Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

New banner ads push actual Google results to bottom 12% of the screen

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 142 posts

Re: New banner ads push actual Google results to bottom 12% of the screen

#91

Post by robryan »

joshuahedlund wrote: post #54
aresant wrote: post #42

There was an interesting earlier this year from EBAY showing that there was ZERO value to buying their own brand keywords from Google (when their organic keywords ranked high). In fact spending money on their own brand keywords generated signifigant negative ROI (1). So my guess is that this strategy from Google is designed to provide brands with a first step to generating actual value from Google search results. I c…

Perhaps, but Google has already been claiming[1] that such spending provides positive value (though I have no idea how true that is for whatever brands they're pursuing here) [1] http://searchengineland.com/ebay-says-adwords-ineffective-go... > On average, 50% of the ad clicks that occurred with a top rank organic result are incremental, i.e., they would not be recovered organically if the ad campaign is paused.

Also it is generally really cheap to buy that ad, so even if the incremental value is small it is still worth it. It also keeps you on top of anyone else bidding on your brand, if you brand is generic enough for them to get away with it.

Re: New banner ads push actual Google results to bottom 12% of the screen

#92

Post by robryan »

svantana wrote: post #84
spindritf wrote: post #6

Someone searching for Southwest Airlines is probably looking for... Southwest Airlines. So the very first result is a useful one. With sections of the official website conveniently linked and a pretty picture on top. This sounds to me like a complete non-issue. If you don't like ads, install AdBlock. Of course if you need clicks for your website, carry on.

This worries me though. I use AdBlock and get really annoyed when using friends' machines without it. But the system won't work if too many people use AdBlock. So if more ads -> more adblock -> then what? My nightmare scenario is the spread of what already goes on on alot of less scrupulous sites: "we have detected that you are using AdBlock. Turn it off to view our content". It reminds me of the excellent dystopia-s…

And so it should, the content can only be provided for free because people are being exposed to the ads.

Re: New banner ads push actual Google results to bottom 12% of the screen

#93

Post by barista »

spankalee wrote: post #87

Disclaimer: I'm a Googler I think this is a pretty disingenuous analysis of what's going on. It's obvious from the comparison to the [Virgin America] search that this is a bigger change that just adding a "banner ad". Notice that for [Virgin America] there are _two_ spots that bring you to virginamerical.com, the ad and the first organic result. This is redundant, wastes space, and probably is confusing to some users…

Who cares? The stock is over 1K now!!!

Re: New banner ads push actual Google results to bottom 12% of the screen

#94

Post by r00fus »

aegiso wrote: post #53

Whoa, I just had a flash forward to 2030. First, probe the outrage machine for banners for particular brands. Then for a huge price tag, add lightweight widgets to the SERP for brands so searchers can e.g. buy tickets from the Google Search page. This is hailed by the brands as increasing sales dramatically. Demand for this feature grows. Once significant numbers are using the SERP widgets, make the banners/widgets p…

At what point does Google step straight into Evil territory?

Google will never buy airlines, it'd be like Apple taking over the music industry.

Besides, Airlines are a very low-margin business. How would a GOOG investor react to them taking on such a margins-killing subsidiary?

Re: New banner ads push actual Google results to bottom 12% of the screen

#95

Post by joseph_cooney »

saraid216 wrote: post #82
xux wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But maybe I'm thirsting to learn more about the juicy fruit. Do I get a page courtesy of Apple Inc too?

Most people would actually search "apples".

really? how do you know?

Re: New banner ads push actual Google results to bottom 12% of the screen

#96

Post by burgreblast »

spindritf wrote: post #6

Someone searching for Southwest Airlines is probably looking for... Southwest Airlines. So the very first result is a useful one. With sections of the official website conveniently linked and a pretty picture on top. This sounds to me like a complete non-issue. If you don't like ads, install AdBlock. Of course if you need clicks for your website, carry on.

I thought Adblock did a deal with Google so Adwords etc were whitelisted?

Re: New banner ads push actual Google results to bottom 12% of the screen

#97

Post by danso »

spankalee wrote: post #87

Disclaimer: I'm a Googler I think this is a pretty disingenuous analysis of what's going on. It's obvious from the comparison to the [Virgin America] search that this is a bigger change that just adding a "banner ad". Notice that for [Virgin America] there are _two_ spots that bring you to virginamerical.com, the ad and the first organic result. This is redundant, wastes space, and probably is confusing to some users…

So if it's illogical for companies to buy ad space on queries for which they are the top result...why would they (presumably) fork over even more money to have an attractive banner ad? If a user is searching explicitly for Southwest Airlines...which seems to be the most conceivable non-sinister scenario to show the SA banner ad...how does it help the company or the user to have the interface suddenly change?

Maybe the answer is, "Well, because companies --and their marketing people -- are dumb like that, so, if they want to throw money at us..." Still, seems like it adds more complexity to both the backend logic and the front-end, while at the same time, harming opposing viewpoints. For example, Scientology is the first organic result for a search for "scientology" and thus deserves the opportunity to have a banner ad. And yet the banner ad as presented by the OP would push Scientology's apparently-well-SEOptimized opponents well below the fold.

(not to pick on Scientology, it's just the one religion/group example in which its opponents are almost as well known as the organization itself)

Re: New banner ads push actual Google results to bottom 12% of the screen

#98

Post by warfangle »

danso wrote: post #97
spankalee wrote: post #87

Disclaimer: I'm a Googler I think this is a pretty disingenuous analysis of what's going on. It's obvious from the comparison to the [Virgin America] search that this is a bigger change that just adding a "banner ad". Notice that for [Virgin America] there are _two_ spots that bring you to virginamerical.com, the ad and the first organic result. This is redundant, wastes space, and probably is confusing to some users…

So if it's illogical for companies to buy ad space on queries for which they are the top result...why would they (presumably) fork over even more money to have an attractive banner ad? If a user is searching explicitly for Southwest Airlines...which seems to be the most conceivable non-sinister scenario to show the SA banner ad...how does it help the company or the user to have the interface suddenly change? Maybe th…

Maybe they redesigned their landing page, and it is no longer top for organic results for a search term they practically own, e.g., [Virgin America]?

Re: New banner ads push actual Google results to bottom 12% of the screen

#99

Post by hhw3h »

spankalee wrote: post #87

Disclaimer: I'm a Googler I think this is a pretty disingenuous analysis of what's going on. It's obvious from the comparison to the [Virgin America] search that this is a bigger change that just adding a "banner ad". Notice that for [Virgin America] there are _two_ spots that bring you to virginamerical.com, the ad and the first organic result. This is redundant, wastes space, and probably is confusing to some users…

Disclaimer: Search Marketer

Advertisers see incremental value in advertising on their brand traffic for many reasons including directing traffic, controlling messaging, etc. plus in some cases have seen incremental gains in brand traffic. See this blog post for more details.

http://www.rimmkaufman.com/blog/the-cardinal-sin-of-paid-sea...

Therefore what is interesting to me about combining a paid brand banner ad and organic links is the limited control the advertiser has in directing their brand traffic or controlling the copy whether the headline or site links. They also lose the ability to report on that traffic as paid brand traffic which is probably fine to the advertiser as the traffic is then reflected as a corresponding increase in organic.

Again to spankalee's point it is an experiment so I am sure the functionality will develop over time.

Re: New banner ads push actual Google results to bottom 12% of the screen

#100

Post by nl »

spankalee wrote: post #87

Disclaimer: I'm a Googler I think this is a pretty disingenuous analysis of what's going on. It's obvious from the comparison to the [Virgin America] search that this is a bigger change that just adding a "banner ad". Notice that for [Virgin America] there are _two_ spots that bring you to virginamerical.com, the ad and the first organic result. This is redundant, wastes space, and probably is confusing to some users…

Oh wow..

From my point of view the point here is the "Chinese Wall"[1] that used to exist between organic results and paid advertising.

That used to be clearly defined, and the trust that came from that was one of Google's strengths.

The way the "Sponsored" result hides the organic result for [Southwest Airlines] (by scrolling it off the page) makes that wall redundant - effectively Google is being paid for any click there. Or that's what I think anyway: your comment "the navigational ad and the first organic result are combined" makes me think that Google is actually combining paid and organic results without labelling them separately at all. In that case the "Chinese Wall" is gone completely.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_wall

Post reply on HN