Time for marketers to stop treating customers like fools
One reason Google has been so successful is that it has shown a genuine respect for its customers.
“Google’s fourth-quarter revenues were up 18% to $5.7 billion, a solid showing,” Fortune reported in January 2009. The article goes on to state that “Google is transferring almost half a billion dollars in wealth from shareholders to employees,” as a motivation and retention strategy.
Yahoo, on the other hand, “has frozen annual pay increases for its employees as the Internet company battles with a difficult online advertising market,” Reuters reported in January 2009.
Google and Yahoo operate in the same online advertising marketplace. So, why is Google’s revenue up 18 percent, while Yahoo continues to struggle?
I visited the Rolling Stone website recently. I saw a link for “Best albums of 2008″ and clicked on it. The page I arrived at was totally dominated by a large ad flashing repeatedly in fluorescent green, screaming out at me: “THIS IS NOT A JOKE. Congratulations you’ve won.” There were two buttons underneath this statement. “Click here to join” and “Cancel”.
How could a company like Rolling Stone put an ad like that on its website? To me, Rolling Stone is a reputable, trustworthy brand. On seeing that ad I was shocked that Rolling Stone would stoop so low, would treat its customers as such fools. It will be quite a while-if ever-when I go back to the Rolling Stone website.
The experience at Rolling Stone reminded of an excellent and shocking article I read by Benjamin Edelman called, “False and deceptive display ads at Yahoo’s Right Media.”
“Given limited enforcement of restrictions on deceptive online advertising, numerous banner advertisers are willing to resort to trickery to draw attention to their offerings,” Benjamin writes. “And plenty of web site publishers stand ready to run deceptive ads. But widespread distribution of deceptive ads also requires another crucial input: intermediary ad networks to broker ad placement and tracking. Key among these intermediaries: Yahoo, whose Right Media marketplace facilitates so much of this traffic that Right Media classifies advertisers’ deceptive tactics into dozens of detailed categories.”
Not alone does Right Media condone deceptive advertising but it actually seems to encourage it. “Right Media encouraged publishers to accept ads tagged with negative categories,” Benjamin states. “For example, in a 2006 message to Direct Media Exchange publishers, a Right Media staff person commented that ads in the “‘free’ and similar representations with NO disclosure language” category “can get a lot of clicks and conversions and should probably be allowed” — completely ignoring the ads’ tendency to deceive and their apparent violation of applicable FTC requirements.
“As to ads that are difficult to close or exit, the Right Media staff person encouraged publishers to ignore the problem since publishers get paid no matter users’ experience: “It is something that may affect the user after they click the ad, but won’t create undesirable behavior on your site.”
Too much of old marketing saw the primary purpose of advertising as to deceive, manipulate and trick. But marketing doesn’t have to be that way. Google is proving that the greatest and most profitable advertising of all is that which customers find useful.
False and Deceptive Display Ads at Yahoo’s Right Media
Glenn Murray says:
Added on February 1st, 2009 at 10:28 pmCouldn’t agree more. Traffic is meaningless without conversion. (I’d hesitate to attribute Yahoo’s troubles entirely to its advertising practices, but I’m sure they’ve played a part.)
And the problem extends beyond advertising, to copywriting generally, and to SEO. Consider the needlessly long copy of many sales pages. Copy should be as long as it needs to be, not as long as it CAN be. And that need is dictated by the reader. If you write long copy simply because you believe the false blanket rule that it’s more effective, without regard to the needs of your readers, you’re ignoring your readers. (Maybe not treating them as fools, but certainly diminishing their importance.) And if you know your readers prefer (respond better to) short copy, yet you write long copy anyway, you ARE treating them as fools.
(I’m not trying to re-ignite the long v short copy argument. To the contrary. I think that argument should be buried forever. Copy length is all about applicability. It should be driven by reader need, not rules.)
Much of the SEO world is similarly driven by blind faith in rules (more copy = better; higher keyword density = better) and by a clear lack of focus on conversion. Page after thousand-word page of aggressively optimized content may – I repeat MAY – lead to a better ranking, and thus more traffic, but it’s unlikely to lead to more conversions. SEOs that focus ONLY on these factors are doing so at the expense of their readers. They’re either treating their readers as fools, or ignoring them altogether.
(I say “MAY lead to a better ranking” because the search engines consider many signals other than copy volume and keyword density – for what that term’s worth – when indexing and ranking a page. A copy-heavy, keyword rich page with nothing else to offer is unlikely to rank well.)
Cheers, Glenn (twitter: @divinewrite)
Ryan Kennedy says:
Added on February 2nd, 2009 at 4:08 amToo right, this applies across all kinds of sites, from the Googles and Yahoos right down to your one-author blog. A lying ad is a showstopper in terms of audience trust in your site. Sounds obvious when you spell it out - no wonder Yahoo’s in trouble.
Jenn_lee_ca says:
Added on February 2nd, 2009 at 8:46 pmIn Rolling Stone’s case, what is more important, online advertising revenue or providing a “good online experience” at Rollingstone.com? And what does it mean to provide a “good online experience” for a user of the Rollingstone website?
I think this is the same thing happening to many websites. There is no strategy and no connection as to why organizations have website. If Rollingstone.com is a revenue source, then they are perfectly justified in having that banner ad. I feel that it is tough to comment on their decision (or if it was their decision at all) without knowing some of their deciding factors.
I think given the financial crisis, it is really tough for companies to turn down money. The question is, what is more important? The ability to collect a revenue or the web strategy?
Neil Minetto says:
Added on February 2nd, 2009 at 11:46 pmI completely agree. In fact, I just wrote a post about this myself - http://blog.neilminetto.com/2009/01/24/give-it-to-me-straight/ I believe that people are not dumb anymore and if they are they will come to the web to educate themselves! If you aren’t giving it to the people straight they will see right through it.
Jackie Wheeler says:
Added on February 3rd, 2009 at 6:43 pmI agree with this too. Also, Google has the process down on making it easy to create and manage pay per click ads. Yahoo’s process is cumbersome and so confusing. I still have not successfully been able to get any PPC ads to show up on Yahoo. My ads on Google have been running for years.
Jackie (twitter: @jwheel_nc)
Chris Sledzik says:
Added on February 3rd, 2009 at 8:28 pmI’m in complete agreement. The decision to market without fully considering the end-users’ experience mimics the shortcomings of marketing without doing enough research. Coming at this from a public relations perspective, I pull from the two-way communications ideals of assuring that both the site and the user are befitting from the total experience. Too often sites look at things from a one-way, “push it all at them” mind-set.