Smallbrain Solutions

SmartMobs points to a paper (abstract here, full PDF here) that examines the conventional wisdom that search engines make popular sites more visible - and therefore more popular - while shutting out the less popular ones. This of course creates a mirror of other non-egalitarian systems (the rich get richer, etc. etc.).

The authors of the paper, Santo Fortuna, et. al., suggest that the opposite is in fact true.

Neato. There is, naturally, some dispute about the experimental process they used - you can read the Economist article here - but this is definitely encouraging news.

What does this mean for you? Well, not a lot. Generally, the “googlearchy” as it is referred to, really more applies to general interest sites. If you are a candidate, it should not be difficult to get your site listed first on the search terms that are relevant to you (good luck if your site is about “social security”…). As long as you have a RELEVANT site with a niche content area (e.g. your campaign) you should be fine.

Definitely a good read though.

Comments(0)

Randall Stross writes today in the NYT about how Google’s model of text-only, relevant ads helped to push the online ad industry away from the “punch the monkey” and the ubiquitous pop-under ads of yesterday (I am not entirely sure that those days are gone…).

A fascinating look at the history of Google Ad Sense’s development really. The thing that got me thinking was this line:

It did take a little while before prospective sponsors were willing to try Google’s text ads, but soon enough, they attracted the intrepid. Mr. Brin and Mr. Page deliberately offered advertisers instant gratification: pull out your credit card, plunk down a $50 deposit, send in four lines - and in a blink it would be out there, having been automatically processed without a pre-publication review by a humanoid. (Google’s language police would follow up later, if need be.)

Ms. Mayer credits small companies for helping to draw the attention, and ad dollars, of Google’s big accounts. Because of the sheer number of commercial sites run by small operators - like the one that has bought a sponsored link tied to the unappreciated sport of extreme ironing - their customers add up to a very large number.
(emphasis added)

So, the thing that is important here is that there are extreme efficiencies with google ads that are not achievable with other bulk purchases and the cost-per-acquisition is stellar (if you are doing it right).

Basically, since you can name your price and pick your keywords, you can snag a lot of interested people into your program. If you are a candidate, chances are pretty good that your keywords are not being highly sought after, so you should be able to get CPC (cost per clicks) in the sub-$0.10 range. That means you will get a lot of qualified clicks for not a lot of money.

You will, of course, want to make sure your landing page is as effective as possible, since you are paying for the CLICKS not the signups.

(Disclosure: I do own 0.69 shares of Google stock - so go ahead and call me a shill for the industry.)

Comments(0)

My former colleague, Ruby, points to some new code (currently just for Bloxsam) that allows you to print an entry out immediately and send it to your congress-critter.

Kewl.

Don Marti has the goods here.

Comments(0)

The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth taught us all a good lesson about how to make a very small ad buy go a long, long way.

Simply do a small run in the middle of nowhere on the cheap, then you will get thousands of plays and priceless earned media in the form of blog traffic, print articles, etc. etc. etc.

Well, the RNC managed the same thing this week. According to the Hotline on Call:

The RNC’s new TV ad in Las Vegas is little more than a deliberate poke in the eye to Min. Leader Harry Reid. According to a knowledgable Nevada source, the buy there is less than $5K for airing during the three network Sunday shows. And no buy in Reno, the more conservative market in the state. [MARC AMBINDER]

Be that a lesson to you. Again.

Comments(0)

I must say that this post may be the most obvious description of why political campaigns suck so damn much.

The interesting thing about applying “local max” to politics is that the costs are even higher for political campaigns. You have anywhere from 6 months to 2 years to win. There is no “bad quarter” or “bad year” to weather… if you lose, you are done.

That being said, his followup post suggests that the winning strategy is to empower a very small team to try EVERYTHING. Sort of like a “skunk works” sort of concept. The phrase, “smaller, faster, cheaper” comes to mind.

In terms of breaking out of a rut, particularly in the political online sphere, it is this kind of thinking is required. Don’t just throw $50,000 at a flash developer to make you the next JibJab… it isn’t going to be as good. It just isn’t. Even if it is - it probably won’t drive that kind of traffic.

However, if you adopt the “smaller, faster, cheaper” approach - like NASA has done - you can get REALLY big surprises, like the two Mars Rovers that are still going strong, long after they were supposed to stop working. Without throwing a lot of crap against the wall you will never know what truly sticks.

I suspect I will have a lot more to say about this soon…

Comments(0)