Recent Posts

The future never gets old.

Latest Topics

Where our attentions lie today.

Recent Authors

Eager beavers.

Archives

The past, in blog form.

Paid Search

posted by Rick Webb
Rick Webb
Rick Webb

Co-founder, COO : New York

topics: Installations, Strategy, Alcoholic Beverages, Viral Marketing, and Barbarian

on July 15, 2008 at 02:48 PM
filed under: Search
So I’ve been reading all of these recent articles – like this one in adweek – that talk about how agencies aren’t buying search terms around their names and OMG it totally shows that they don’t get digital. I’m completely stumped why these articles have appeared in like three different publications have mentioned this lately – seems to be the new fad in interactive agency journalism.
It’s totally crazy, though. Like does anyone even GET search? Seriously? It makes me think no one does. Why on earth would I spend money on buying search against my own company name when we own the entire page for a search for “barbarian group,” and are near the top for just the word “barbarian?” People can find us. And I get a free message, right there, if they DO search, in the form of a summary. Why do I need to pay for that?
But even more so, it’s probably worth noting there is nothing new under the sun here. Agencies don’t typically run billboards either, do they? Or buy broadcast? Occasionally agencies buy print advertising, but they do so in B2B publications, where they know their audience is the audience they are trying to reach. If someone types “barbarian group” into Google, they will find us. If they type “Barbarian,” I don’t know they’re looking for us, so that would be a poor user experience to misdirect them to our site. I suppose we could buy search against phrases like “online marketing” and “viral marketing,” but a) we don’t need the business, and b) I’d have to return the kickbacks we get from the search consultants. (JOKE).
I suppose this is also a good time to mention I think search is in most cases a waste of money except in very specific circumstances generally involving e-commerce, selling things on the web, or leading people to a branded utility that they may not be aware your brand offers (a la Kashi).
It’s probably also a good time to note that the entire ad industry is way too obsessed with search. It’s like the entire industry being obsessed with direct mail and not having discovered the billboard or television spot yet. I’m as in awe as the next guy of Googles amazing ability to basically make money out of thin air, but it’s got nought to do with brand marketing.

2 comments

well said. i worked for a SEM company, and your right on with its best use being e-commerce. and from a consumer standpoint, organic listings are much more valued then paid.
Rick, you’re absolutely right. I’ve been perplexed by the sort of illogic you reference here, because it indicates a myopic view of marketing and context. For instance, in the AW article, Craig Conrad is quoted as saying, "It's very difficult to recommend certain things to your clients if you're not in the game yourself.” His ridiculous statement completely ignores context, and how it differs greatly between a retail client and a marketing agency. Misunderstanding context would seem to be a cardinal sin for a marketing director.

My agency does not utilize paid search because that’s not how our clients find us. Not only would paid search not attract our target audience, it would attract the sort of client we specifically want to avoid. So paid search would be a lose-lose situation for us (lose-lose-lose, when you consider the unnecessary expense involved).

The fact is that smart agencies know their clients, know where to find them, and know where not to find them. Creative agencies are experts at understanding context; something Andrew McMains of AW—and the others writing on this topic—clearly do not get.