Letter published in NMA

Thought I’d quickly post this, as I wanted to get my word in before I take another beating on the forum from the usual suspects.

I wrote this last week, because I read James Little’s letter and didn’t feel it was a fair reflection on the state of play in the space.

Some of our clients adopt a brand bidding strategy, a carefully briefed group of affiliates who have permission to represent our clients in he Paid Search space.  Some don’t allow brand bidding full stop.  None offer a free-for-all on brand, as this would be a nightmare to manage and result in spiralling bid prices and bad moods from Search agencies.  Take a look at the forums for problems with a brand bidding policy in the program T&Cs – networks generally get a shoeing for it.

Brand extension is where we concentrate our advice and efforts.  Exact match is a no-brainer and I am not advocating that, what it does act as though is a licence – for affiliates to reinvest in generic terms. Exact match gets bad press and is doing so presently, because of the cookie overwrite issue.  It’s a fair point. We are looking at the option of taking the brand affiliate out of the mix, or paying multiple referrers, but realistically this is still some way off. Mainly due to the lack of match fit technical partners providing reliable data at the reporting end.

That said,  exact match in isolation isn’t advised – it’s merely going to cannibalise your direct search activity, leading you to misreport on sales, and will piss off your hard-working, content affiliates.  The 80 who drive the crucial 20, and it’s growth in that 20 which will bring you more sales.

Still, I’ve learnt that if you have an opinion and are prepared to share it, then you’ll get a few people who don’t agree, call you an idiot, disrespect you on public forums, etc.  Thick skin will allow you to air your views and potentially someone will agree, or at least be interested to find out more.

Here’s the article: Letter in NMA 26/03/2008 – Brand bidding can be of benefit