Good posts:
headsurfer writes - "No matter what it costs in the end, it costs a LOT less then buying a side bar ad just from Yahoo. A small fraction. $36 bucks is outrageous but it does fluctuate. We have paid as little as $10. We mainly buy this so that we get exposure at Yahoo and AOL without having to buy directly from them."
nousername writes - "Hmm.. with google we had set a $25 CPC. This means we were right up the top of the list. Now yes this meant paying a lot more for a click but it didnt mean we were paying $25 per click! That is the maximum. According to google it is all done according to time of the day and how busy they are."
Interesting notes. Apparently paying for a static ad can be much more expensive than a pay-per-click listing. Got it. I wonder what Yahoo's banner CPMs are these days?
Mik, good "abuse" link example.
I still feel the earlier notes about competitors launching directed efforts to increase the marketing expenses of other companies seem like they could be affectively combated. The lengths SpamBattle wants people to go to in order to appear unconnected to them (or otherwise filterable) seems like it would need to be carried out routinely by an severely obsessive compulsive individual. The less obsessed would probably lose interest quickly, or not cover their tracks well.
Were I Overture, I can't imagine not being able to think of ways of better insuring a majority of valid leads. You'd think they'd use unique clients and cookies on some level. After a while, while perfectly "doable", it becomes a real "job" trying to get your "screw" to really hit its target (as opposed to an "easy-going" passtime activity). For a competitor, time would be better spent improving their product, instead of clearing the battle field for their other competitors.
Increasing someone's marketing costs artificially and lowering their ROI doesn't seem like a practical use of anyone's time to me still. Then again, I don't understand script kiddies much either, even when talking to them at length.
\\ WIZ // |