Will MSN Use PPC to Challenge Google?

[Robert]

Source: Search Engine Guide

http://www.searchengineguide.com/laycock/002984.html

Snippet:
How will a PPC product help Microsoft challenge Google and Yahoo! in the search wars? After all, no one selects a search engine based on their PPC offerings. That said, search engines rely on earnings from the PPC programs to help fund improvements to their organic search products.

[divshow]

Veeerrrrryyyy Interesting!!!!

As an Adwords user...I'm all for new arenas for PPC.

If anyone hears when this will launch, please let me know!!

[David Wallace]

How will Microsoft beat Google and Overture in a PPC war? The same way they have always beat everyone else - by either buying them out or bullying them. I remember when Overture had market share in partners to distribute their PPC ads. Now Google has the lion's share especially with all of the thousands of AdSense partners it has.

MSN would have to find a way to take those search partners away in the same way Google did with Overture and then like Jennifer noted in her article, offer a better revenue earning model to people currently using AdSense. I have to say though that this will not be easy and a task that I hope Microsoft WILL NOT be able to accomplish.

[Robert]

...offer a better revenue earning model to people currently using AdSense

That's one task I hope they accomplish!

I have very few complaints about Google when it comes to AdSense and Adwords but I am looking forward to seeing what Microsoft can roll out.

As both an advertiser and publisher I'm always happy to have more options.

[clubafrika]

This is very welcome news. I have always thought that Google is short changing me with Adsense. They have always kept it a secret as to how they calculate their Adsense payments. Google also has a set of draconian rules as to what, where and how you can place their code on your website ....totally anti-competition.

When MSN PPC rolls in Google will be forced to re-examine their rules. I particularly dislike Google's heavy handed approach to banning sites they feel are not following their guidelines.

MSN PPC is very welcome. Everybody benefits!

[thejenn]

Keep in mind that there's an upside and a downside to Microsoft offering a PPC program, especially if they offer a syndicated content ad program along with it.

Sure, it'd be great if Microsoft would offer a revenue share program that gave double, even triple the pay that AdSense does. Chances are, site owners would flock to their program...can't say I'd blame them.

But...if this happens and it does result in Google being driven from the business, you might then face a world in which Microsoft is the only one that you can get syndicated ads from, which would make it very easy for Microsoft to say "hey...we know you liked those great revenue shares, but we've decided to cut back" and then cut the revenue share to half of what Google offers now.

Remember, in a monopoly, you can do whatever you want. Now, if Microsoft and Google can both manage to stay in the game with programs like AdSense, we all stand to benefit, but it's certainly not in any of our best interests to have Microsoft manage to topple Google's AdSense program.

[rread]

As much as I am suspect of MSN acting as though they are creating products and services that are for the benifit of mankind. We know they benifit Microsoft stock holders more than anyone else. But another player in the PPC and Search arena can only serve to create a better competition and promt everyone involved to have competitive pricing (yeah) and easier PPC programs. If this goes like other industries such as PC's, auto and Airline industries, it will be confusing in the begining, but eventually the benifits of a competitive market place will trickle down to the consumer.

Wishfull thinking? ...sure but why be negative in the face of a future change.
RR

[haystack]

Microsoft's deep pockets would allow them to offer generous revenue shares to syndication partners, whether they be other search engines or content partners, but revenue share only matters if you also have a large network of PPC advertisers spending money you can then share.

How hard would be be to get into the game? Microsoft has a large enough market just from their own site to make it tough for advertisers to ignore. They could offer some generous startup incentives and if they were really smart, offer a way to easily port your Overture or Adwords campaign directly into their interface. This would be less of a problem for large advertisers using 3rd party bid managment tools, but the vast majority of PPC advertisers do not.

However, Microsoft could decide to stay the course with Overture. As I understand it, Microsoft likely make more off the Overture ads served on MSN.com than Overture does. And that's before taking the administrative costs Overture has to absorb. Perhaps Microsoft will just keep saying they're going to create their own program as a negotiating tactic to gain more favorable terms from Overture?

[StupidScript]

Personally, I hope MS does continue to use Overture's PPC ads.

Q: Why switch to a brand new internal system?
A: Income for the operator.

Q: How could this be a drawback for advertisers?
A: More expense or fewer eyeballs.

Consider: I have $10,000 per month in an advertising budget for PPC. I currently spend $5,000 with G, and $5,000 with O. Here comes M! So do I do $5,000 for G and $2,500 each for M and O? I've just lost a bunch of eyeballs on the Overture affiliate network. So do I put $5,000 into each of them? That's $5,000 more per month to reach the same eyeballs as before.

I've heard arguments that splitting the budget between the three will result in the same eyeball quantity, but that doesn't make sense: when M used O for PPC, we got all of O and M put together. If M starts their own PPC, then the money that comes out of O diminishes our O saturation ... hence fewer O eyeballs, and no new M eyeballs (they were already looking at our O ads). Then we'd need to ramp up an M PPC program, and do battle (as before) with the new crop of M advertisers.

I'll bet dollars to donuts that the price one will pay for an M PPC term will exceed the O bid prices quite quickly. If it was pretty easy to convince advertisers to pony up $50 per click on a relatively no-name enterprise like Overture/GoTo, then it will be really easy to sell an even higher-priced bidding structure for the brand name gorilla Microsoft.

Plus, I don't enjoy the prospect of M having all of our PPC data. It already bothers me when O or G use our (identity-less) data, but for M to have it?! That's like offering to let the CIA tap your phone! Nuh-uh.

Bottom line: I don't like the idea of M starting a PPC venture.

<edit>Welcome aboard, haystack and clubafrika! </edit>

[haystack]

Thanks for the welcome, StupidScript.

I think more top-tier PPC providers helps the advertiser who's willing to learn how to use each system or use a tool to manage the various campaigns from a central location because some businesses will be simply too lazy, so you'll benefit from lower competition on each individual program. Of course, this doesn't really apply to the most competitive terms since the businesses competing in that arena are like vultures looking for anything approaching cheap traffic that they can get their beaks on.

PPC advertisers are a fairly pragmatic bunch (Missourians, perhaps), so I doubt they'll spend more on PPC based on the brand of the PPC company. It all comes down to performance. If MSN has a superior network of syndication partner and does a better job preventing fraudulent clicks, yes, the bids may be higher, but not because of the brand.

As for who's more evil, I'm not sure. People generally seem willing to give up a lot of privacy if they can see a benefit from it. For example, using the conversion tracking tools from any PPC provider is practically sleeping with the enemy, but hey, it's free.