Was maybe Patrick too subtle about the point that many (probably most) of Google's users perceive the paid placement at the top of every SERP as a search result? These "blended" ads are labeled as sponsored results as well.
He wasn't too subtle, he was just wrong. The comparison between Google's separate/distinct paid results and these ads inserted into organic results is completely absurd. Notice that he didn't have to write "Spot it yet? Hint: it’s the row without the Facebook button." when referencing the Google paid ads -- only the "blended" ones.
Please stop grinding this axe. You're not even bothering to respond to comments anymore; you're just repeating the same point over and over again. "Completely absurd"? It's the exact same tactic.
I couldn't possibly think any less of you after these comments. What do you think you're accomplishing by writing this way?
Re: Image Ad Blending Works Really, Really Well
#88Love the fake 5 stars. All that's missing is mimicking the scammy copy those ads always have: "See this weird trick a mom learned about bingo cards"
Re: Image Ad Blending Works Really, Really Well
#89Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or, people like HIM are PAYING for the Internet. Personally, I think it's people who like to tell other people how much they're RUINING the INTERNET that are RUINING the INTERNET, but I spend a lot of my Internet time on message boards, so I'm probably biased. It's probably bad recipe sites that are RUINING the INTERNET.
Here's why I say ruin. Remember when you could do a search for product reviews, and actually get product reviews , instead of a million template link bait sites?
What does Patrick's advertising technique --- really, think about this --- exactly what does it have to do with Google SERP pollution?
Re: Image Ad Blending Works Really, Really Well
#90I don't understand who still sees ads. It's apparently a huge majority of Internet users, but I don't understand where they come from. I often set up computers for family and friends and installing AdBlock is one of the first things I do. Who is computer-savvy enough to buy and install their own computer, and yet not computer-savvy enough to get AdBlock? Or do (most) people actually like ads?
I don't understand who still sees ads. It's apparently a huge majority of Internet users, but I don't understand where they come from.
This is like that quote for "How could X have won the election? I don't know anybody who voted for him."
If you learn one thing from me, learn that male twenty-something techies are not the golden normative standard for all forms of behavior. Some people actually do like ads, a lot. (Even twenty-something techies love some ads. I watch more Old Spice commercials than I watch actual TV!) Most people just don't care enough one way or the other to change the channel.
I encourage everyone to see how real people actually use these devices which we're trying to convince real people to use.