January 16, 2007

Ad nauseam...

A couple years ago when I'd brag about Delicious Library (which I hardly ever do) I'd say, "All this without ever advertising!"

I stopped saying that because we do advertise now, and lying is bad. ("We" in this case is me and the frog in my pocket. I call him "Sir Jumpy.") I thought I'd share the little I've learned about advertising as a smallish software company. (Again, the Sir Jumpy and I incorporated a while ago, for tax reasons.)

- Advertising in magazines: pretty much sucks. Well, it might not suck, but you'll never know. First off, nobody reads magazines any more. Proof: what are you reading right now? Is it a magazine? No. There -- what more do you need? (If a single data point doesn't define a trend, then I guess our entire war on terror was a huge mistake?) Second, even if people did read magazines, you'd never know which ads of yours were effective, since there's no really good feedback mechanism of which I know. Third, magazine ads typically cost big bucks.

Magazine guys have told me, "Hey, advertising isn't to generate sales, it's to generate exposure!" OMGWTF?! If I wanted exposure I'd move the L.A. and go clubbing every night with Paris Hilton and her growing menagerie of hangers-on and/or venereal diseases. I WANT SALES, DAMMIT! I'm not paying for some squishy "exposure" thing. Give me money. That's what I want.

Also, magazine ads are really hard to compose, so you'll spend a bunch of time and effort trying to make one that looks all professional and shit, but you're a software developer, not a professional ad-making-type-person (hmm, there's probably a better word for that) so, if you'll forgive me for saying so, your ad is probably going to look like shit. And, you're probably going to forget to bring teh funny in your effort to look all professional, so you'll just end up alienating your core market of crazy independent thinkers with your attempts to look all sophistomicated. (Remember this is a community where the most remembered ads are a lady smashing a T.V. and "It sucks less.")

- Advertising on Mac-specific web sites: pretty good for me. My advice for this is the same advice I give for picking stocks: pick the sites that you yourself really like. (As opposed to "you notyourself" -- that guy has no taste.) I advertise on Crazy Apple Rumors because I think that guy is teh hilarious (that's two -- if I use "teh" one more time it's going to be funny, given the comedy rule of threes) and because it's a tiny site and he basically was willing to sell me the ad space for a hot dog and a cup of coffee.

Now, I don't get complete sell-thru data from C.A.R.S. (see next section), but I *do* get to track referrals from them to my site using the cool tools provided by my web host (in my case, it's called "Urchin"), so I can measure some of the efficacy of this, and I've found that, per dollar, C.A.R.S sends as many people my way as Google's ads. Since C.A.R.S. readers are also clearly Mac fans and have demonstrated their superior intellects by reading such a fine site, my estimation is they are more highly qualified customers than the generic Google referral, so this advertising was worth it to me, even though the total volume of hits I get is, of course, an order of magnitude smaller than with Google.

- Advertising on Google Adwords: good if you are VERY careful. For the two of you who don't know already, Google makes its zetazillion dollars a year by allowing advertisers to bid on placing ads on (a) search results pages, and (b) blogs and the like (called the "content network"). Because Google is made up of a bunch of well-massaged, well-fed, lovable computer wonks (seriously, Google employees are the Kobe Beef of computer programmers), they've designed an incredibly rich set of tools for setting up and monitoring your ads.

The basic idea is that the advertiser (me, in this case) says, "I'll pay up to 10 cents for Google to display my ad on a page that mentions 'Collecting' and 'DVDs'." If I'm among the top six or so bidders for any given page, my ad gets displayed. If my ad never makes it into the top six, or if nobody ever clicks on my ad, Google automatically disables it and tells me I better up my ante.

One of the coolest parts of their system, though, is that they automatically track customers who have used AdWords to get to my site, and I can tell Google if a particular "session" ended with a sale, so, for what I believe is the first time in the history of advertising, I can actually track exactly which ads, run where, cause customers to buy my product, not just "eyeball" it or be "exposed" to it or whatever. This is truly amazing.

There's a bunch of other factors in all this, but that's a rough outline of how it works. So, what's the problem? Well, the first thing scammers started doing was clicking on their competitors' ads; if you sell library software and you see an ad for your competitor, you might think, "Hey, I can just sit here clicking this link all day, and it'll cost him 10 cents every time! MUAH HA HA!" Now, I've set up a limit on AdWords on how much I'm willing to spend per day, but even so, if you false-click enough of my ads, they'll stop showing up for legitimate customers for the rest of the day, so you can essentially do a denial-of-service just by leaning on my ad, in addition to costing me money. CURSE YOU!

Sucks, huh? Well, Google claims they've figured out how to detect this, but of course isn't giving any details. In my experience, this kind of "click-fraud" isn't the primary problem with AdWords, but it's something to think about.

The latest form of fraud I've read about works like this: some unscrupulous site picks a bunch of words that are close to the words you'd use to advertise your product, but not quite (for example, common misspellings). They then bid, say, a penny for those words, since they are so uncommon. People who search for those words are led to a page on their site which contains Google content ads for YOUR site, for which you're paying ten cents a pop. Sure, it's not illegal, but it's kind of a sucky thing to do, in that it ends up getting around Google's automatic suggesting of similar, more successful searches, which would lead people directly to your ad and/or your site without your ad.

I don't know exactly of what kind of shenanigans I was the victim, but a couple months ago (November-December) I discovered that my cost-per-conversion (that's how many dollars I spent on advertising to generate a single sale) went from around $29 per customer to around $75 per customer. Yipes!

Now, even $29 per customer may seem high on a $40 product, but I like to fudge it in my head and think, "Sure, but think of the exposure!" I mean, there is a certain value in just having your name repeated, over and over, so I factor that in to how much I value AdWords. Also, there's a value to getting a customer for a 1.0 product at any price, because once gotten (gotten?) you don't have to advertise to her to get her to upgrade to 2.0.

But $75 per customer? So I'm losing $35 for each customer I get through AdWords? What am I, Sony?

So I started diving into Urchin, and the first thing I discovered is a VERY VERY high percentage of referrals to our site (ONLY during the months where I started losing money) came from some place called "www.losmejores-juegos.com/g-common2.googleadd.php". Take a good look at that URL... it just kind of sounds suspicious, doesn't it? I mean, a whole page just for "googleadd"? Why not just call your page "clickfraud.php"?

I went to that page (now defunct) and it was very much just a referral page full of ads. Hmm.

Then, on AdWords, I discovered that my ads on the "content network" were sucking up all of my ad budget every day, in just a couple hours, so I wouldn't run any ads for the rest of the day, in either the content network or for search pages.

Hmm and hmm, I say.

The smoking gun, however, was that these "content network" ads, while claiming to reach hundreds of thousands of people a week, were generating NO revenue. I mean, literally NONE. None of these "people" who were clicking through these ads (remember the user has to click on an ad for me to have to pay for it) to my site were ever buying my product!

Well, I know from earlier statistics (back before I was getting boned by los dickheads) what ratio of people normally buy Delicious Library after clicking through to our site, and it was WAY more than, say, 0%.

What was the solution? Well, in this case, I did two things: one is, I assumed that losmejores-juegos.com was up to no good, and added them to my AdWords list of sites that are simply not allowed to run my ads any more. Screw you guys, I'm going home.

Second, I discovered that historically, "content network" ads on Google really kind of suck -- they suck down the majority of my ad budget and almost never generate conversions (sales). So, to hell with them -- I lowered my bids on the content network down to almost nothing.

Result? My cost per new customer averaged $13.20 for the first ten days of January, instead of $75. Hooray for Zoidburg! Everything's coming up Millhouse! And other Groeing quotes!

I also wrote Google about all this (twice), but received a stock responses that basically said, "If you decide you don't want your ads on a certain site, just exclude them" and then "We watch for clickfraud in general, we're not going to look into this particular case."

So, to summarize: Google AdWords can be really good, but don't depend on Google to make sure you don't get boned. Concentrate on the search ads, and don't bid high for any ads on the content network right now. Honestly, the content network never really paid off for me even when I wasn't being actively defrauded, and recently it made me not only waste my entire ad budget, but also made me thus miss advertising to legitimate customers on the search side, because my budget was drained.

Sir Jumpy says: Google content network == teh suck.

Labels: ,


Anonymous stoom said...

Hi I am from Holland, freeitngs!

January 16, 2007 5:01 AM

Anonymous Mark said...

Nice read, but isn't his name "Zoidberg" ? ;-)

January 16, 2007 5:17 AM

Anonymous Not Mark said...

No, Mark. If Wil says his name is Sir Jumpy, then it must be. Who would name frogs after Groeing's characters, anyway?

January 16, 2007 5:29 AM

Blogger nic mitham said...

Wow. I can feel your pain. Great post.

From first hand experience of working with small software companies in the UK, the best way to grow sales (via marketing) is through integration.

Taking a singular (typically product-led) concept and placing it into carefully selected specialist publications. Then supporting this print effort with (and you've aluded to this) carefully selected PPC. From here, taking the print concept and deploying it into 'call to action' direct mail and expo materials.

Taking this approach (as opposed to a more quantity-driven online tactic) gets the right balance of quality leads and sufficient volume of enquiry.

January 16, 2007 5:53 AM

Blogger Nathan said...

The magazine ad guys are right. You are confusing Advertising and Marketing. Pure advertising has no sales goals -- that's marketing's domain. Advertising is only used to generate exporsure and build a brand. It is used as a component of Marketing, which handles things like sales forecasting.

So...give those magazine guys a break...and don't spend too much time with Ms. Hilton. You never know what you'll pick up...

January 16, 2007 5:58 AM

Blogger Ahruman said...

@Nathan: in the worst case, Britney. A grave threat indeed.

January 16, 2007 6:21 AM

Blogger archived said...

You have such a cute profile!
I was wondering if you would be interested in making me a profile.

January 16, 2007 6:36 AM

Anonymous Jonas Greitemann said...

I agree with you.
Take Apple's tv ads for example:
Is anybody willing to buy an iPod because some crazy dancers jumping across the screen? No. But these pretty cool ads make the customers associate "cool" with "iPod" or "Apple"! Therefor they'll buy all this overpriced stuff. ;-)

January 16, 2007 6:49 AM

Blogger duckalope said...

Surely in a post about advertising and marketing you'd talk about MacHeist. Ah well.

January 16, 2007 7:05 AM

Anonymous Alexandra said...

I've found Google AdWords to be pretty tricky and confusing at the beginning. Before I've set them up for us (Path Finder), I've read a lot of tips and howtos on the net and all the time the first thing that everyone said was: disable content network. I was kind of surprised, but I did what was told. So I was glad to read your post that explaned very well why would it be so bad to leave content network on :)

January 16, 2007 7:50 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm in advertising. First off as for magazines and discovering response rates, there are a multitude of ways to discover what is working for you. For example, you put an ad in one magazine with a discount code, or a phone number. Use a different number or code in another route of advertising. Right there you have a decent way to trace and track the response rates.

As for exposure... Why is Nike and Adidas still around, yet no one buys British Knights? The more exposure a company gains than the more likely that a consumer will buy that product when standing in a store and unsure which company's product to buy.

January 16, 2007 9:00 AM

Blogger Tim said...

@Wil: FWIW, I first heard of your product via a screencast of rooSwitch. I may be the only one, but you may want to consider that in some future advertising/marketing strategy.

January 16, 2007 9:41 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Would you care to explain how you go about to track a click-through to a sale?

January 16, 2007 10:05 AM

Anonymous Edward J. Stembler said...

Overture is another one I use. You have to be careful not to get into a keywords bidding war though. It can definitely get expensive if you want to be the first listing.

January 16, 2007 10:41 AM

Blogger Izzard said...

Great post. But I gotta ask: were you drinking when you wrote it?

January 16, 2007 11:53 AM

Blogger Carl Johnson said...

You might want to look at http://www.projectwonderful.com/ . It's like Google's content networks only rethunk so that click fraud is impossible. It has an interesting method at least.

January 16, 2007 12:00 PM

Anonymous Matt said...

Wow, so even with your new, improved, scheme Google gets about $13 out of every $40 you bring in through them? No wonder they can afford to take care of their beef er... programmers.

January 16, 2007 12:47 PM

Anonymous paulfm said...

Thanks Wil,
Informative post. Oneday I too will dive into the Adwords abyss.

January 16, 2007 12:56 PM

Anonymous alexrudloff said...

Awesome post! I've had my suspicions regarding the content network on google, great to see someone else echo that!

January 16, 2007 1:50 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

I suspect that many Mac developers, armed with a new product, look at AdWords and think "hmm, they're everywhere, they must work!". And they do: for Google.

As Wil found out, AdWords really can cost you hundreds of dollars per sale. The monitoring and analysis required is also a major timesuck. Time better spent in other areas that actually make money.

You're even more stuck if you're Mac-only because a hell of a lot of your clicks are going to come from non-Mac users, regardless of your wording. (Yet you still have to pay Google.)

My advice to other Mac developers:

1. If you compete with me, you must do AdWords. Sign up today! Put all of your resources into AdWords. Act now. Hopefully I will see your ads so that I can click on them!

2. If you are not a competitor, don't use Google AdWords.

Finally, I've never seen a Delicious Library AdWord. But, I've seen innumerable references to the product, to Wil, to his political views, his ego, his programing, random blog musings just like this one, etc. Guess which form of marketing has paid better dividends for Wil?

New name for blog: WilWords!

January 16, 2007 2:00 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Glad you were able to lower your cost per conversion to 13. We stopped using the content network in October for this reason, even though we had it targeted at Mac sites.

Dear other Anonymous,
Delicious Monster's web site uses Google Analytics, refered to as Urchin in this article (previous company name before being bought up), that integrates very well with AdSense. You can let it know what page means a sale was reached, even pass it the price and tax information for better reports.

January 16, 2007 2:03 PM

Blogger Dino Lestino said...

You might try Yahoo. I think their search network partners have a higher standard than Google's. Google lets a lot of people who buy expired domains and what not to use their system. If you are trying to sell something on your site - I would go with Yahoo until you reach a point where you just need more traffic and are willing to pay a higher amount.

January 16, 2007 3:24 PM

Blogger Nathan said...

@Ahruman: That made me literally laugh out loud.

January 16, 2007 3:29 PM

Blogger Wil Shipley said...

I gotta ask: were you drinking when you wrote it?

No, I've been laying off the sauce recently, actually. It was, however, really 4:30AM, and I was tired as heck, and a little sick from the flu.


I do actually use "Urchin" as well as "Google Analytics" -- Urchin is run by my web host, so it has more complete data, as I haven't enabled Analytics on all my pages.

January 16, 2007 3:33 PM

Anonymous Dmitry Chestnykh said...

Wil, thanks for sharing your experience -- it's a great post!

What I'm curious about is how much of your sales come from AdWords (in %%, approximately). Could you share this? :)

January 16, 2007 4:53 PM

Blogger Wil Shipley said...

It's a tiny, tiny percentage. But, again, who knows about the value of "having your name out there" and "getting down with the kids" and "snapping some funky turtles".

January 16, 2007 5:02 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

[from the WilWords anonymous]

I've just asked the sales person here about our success with Yahoo and was told that they're just as bad as Google's AdWords.

i.e. they both cost us money, lots of it, and that was after analysis, almost-daily jiggling of the bids, careful word selection, mixing up the strategies, and so on.


A much better bet is to do your own marketing. Pick Mac web sites that correspond to your product category, try to find niche sites with good fee::reader ratios.

And do what Wil does: blog marketing. Talk about Mac development (for the early-adopting geeks), how bad Bush is (for the politically naive yet earnest, soft-left urban DVD collectors subset), yourself (ego massaging if nothing else), your competitors, famous people you've met, payment systems, hell, anything as long as it pulls links in.

You could even talk about advertising on the interwebs... ;)

January 16, 2007 5:08 PM

Blogger EmailHosting.com said...

Wow! You are getting a lot of exposure through your blog. I didn't know that the content network could be any blog site which had relevant wording. I would much prefer my google adwords to appear on professional pages and not just some random pages created to make money.

Regardless, I think Google Adwords are a terrific bet considering you get exposure even when no one clicks on your ads. It's a great way to get your company name out there.

January 16, 2007 5:54 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Exposure is great, paying for it is bad news.

You can't use exposure to pay the rent. You can't track it easily so you most often don't know how effective your advertising budget is, if at all. It may feel nice and fuzzy to see your name up in lights (in 12pt text amongst a page full of 12pt text, all describing variations on the same thing) but will it result in the sale of an actual product?

Exposure through GoogleAds is tenuous, at best. You're going to need a strong link between the company identity and the thing you're selling. If you're Bill Smith Software, Inc. and you're selling CocoaThing2000, the "exposure" isn't going to help your bottom line much. MUCH more likely, you're going to help fatten the Kobe beef programmers at Google. (Not really. You'll only fatten the shareholders.)

But it's your money, go for it.

January 16, 2007 6:46 PM

Blogger Wil Shipley said...

The people who argue in favor of "exposure" pretty much only mention giant, national brands that are selling products that a huge percentage of the population needs or wants.

If I spent my money on general advertising I'd end up getting my name out to a ton of PC users (it's still 95% of everyone), which would be a huge waste.

With Mac-specific magazines, the percentage of potential customers is hopefully higher, but we're talking about a $40 app that you buy once -- I can't spend a lot of money getting my "brand" known when I'm only going to make one sale (and hopefully some upgrades).

With shoes or cars, you need a new one every couple years, so it makes sense to build the brand itself, rather than a particular product.

January 16, 2007 7:03 PM

Blogger Dustin said...

Excellent post. It's entertainingly frank and frighteningly true. To this day my company is hesitant to advertise online. We once used a $25 AdWords credit within a 24 to 48 hour period with no conversions. Since then, we haven't gone back.

One spanking is enough for me.

January 16, 2007 7:32 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Does google have a way for you to whitelist the sites that you do want to include? I would think that if you had a list of the top 200 or so legitmate mac fan/news/help sites, those would be worth running your ad on.


January 16, 2007 10:04 PM

Blogger Dmitry Chestnykh said...

Everyone who talks about making exposure instead of sales forgets that sales are the best (maximum) case of exposure and branding.

Consider these stages of advertizing results:

0. Customer don't see an ad.
1. Customer sees an ad, forgets.
2. Customer sees an ad, remembers your brand.
3. Customer sees an ad, remembers your brand and extra info about your product.
4. Customer sees an ad, remembers your brand and extra info about your product and considers purchasing it.
5. Customer sees an ad, and purchase your product.

The 5th has the maximum and the most cost-effective value with all branding effects.

January 17, 2007 12:40 AM

Blogger Dustin said...

Great post Wil.

My experience mirrors yours: content network BAD, search network can be pretty good (with some tweaking).

I've also played around with targeted-content network ads, which is basically just you picking the sites that you want your content-network ads showing on (and nothing else). It's between the other two in return, but closer to search then BAD.

January 17, 2007 1:03 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Most effective ads we've ever had: our customers.

It's a real nice feeling to see "friend" as a response to the checkout question "Where did you hear about us?". Not only is the advertising free (which, I assure you, is a huge relief after using Google Ads) but it means that someone is so impressed with your product that they're willing to recommend it themselves. No ad budget can buy that for you.

January 17, 2007 1:53 AM

Blogger Adam said...

that last "teh" was hilarious!!

January 17, 2007 2:01 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thanks for posting this. I knew I was getting boned with my AdWords account, but I never figured out where/how. Now I can consider re-enabling it.

January 17, 2007 10:34 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Does it mean DM is ripe for the acquisition?

January 17, 2007 10:56 AM

Blogger jcb said...

Nice read, but isn't his name "Groening" ? ;-)

January 17, 2007 9:09 PM

Blogger Luke said...

great post, interesting read.

January 18, 2007 6:11 AM

Blogger immixmarketer said...

Greetings. Great read, just a few comments:
1. As a former "Blog of Note" -er myself, a quick bit of advice; ignore the idiots.
2. As a current Online Advertising Exec. I have some ideas/solutions to offer, hopefully you'll respect my choice to NOT list these publicly, but for real, shoot me an e-mail or leave a comment on my page, and we'll get in touch.

January 19, 2007 8:54 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

blog of note = special insights?

bloggers really have come up in the world haven't they!

January 19, 2007 12:06 PM

Blogger helpless said...

Mmmmmarketing. It's a bit like home renovations, anyone can do it, but it's usually only the professional that does it very well.

(If a single data point doesn't define a trend, then I guess our entire war on terror was a huge mistake?)

Loved that bit.

January 19, 2007 4:16 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Where did you get your template??

January 20, 2007 2:03 PM

Anonymous javierdelgol said...

Hi, Nice Blog!!

January 21, 2007 2:22 PM

Blogger The Peter Files Blog of Comedy said...

Great blog. Thanks for the ad advice. Just about everyone on the internet can use it!

The Google advice in and of itself was worth a great deal to me.

As a lark, I had considered a tiny, tiny advertising budget for my blog just to see what would happen and I am now convinced that if I should ever be so inclined to do so, content ads are probably not the way to go.

In fact, my best bet is probably to leave comments on blogs like yours with a link to my blog. (That later).

That being said, I have to say, this is the second post of yours I've read, the first being about JPEG 2000 speeds, and I've already decided to bookmark you.

Hopefully, I'll be able to "pimp some of your code" too, or at least learn from it. I was disabled two years ago by an injury and have been using blogging to teach myself about html and internet applications with fair results. Time to kick myself into an upgrade though.

In the mean time, if you want a laugh, drop by my blog:

The Peter Files Blog of Comedy, Satire, Jokes, and Commentary

Unlike many, I actually do write a good hunk of the material myself. Yes, I do sometimes resort to YouTube, but after all, some things are too funny to skip. Search "Robin Williams" in the blue search box at the top to see why.

By the way, I did do a quick look at your delicious library project and it looked quite yummy, however, I am one of those sloths who are hoping to skip Tiger and upgrade up to Leopard instead.

Is D.L. 2.0 primarily seen as a Leopard upgrade or are new features, such as an eBay tie in part of the package? That is part of my interest. Fast scanning for eBay sales not related to my blog.

By the way, I hope you don't mind my saying that it was a bit too hard to find out the cost of the scanner on your site. You might not want it to be on the first page, but the icony thing was not enough of a clue.

Also, if this takes in digital camera input, why can't I just make a digital tape of the bar codes in my library, then play the m back into my Mac as the coding source? Or can this be done and I did not find it? If so, a mini-video of someone doing this on the DL front page would be a tremendous incentive for those with a greedy but lazy soul - "look, all I have to do is film my bar codes! I don't even have to move my books!"

Great blog and what looks like a great product!

Thanks again!


January 21, 2007 11:51 PM

Blogger A Struggling Student said...

What's worse with magazine ads are that people don't even bother to look at them. At least I don't look at them. I just skip over them or flip to the next page. If I ever do look at one though, the chance of me actually buying something is slim to none.

January 22, 2007 5:09 AM

Blogger R2K said...

What is fishmeal anyway?

January 22, 2007 5:20 AM

Anonymous Padraig said...

One reason why big brands care about exposure is familiarity.

When making a mundane decision between products which do the same thing like which washing powder or breakfast cereal, we can be swayed by what is familiar. This is why NBA stars appear on cereal packages.

Delicious Library seems like a fairly unique product to me, so I don't know if it's worth paying for familiarity...

Anyway, I suspect that (as others have already hinted at) this blog posting about Wil's experiences with Google AdWords has generated far more exposure than an expensive 'professional' campaign in a magazine.

January 22, 2007 5:28 AM

Blogger TechnoBlog said...

You're blog is all over the place, but you're little snippets of pop culture are hillarious.

January 24, 2007 2:31 PM

Blogger Mark Darien said...

I just started with AdWords. I think you've convinced me to turn off the content. Seeing my stats, what you say makes sense. Thanks!

January 24, 2007 7:48 PM

Blogger Brian said...

Most of what I know about Google AdWords is limited to how eager some folks are to find my credit card information so they can put my account through the death of a thousand tiny charges. Hasn't been an issue lately, but that sting stays with you for a long time.

Thanks for the insight into the other side of that particular fence (how some folks are eager to find ways to get your ad clicked inappropriately, leading to death of an entirely different thousand charges).

I read magazine ads, even the little tiny ones all scrunched together in the back. Especially those, actually. That's where the really odd stuff gets advertised. Sometimes I even spend money because of those ads. But I'm a freak, and I accept that.

January 25, 2007 3:57 AM

Blogger Oberon said...

.....what is the most important thing?

January 26, 2007 10:13 AM

Blogger susanjalo said...

This helped me. Figure something is wrong when visitors hits 10X the regular figure but phone calls are way down.

January 27, 2007 9:55 AM

Blogger Annie M. said...

Awesome post. I learned a lot, laughed a lot and found out that I need to name the frog in my pocket.

January 27, 2007 3:34 PM

Blogger Palema said...

Coupons and special offers (type in your special code) have been around for a long time in newspapers and radio mainly. That's how you see who reads what and who buys what, and which pitch seems to bring them in.

However, with a niche product, you do best to advertise in a publication (either print of online) whose readers are your targets.

I read two specialty gardening magazines and ALL the ads interest me; I want most of the stuff, and it's more a question of when not whether I buy.

January 27, 2007 6:46 PM

Blogger AlBlue said...

I have found this from the other perspective. Various clones of *.sports-guru.com have been nicking my blog in entire posts, and combining it with other posts too to make it seem like there's some content there.

I've posted an entry on my blog at alblue.blogspot.com -- I wonder how long it will be before that entry is copied over to their box instead.

I've mentioned it to Google in a couple of ways; we'll see what they come up with.

January 28, 2007 4:18 PM

Blogger Mr.Black said...

What about hiring busty, half naked, booth babes and using phermones to attract horny young nerds to your Macworld booth? I think you missed that one.

Apparently, this works great for ubisoft.

BTW, thanks for the Apple lists post about IIDC camera properties. Undoubtedly "will" come in handy.

February 07, 2007 2:30 PM

Blogger ayasud said...

Damn. Add nausea is right, where's the bathroom?

February 09, 2007 3:37 PM


Post a Comment

<< Home