search engine optimization
pay per click blog
Categories Archives
  • February 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
   
 
Adwords and trademark violations - Google has strong hands on it,

Written by power @ 10:28 PM permanent link on Monday, March 31, 2008 | Post a Comment | 0 comments

There has been various lawsuits on trademark violations in adwords. competitors are usually tempted to advertise on more popular competitor brand names. We had a client ask us to advertise on a popular competitor name but we denied it since it might back fire . There are numerous lawsuits already against google as well as other companies which violate trademarks,

We don't want to get into all these problems, we did post recently about one lawsuit where one company won over the other about a million dollar

Analytics and adwords data comparision not so accurate,

Written by power @ 9:32 PM permanent link on | Post a Comment | 0 comments

Google's analytics don't show the exact data what adwords show in its clicks. We tried comparing it various client sites and most of them don't match the results. We feel its most probably that analytics works on a different way than how adwords tracks clicks and all adwords clicks don't always end up in Google analytics statistics.

Couple of reasons given by analytics advice team

There is an important distinction between clicks (such as in your AdWords Campaigns reports) and visits (in your Search Engines and Visitors reports). The clicks column in your reports indicates how many times your advertisements were clicked by visitors, while visits indicates the number of unique sessions initiated by your visitors. There are several reasons why these two numbers may not match:

1. A visitor may click on your ad multiple times. When one person clicks on one advertisement multiple times in the same session, AdWords will record multiple clicks while Analytics recognises the separate page views as one visit. This is a common behaviour among visitors engaging in comparison shopping.

2. A user may click on an ad and then later, during a different session, return directly to the site through a bookmark. The referral information from the original visit will be retained in this case, so the one click will result in multiple visits.

3. A visitor may click on your advertisement, but prevent the page from fully loading by navigating to another page or by pressing their browser's Stop button. In this case, the Analytics tracking code is unable to execute and send tracking data to the Google servers. However, AdWords will still register a click.
To ensure more accurate billing, Google AdWords automatically filters invalid clicks from your reports. However, Analytics reports these clicks as visits to your website in order to show the complete set of traffic data.

I feel it should be one of the reasons to this,

Alternative to adsense,

Written by power @ 12:11 PM permanent link on Sunday, March 30, 2008 | Post a Comment | 1 comments

Adsense google's ad publishing programme has been one of the most successful online ad publishing for both google and website owners who publish adsense ads on their websites. We use adsense in couple of our information sites the revenue from adsense is pretty less we get about .20 cents for a click and it averages around 10 to 20$ of income per day. Though its not bad but its not sufficient enough to even run those websites because of the cost of constantly improving and maintaining those websites.
So is there an alternative to adsense it should be as good as it is though, We tried advertising.com, adbrite, amazon, fast click none of them work even near to adsense we are seriously looking for an alternative will continue to keep adsense till we find the right alternative for this.
Someone suggested CJ we will be trying them soon,

contactthem.ws offers 4800$ to add links - Is it true

Written by power @ 11:48 AM permanent link on | Post a Comment | 1 comments

We get offers all the time from this site contactthem.ws asking for us to place a ad link and they are willing to pay 4800$ for it. Is it true or is it a scam we just dont want to comment on it without any experience with them. I have seen various forums discuss this to be MLM scam and we don't have to fall for it.
Does anyone have any experience with this guys. Anyone got a pay check from them for placing the ad if yes please post your experience in our comment section.

Monetizing revenue through online busines and affiliate busines

Written by power @ 11:38 AM permanent link on | Post a Comment | 0 comments

I read an interesting thread in webmasterworld where a newbie to internet wants to start a business and make 100$ a day in 3 months. So is it so easy to do? I feel it all comes down to hitting the right one for you and making the most out of it. I have seen people do it in a very short period of time without any previous experience,

My first and last suggestion will be to select the best interest for you and work towards it, try to understand what type of person you are and work towards what is best for you. In future ill be posting a major success story of myself. I am too busy to share my great experience now but will definitely do it in future,

Comscore report shows drop in paid clicks on google,

Written by power @ 10:46 AM permanent link on | Post a Comment | 0 comments

Comscore a industry leader in monitoring search engine paid advertising has reported reduction in paid search engine clicks in google. This is the first time there is a decrease in paid clicks for a continues 3 months.

This is a major worry for google's investors. Google has relied heavily on paid search revenue and this is a major draw back for them. A drop in paid revenue in something Google has to think about,

Revenue sharing offer from Microsoft to Adobe

Written by power @ 10:41 AM permanent link on Thursday, March 27, 2008 | Post a Comment | 0 comments

Microsoft offered adobe a revenue sharing in its Ad programme. MSN Adcenter has offered Adobe sharing of its advertising revenue in exchange for promoting silverlight Microsoft's video hosting platform. Its a smart move by Microsoft since its very difficult to compete with Youtube and other major video hosting sites.

Silverlight Streaming service, was announced by Microsoft last april same time when its Silverlight service was launched is a platform that: encourages the spread of the client software, and it showcases what has so far been the technology's major strength: video. Free service provides more than 5 GB of hosting space for videos and about 5 Tera bytes of bandwidth usage which is much higher than youtube. This looks like a favourable move from Microsoft towards bringing potential users to its video streaming service.

Yahoo seeks higher bid from Microsoft,

Written by power @ 10:06 AM permanent link on | Post a Comment | 0 comments

According to internal news from yahoo it seems to seek ways to increase the value of its bid from Microsoft. Current value of yahoo stands at 41 billion USD, Yahoo is planning to increase it to 45 billion. Yahoo has predicted its 2010 earnings from online advertising to be around 9 billion about 70% more than its 2007 earnings. If Yahoo is capable of pleasing its investors definitely it will win a increased bid from Billsoft.

But Many Wall Street Investors predict Microsoft will win Yahoo in the current bid. Seeing Yahoo's potential and the bid value they predict its the right bid from Microsoft to acquire Yahoo.

Advertisers Cheating Google adwords PPC with wrong display URLs

Written by power @ 9:46 AM permanent link on | Post a Comment | 0 comments

We have seen some advertisers display wrong URLs in display URL but when we click on the URL it goes to a page completely different from what was mentioned in the URls. We reported some of these competitors and Adwords team did take things seriously and removed those ads or replaced them with them with the correct ads.

Advertisers do this mostly to cheat the Google's policy on 1 TLD URL per list of sponsored results. Say there are 10 affiliates having different IDs pointing to the same Merchant Google's policy is to allow only 1 affiliate mostly the highest bidder. To cheat this webmaster have a wrong display URL thinking that Google will ignore them. Now adwords quality team is very strict on this and they disallow ads doing this

PPC Management Team,

Keywords Inactive for search but still getting clicks?

Written by power @ 9:34 AM permanent link on | Post a Comment | 0 comments

We had some client PPC campaigns have inactive keywords but still they get impressions and clicks so what causes this, Most of the time this is caused when the keyword is inactive in search but still active in partner networks. Google has a range of partner sites which serve google results for their clients. Google's adwords campaign also serves sponsored results to these sites most probably keywords show impressions and clicks because of this. Though keywords are inactive in google search they are served in Google partner sites.
Other possible reason according to a Google Adwords support guy is that Due to various changes in bidding keywords jump between inactive and active status. Say suppose a advertise run out of funds then if our bid is low and the keyword is inactive it might get activated since the Competitor ads stop showing up. Similarly if some high bidders reduce their Maximum bid or stop their keywords / campaign then the keywords even if they are low bidding and inactive will start showing up. A keyword will jump from Active to inactive and inactive to active if any of the above happens. This is an other reason keywords still has impressions / clicks even if they show inactive status

PPC Management TEAM ( Search Engine Genie )

An update to adwords display URL policy

Written by power @ 9:40 AM permanent link on Wednesday, March 26, 2008 | Post a Comment | 0 comments

Is this a April fool Joke or a real change by google, When we recently logged into our client's adwords campaign management system we saw the following notice from google.

"Important Change to URL Policy Enforcement
Starting in April, display URLs for new ads will be required to match their destination / landing page URLs, without exception. Please adjust your URLs accordingly when creating new ads."

What the heck how can this be possible some of our clients have product URLs that are very long and cannot be matched with the display URLs. Also google adwords offer a limited space for display URLs and this is if true a ridiculous change and almost impossible to be implemented in our campaign.

Adwords advisor in webmaster world is giving some really funny suggestions. Does he really mean it or he is just playing the Google's April Fool prank which they always do every year. Google is the best search engine when it comes to playing users with their April Fool pranks. Most infamous being the pigeon rank where google said it is gonna replace Pagerank their core algorithm with Pigeon rank
AWA says

"I would not necessarily recommend doing what I am going to suggest below, except in cases in which it is the only solution - because some folks think it looks weird, and thus maybe less 'trustworthy' somehow - but you could delete the www in the URL.

In other words you could use:

really-long-domain-name-for-the-company-i-work-at.com

Instead of:

www.really-long-domain-name-for-the-company-i-work-at.com

Would that do the trick for you?

If not, please contact AdWords support directly, and ask for advice using with the actual URL as an example. ;)
" LOL

Great support from adsense and adwords team

Written by power @ 9:32 AM permanent link on | Post a Comment | 0 comments

Recently we have seen an increasingly prompt answers from both adwords and the google adsense team. Usually google adsense team is slow to respond but now we got very quick answers. One of our adsense checks got stuck due to change of address we contacted the adsense support team they were quick to identify and solve the problem for us. Now our adsense pay checks are prompt

BTW we are eager to know anyone willing to share their adsense revenue here?

Can we have 2 keywords in the same ad group?

Written by power @ 9:12 AM permanent link on | Post a Comment | 0 comments

I saw someone ask this question in webmasterworld.com, as with my experience no it is not possible to add 2 keywords and it will infact hurt the ROI. Please avoid using same keywords twice since it will affect the overall performance of the adgroup,

PPC management team

Adwords phishing emails more similar to paypal phishing appear

Written by power @ 8:36 AM permanent link on | Post a Comment | 0 comments


Now some scammer from china is sending out phishing mails asking to update adwords billing information. Phishing has been here for a very long time most of the time phishing happens with sites like paypal and ebay now scammers are targeting Adwords subscribers by asking them to provide password and other personal information.

The way the phisher(s) went about it is by sending a message allegedly from the Google AdWords Team that requires users to update their billing information and send it to the modified web address. In the eventuality that someone would not comply with the request, the email reads that their account was disabled and it "will be reactivated as soon as you have entered your payment details.

From: Google Adwords-noreply [mailto:adwords-noreply@google.com]
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2008 11:55 PM
To: asdasds@yahoo.com
Subject: [Released by Allow List] Please Update Your Billing Information
________

Dear Google AdWords Customer!

In order to update your billing information, please sign in to your AdWords account at https://adwords.google.com , and update your billing information. Your account will be reactivated as soon as you have entered your payment details. Your ads will show immediately if you decide to pay for clicks via credit or debit card. If you decide to pay by direct debit, we may need to receive your signed debit authorization before your ads start running, depending on our location. If you choose bank transfer, your ads will show as soon as we receive your first payment. (Payment options vary by location.)

Thank you for choosing AdWords. We look forward to providing you with the most effective advertising available.

Sincerely,

The Google AdWords Team
________

This message was sent from a notification-only email address that does not accept incoming email. Please do not reply to this message. If you have any questions after following the steps above, please visit the Google AdWords Help Center at https://adwords.google.
com/support/bin/topic.py
?topic=8336>

google adsense updates terms and conditions

Written by power @ 8:33 AM permanent link on | Post a Comment | 0 comments

Google recently updated its terms and conditions for adsense publishing. This is what they say in their blog,

This time around, most of the changes to the Terms and Conditions fall into two broad categories: 1) future products and features and 2) privacy requirements. Specifically, one of the main changes is that the terms anticipate future products that may become available in other advertising formats and mediums, for example Gadget Ads. As we look forward to monetizing more online and offline content, we've re-worded some portions of the terms to make them applicable across a broader array of media and formats -- anticipating, for example, that future products may be priced, paid, or managed differently than current ones.

AdSense Advanced Reports Down - probably temporary

Written by power @ 8:29 AM permanent link on | Post a Comment | 0 comments

We are experiencing difficulties generating advance reports in google adwords management system. I sincerely hope its temporary because we always generate reports to make sure campaign runs in a proper way,

Google sets a cool new feature from google,

Written by power @ 8:24 AM permanent link on | Post a Comment | 0 comments

Google sets has often been over looked. Its a cool feature from google and one of the first testing in labs.google.com. Patent application says

System and methods for automatically creating lists

1. A method, comprising: determining an on-topic model; identifying a plurality of lists within one or more documents; determining probabilities of the plurality of lists being generated using the on-topic model; forming a list from items in the plurality of lists based on the determined probabilities; and presenting the list to a client.

2. The method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving one or more example items; and wherein the determining an on-topic model includes: determining a probabilistic model based on the one or more example items.

3. The method of claim 2, wherein the determining a probabilistic model includes: assigning higher probabilities to the one or more example items than to other items.

4. The method of claim 1, wherein identifying the plurality of lists includes: locating the plurality of lists within a plurality of documents on one or more networks.

5. The method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of lists are identified by tags, by items stored in a table, or by items separated by tabs, commas, or semicolons.

6. The method of claim 1, further comprising: creating a hit list index from the plurality of lists, the hit list index providing a mapping of items to one or more of the plurality of lists in which the items appear.

7. The method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of lists are stored in one or more databases.

8. The method of claim 1, wherein determining the probabilities includes: determining a probability of one of the plurality of lists being generated using the on-topic model based on a probability of each of the items in the one of the plurality of lists being generated from the on-topic model.

9. The method of claim 1, further comprising: assigning weights to the items in one of the plurality of lists based on the determined probability associated with the one of the plurality of lists; and adding the weights for each of the items to generate total weights for the items.

10. The method of claim 9, wherein the forming a list includes: forming the list based on the items from the plurality of lists and the total weights for the items.

11. The method of claim 9, further comprising: updating the on-topic model based on the items and the total weights for the items; and determining new probabilities for the plurality of lists based on the updated on-topic model.

12. The method of claim 11, wherein the forming a list includes: forming the list based on the plurality of lists and the new probabilities.

13. The method of claim 11, further comprising: repeating the updating of the on-topic model and the determining of the new probabilities for the plurality of lists for a predetermined number of iterations.

14. The method of claim 1, wherein the probabilities of the plurality of lists being generated using the on-topic model are related to a number of items in the plurality of lists.

15. The method of claim 1, wherein the list includes a plurality of selectable items, selection of one of the selectable items causing a search of documents relating to the one selectable item to be performed.

16. The method of claim 1, further comprising: determining an off-topic model.

17. The method of claim 16, wherein determining the probabilities includes: determining probabilities for the plurality of lists based on the on-topic model or the off-topic model.

18. The method of claim 16, further comprising: receiving one or more off-topic example items; and wherein the determining an off-topic model includes: determining a probabilistic model based on the one or more off-topic example items.

19. A system, comprising: means for identifying a plurality of lists associated with one or more documents; means for determining an on-topic model and an off-topic model; means for classifying the plurality of lists based on the on-topic model and the off-topic model to determine probabilities of the plurality of lists being generated using the on-topic model or the off-topic model; means for forming a list from items in the plurality of lists based on the determined probabilities; and means for providing the list to a client.

20. A system, comprising: a list identifier configured to identify a plurality of lists by crawling one or more networks, each of the plurality of lists including a plurality of items; a list classifier configured to: determine an on-topic model, and determine confidence scores reflecting measures of confidence of the plurality of lists being generated using the on-topic model; and a list processor configured to: form a list from the items in the plurality of lists based on the determined confidence scores associated with the plurality of lists, and present the list to a client.

21. A system, comprising: means for receiving one or more example items; means for identifying a plurality of lists by crawling one or more networks; means for determining confidence scores for the plurality of lists based on the one or more example items, each of the plurality of lists including a plurality of items; means for forming a list from the items in the plurality of lists based on the confidence scores for the plurality of lists; and means for providing the list to a client.

22. A system, comprising: a list identifier configured to identify a plurality of lists, each of the plurality of lists including a plurality of items; a list classifier configured to assign confidence weights to the plurality of lists; and a list processor configured to: form a list from the items in the plurality of lists based on the confidence weights assigned to the plurality of lists, and present the list to a client.

23. A system, comprising: a list identifier configured to identify a plurality of lists, each of the plurality of lists including a plurality of items; a list classifier configured to: receive one or more example items, determine probabilities that the plurality of lists are associated with the one or more example items, assign weights to the items in the plurality of lists based on the probabilities of the plurality of lists, and add the weights for each of the items to generate total weights for the items; and a list processor configured to: form a list based on the items and the total weights for the items, and present the list to a client.

24. A method, comprising: receiving one or more example items; determining an on-topic model based on the one or more example items; classifying a plurality of lists based on the on-topic model; assigning weights to items in the plurality of lists based on the classifying of the plurality of lists; adding the weights for each of the items to generate a total weight for each of the items; forming a list based on the items and the total weights for the items; and presenting the list to a client.

25. The method of claim 24, further comprising: updating the on-topic model based on the items and the total weights for the items; reclassifying the plurality of lists based on the updated on-topic model; reassigning weights to the items based on the reclassifying of the plurality of lists; and adding the reassigned weights for each of the items to generate a new total weight for each of the items.

26. The method of claim 25, wherein the forming the list includes: forming the list based on the items and the new total weights for the items.

27. A system, comprising: a master configured to: receive, from a client, one or more example items, and determine an on-topic model based on the one or more example items; and a plurality of slaves, each of the slaves being configured to: classify a subset of a plurality of lists based on the on-topic model, assign weights to items in the plurality of lists based on the classified lists, add the weights for each of the items to generate a total weight for each of the items, send the items and the total weights for the items to the master, the master using the items and the total weights for the items to form a list, and present the list to the client.

Description
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

1. Field of the Invention The present invention relates generally to lists of information and, more particularly, to systems and methods for automatically creating lists given one or more examples.

2. Description of Related Art The World Wide Web ("web") provides a vast amount of information of different types, including textual data, video data, and audio data. This information is often scattered among many web servers and hosts using many different formats.

One particular type of information often present in the web includes lists, such as lists of restaurants, lists of automobiles, lists of names, etc. Lists may be identified in a number of different ways. For example, a list may include an ordered list or unordered list. Special tags in a HyperText Markup Language (HTML) document identify the presence of ordered and unordered lists. An ordered list commences with an tag; whereas an unordered list commences with an tag. Each item in an ordered or unordered list is preceded by an tag.

Another type of list may include a definition list. A special tag in a HTML document identifies the presence of a definition list. A definition list commences with a tag. Each item in a definition list is preceded by a tag. Yet another type of list may include document headers. Special tags in a HTML document identifies headers using through tags. Other types of lists may be presented in yet other ways. For example, a list may be presented as items in a table or as items separated by commas or tabs.

There currently exists no mechanisms for quickly and efficiently generating lists of items given one or more examples. Accordingly, there is a need in the art for mechanisms to automatically generate lists of items based on one or more examples, both quickly and efficiently.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

Systems and methods consistent with the principles of the invention address this and other needs by automatically creating lists of items given a number of examples.

In accordance with an aspect of the invention, a method automatically creates a list from items in existing lists. The method includes receiving one or more example items corresponding to the list and assigning weights to the items in the existing lists based on the one or more example items. The method also includes forming the list based on the items and the weights assigned to the items.

According to another aspect, a method for creating a list is provided. The method includes generating an on-topic model and classifying existing lists based on the on-topic model to determine measures of confidence that the existing lists were generated using the on-topic model. The method also includes forming a list from items in the classified existing lists.

According to yet another aspect, a system for creating a list includes a list identifier, a list classifier, and a list processor. The list identifier is configured to identify existing lists, where each of the existing lists includes multiple items. The list classifier is configured to generate an on-topic model and determine confidence scores that the existing lists were generated using the on-topic model. The list processor is configured to form a list from the items in the existing lists and the determined confidence scores associated with the existing lists.

According to a further aspect, a method for creating a list is provided. The method includes receiving one or more example items corresponding to the list, generating an on-topic model based on the one or more example items, and classifying existing lists based on the on-topic topic model. The method further includes assigning weights to items in the existing lists based on the classified existing lists, adding the weights for each of the items to generate a total weight for each of the items, and forming the list based on the items and the total weights for the items.

According to another aspect, a system includes a master and multiple slaves. The master is configured to receive one or more example items corresponding to a list, and generate an on-topic model based on the one or more example items. Each of the slaves is configured to classify a subset of existing lists based on the on-topic model, assign weights to items in the existing lists based on the classified existing lists, add the weights for each of the items to generate a total weight for each of the items, and send the items and the total weights for the items to the master. The master may use the items and the total weights for the items to form the list.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

The accompanying drawings, which are incorporated in and constitute a part of this specification, illustrate an embodiment of the invention and, together with the description, explain the invention. In the drawings,

FIG. 1 is a diagram of an exemplary network in which systems and methods consistent with the principles of the invention may be implemented;

FIG. 2 is an exemplary diagram of a server of FIG. 1 in an implementation consistent with the principles of the invention;

FIG. 3 is a diagram of an exemplary functional block diagram of a portion of the server of FIG. 2 according to an implementation consistent with the principles of the invention;

FIG. 4 is a flowchart of exemplary processing for creating lists according to an implementation consistent with the principles of the invention;

FIG. 5 is a diagram of an exemplary graphical user interface that may be presented to a user to facilitate the providing of example items;

FIGS. 6A-6J illustrate an example of generating a list according to an implementation consistent with the principles of the invention; and

FIG. 7 is an exemplary diagram of a master-slave system consistent with the principles of the invention.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION

The following detailed description of the invention refers to the accompanying drawings. The same reference numbers in different drawings may identify the same or similar elements. Also, the following detailed description does not limit the invention. Instead, the scope of the invention is defined by the appended claims and equivalents.

Systems and methods consistent with the principles of the invention automatically generate lists given one or more examples. The systems and methods may use probabilistic modeling to predict lists in a noise tolerant, efficient, and quick manner.

Exemplary Network Configuration

FIG. 1 is an exemplary diagram of a network 100 in which systems and methods consistent with the present invention may be implemented. The network 100 may include a client 110 connected to a server 120 via a network 130. Server 120 may also connect to data network 140. Networks 130 and 140 may include the same or different networks, such as a local area network (LAN), a wide area network (WAN), a telephone network, such as the Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN), an intranet, the Internet, a similar or dissimilar network, or a combination of networks. A single client 110 and server 120 have been illustrated in FIG. 1 for simplicity. In practice, there may be more clients and servers. Also, in some instances, a client may perform the functions of a server and a server may perform the functions of a client.

Client 110 may include one or more devices, such as a personal computer, a wireless telephone, a personal digital assistant (PDA), a lap top, or another type of communication device, a thread or process running on one of these devices, and/or objects executable by these devices. Server 120 may include one or more server devices; threads, and/or objects that operate upon, search, maintain, and/or manage documents in a manner consistent with the principles of the invention. Client 110 and server 120 may connect to network 130 via wired, wireless, or optical connections.

In an implementation consistent with the principles of the invention, server 120 may receive one or more example items from client 110. Server 120 may use the one or more example items to predict a list of items based on lists of items available from devices connected to server 120, network 130, and/or network 140. These available lists may include lists that have already been compiled and may be referred to generally as "existing lists."

Exemplary Server Architecture

FIG. 2 is an exemplary diagram of the server 120 in an implementation consistent with the principles of the invention. Server 120 may include a bus 210, a processor 220, a main memory 230, a read only memory (ROM) 240, a storage device 250, one or more input devices 260, one or more output devices 270, and a communication interface 280. Bus 210 may include one or more conductors that permit communication among the components of server 120.

Processor 220 may include any type of conventional processor or microprocessor that interprets and executes instructions. Main memory 230 may include a random access memory (RAM) or another type of dynamic storage device that stores information and instructions for execution by processor 220. ROM 240 may include a conventional ROM device or another type of static storage device that stores static information and instructions for use by processor 220. Storage device 250 may include a magnetic and/or optical recording medium and its corresponding drive.

Input devices 260 may include one or more conventional mechanisms that permit an operator to input information to server 120, such as a keyboard, a mouse, a pen, voice recognition and/or biometric mechanisms, etc. Output devices 270 may include one or more conventional mechanisms that output information to the operator, including a display, a printer, a speaker, etc. Communication interface 280 may include any transceiver-like mechanism that enables server 120 to communicate with other devices and/or systems. For example, communication interface 280 may include mechanisms for communicating with another device or system via a network, such as network 130 or 140.

As will be described in detail below, server 120, consistent with the present invention, may perform certain operations relating to the generation of lists. Server 120 may perform these operations in response to processor 220 executing software instructions contained in a computer-readable medium, such as memory 230. A computer-readable medium may be defined as one or more memory devices and/or carrier waves.

The software instructions may be read into memory 230 from another computer-readable medium, such as data storage device 250, or from another device via communication interface 280. The software instructions contained in memory 230 causes processor 220 to perform processes that will be described later. Alternatively, hardwired circuitry may be used in place of or in combination with software instructions to implement processes consistent with the principles of the invention. Thus, implementations consistent with the principles of the invention are not limited to any specific combination of hardware circuitry and software.

FIG. 3 is an exemplary functional block diagram of a portion of server 120 according to an implementation consistent with the present invention. The logical blocks illustrated in FIG. 3 may be implemented in software, hardware, or a combination of hardware and software.

Server 120 may include list identifier 310, list classifier 320, and list processor 330. List identifier 310 may include logic that "crawls" documents on network 130 and/or 140 to identify existing lists. List identifier 310 may generate a hit list index in which each item (which can include one or more words) is associated with all of the identified lists that contain that item.

List classifier 320 may include logic that creates lists based on one or more example items. In one implementation, list classifier 320 may be configured as a Naive Bayes classifier. As described in more detail below, list classifier 320 may use probabilistic modeling to create the lists from existing lists that are generally available on network 130 and/or 140. These existing lists may include the lists identified by list identifier 310.

List processor 330 may include logic that processes the lists generated by list classifier 320 and outputs lists to client 110. For example, list processor 330 may order items in a list and possibly format the list for presentation to client 110.

Exemplary Processing

FIG. 4 is a flowchart of exemplary processing for creating lists according to an implementation consistent with the principles of the invention. Processing may commence with the identification of existing lists that are available on network 130 and/or 140 (act 410). List identifier 310 may analyze documents on network 130 and/or 140 to determine whether the documents contain lists. Lists may be identified in a number of ways. For example, a list may be identified by a HTML tag . A list may also be identified from items placed in a table, items separated by commas or semicolons, or items separated by tabs. It may also be possible to identify a list in other ways.

List identifier 310 may create a hit list index based on the lists that it identifies. The hit list index may include a mapping of items (which may include one or more words) to the lists in which the items appear. The hit list index may permit the future identification of relevant lists to be performed in an efficient manner.

An off-topic model may be generated (act 420). List classifier 320 may create a probabilistic model (i.e., the off-topic model) that may output items uniformly at random according to the relation: P(W.sub.iC0)=u, for all W.sub.i where W.sub.i refers to an item, C0 refers to the off-topic model, and u refers to a small probability assigned to all items.

An on-topic model may also be generated (act 430). In an implementation consistent with the principles of the invention, the on-topic model is generated based on one or more example items provided by client 110. For example, client 110 may provide one or more example items and request completion of a list that contains the example item(s). FIG. 5 is a diagram of an exemplary graphical user interface 500 that may be presented to a user of client 110 to facilitate the providing of example items. Graphical user interface 500 may prompt the user to enter one or more example items (boxes 510). Graphical user interface 500 may also include "Large List" button 520 and "Small List" button 530. Large List button 520 may be selected by the user if the user desires a list containing more than a predetermined number of items (e.g., more than 15 items). Small List button 530 may be selected by the user if the user desires a list containing less than a predetermined number of items (e.g., 15 or fewer items).

Returning to FIG. 4, list classifier 320 may create a probabilistic model (i.e., the on-topic model) based on the example item(s) provided by client 110.

List classifier 320 may assign a probability to any item that may be output by the on-topic model, according to the relation:

.function..times..times..times.
.times..times..times..times.
.times..times..- times..times..times. ##EQU00001## where W.sub.i refers to an item, C1 refers to the on-topic model, x refers to a probability assigned to example items 1-n (where n.gtoreq.1), and .epsilon. refers to a small probability assigned to all other items. List classifier 320 may assign a higher probability to the example item(s) provided by client 110. For example, if client 110 provided two example items, list classifier 320 may assign a first one of the example items a probability of 0.49, the second example item a probability of 0.49, and any other random item a very small probability, such as 0.02. In this case, the probability of the on-topic model outputting the first example item is 0.49, the second example item is 0.49, and a random item is 0.02.

The lists identified by list identifier 310 may be classified using the on-topic and off-topic models (act 440). For example, list classifier 320 may determine the probability of each of the lists being generated given the on-topic model using, for example, an expectation maximization technique. List classifier 320 may determine the probability that a particular list was generated from the on-topic model based on the probability that each of the items in the list is generated from the on-topic model. This may be represented by:

.function..varies..function.
.times..function..varies..times.
.times..functi- on..times..function. ##EQU00002## where L refers to a list and W.sub.i refers to an item in the list L. P(LC1) refers to the probability of generating list L given that it is on-topic. P(C1) refers to the probability that a list is on topic before considering the items in the list. P(C1) may be user-configurable. In one exemplary implementation, P(C1) is set to approximately 0.1.

As a result, the more items on the list, the less confident list classifier 320 may be that the list was generated from the on-topic model. For example, for a list with three items, two of which include the example items, list classifier 320 may be pretty confident that the other item on the list is relevant to the two example items. On the other hand, for a list with one hundred items, two of which include the example items, list classifier 320 may not be confident at all that the other items on the list are relevant to the two example items.

List classifier 320 may also determine the probability of each of the lists being generated given the off-topic model. List classifier 320 may determine the probability that a particular list was generated from the off-topic model based on the probability that each of the items in the list is generated from the off-topic model. This may be represented by:

.function..varies..function.
.times..function..varies..times.
.times..functi- on..times..function. ##EQU00003## where L refers to a list and W.sub.i refers to an item in the list L. P(LC0) refers to the probability of generating list L given that it is off-topic. P(C0) refers to the probability that a list is off topic before considering the items in the list. P(C0) may be user-configurable. In one exemplary implementation, P(C0) is set to approximately 0.9.

The equation above for P(C1L) indicates that it is proportional to some quantity. In other words, the value of P(C1L) may only be determined up to some "unknown" constant factor A. Therefore, the equation may be rewritten as A*P(C1L). To be able to use this equation to classify a list L, the value of A must be determined. To do this, the equation above for P(C0L), which may be rewritten as A*P(C0L), may be used. Therefore, even though the factor A is unknown, P(C1L) can be determined from the relation:

.function..function..function.
.function..times..times..

br>function..times..fu- nction..times..times..function..times
..function..times..times..times..time-
s..times. ##EQU00004##

Once the probabilities of the lists are determined, the items in the lists may be assigned weights based on the probabilities of their associated lists (act 450). In other words, each item in a list may be assigned a weight equal to the on-topic probability of that list. For example, each of the items in a list with a probability of 0.9 is assigned the weight 0.9. An item may appear in multiple lists and can be assigned multiple weights corresponding to the lists in which it appears. The weights of the items may then be added together to generate total weights for the items (act 460). For example, list classifier 320 may add up the weights for an item to obtain a total weight for that item.

It may then be determined whether another iteration of the above processing should be performed (act 470). For example, acts 430-470 may be repeated a predetermined number of times. List classifier 320 may update the on-topic model based on the items and their total weights (act 430). List classifier 320 may assign a probability to each of the items. For example, list classifier 320 may determine the probability of an item based on the total weight of the item divided by the sum of the total weights of all of the items.

The lists identified by list identifier 310 may then be reclassified using the on-topic model (act 440). For example, list classifier 320 may determine the probability of each of the lists being generated given the updated on-topic and off-topic models, as described above. List classifier 320 may determine the probability that a particular list was generated from the updated on-topic model based on the probability that each of the items in the list is generated from the updated on-topic model.

The items in the lists may then be assigned weights based on the probabilities of their associated lists (act 450). In other words, each item in a list may be assigned a weight equal to the on-topic probability of the list. The weights of the items may then be added together to generate total weights for the items (act 460). For example, list classifier 320 may add up the weights for an item to obtain a total weight for that item.

It may then be determined whether another iteration of the above processing should be performed (act 470). When a sufficient number of iterations have been performed, a list may be formed from the items with the highest probabilities (act 480). For example, list processor 330 may identify items with total weights above a threshold, items with probabilities above a threshold, the top z (where z is a predetermined number) items based on total weight or probability, items based on the distribution of weights or probabilities, or some other identified group of items as the items to be included in the list. List processor 330 may remove items that contain too many words from the list. For example, list processor 330 may set a threshold and remove items that contain more than the threshold number of words. The threshold may be set, for example, based on the average number of words in each list item.

If the user requested a small list, then list processor 330 may use the top 15 or fewer items based on total weights or probabilities for the list. If the user requested a large list, then list processor 330 may use the top 16 or more items (if possible) based on total weights or probabilities for the list.

List processor 330 may then present the list to client 110. Client 110 may, in turn, provide the list to the user. The list may be provided to the user as a selectable list of items. Selection of one of the items in the list may, for example, cause a search to be performed for documents relating to that item and/or presentation of documents relating to that item.

EXAMPLE

FIGS. 6A-6J illustrate an example of generating a list according to an implementation consistent with the principles of the invention. The actual values used in the example below are provided merely to assist in the understanding of the processing described above. These values may or may not be consistent with the equations provided above. Also, certain acts may be omitted from the discussion to follow in order to not over-complicate the example.

For this example, assume that a user desires a short list of automobile manufacturers. As shown in FIG. 6A, the user provides the example items: Honda and BMW. The user may then select the small list button.

Assume that list identifier 310 identified four existing lists, as shown in FIG. 6B. The first list includes the items Honda, BMW, Toyota, and Jaguar. The second list includes the items Honda, Jaguar, Nissan, and Ford. The third list includes the items Honda, Matt, Kim, and Mikey. The fourth list includes the items Toyota, Mazda, Jaguar, Nissan, Ford, Dodge, Buick, and Infinity.

List classifier 320 may create a probabilistic model (i.e., the on-topic model) based on the example item(s) provided by the user. List classifier 320 may assign a probability to items that may be output by the on-topic model, according to the relation: .function..times..times..
times..times.

##EQU00005##

Therefore, the probability of the on-topic model outputting Honda is 0.49, BMW is 0.49, and any other random item is 0.02.

List classifier 320 may determine the probability of each of the lists being generated given the on-topic model. List classifier 320 may determine the probability that a particular list was generated from the on-topic model based on the probability that each of the items in the list is generated from the on-topic model. Assume that list classifier 320 determines the probability of the first list as 0.9, the probability of the second list as 0.2, the probability of the third list as 0.2, and the probability of the fourth list as 0.001, as shown in FIG. 6C.

List classifier 320 may assign weights to the items in the lists based on the probabilities of their associated lists. In other words, each item in a list may be assigned a weight equal to the probability of the list. In this case, list classifier 320 may assign the weight 0.9 to each of the items in the first list, the weight 0.2 to each of the items in the second list, the weight 0.2 to each of the items in the third list, and the weight 0.001 to each of the items in the fourth list, as shown in FIG. 6D.

List classifier 320 may then add the weights of the items together to generate total weights for the items. In this case, list classifier 320 may determine total weights for the items in the lists, as shown in FIG. 6E.

List classifier 320 may then determine whether another iteration of the above processing should be performed. Assume that list classifier 320 is programmed to perform three iterations. In this case, list classifier 320 may update the on-topic model using the items and their total weights. List classifier 320 may then assign a probability to each of the items. List classifier 320 may determine the probability of an item based on the total weight of the item divided by the sum of the total weights of all of the items. For the item Honda, for example, list classifier 320 may determine the probability as 0.250 (i.e., total weight for Honda/total weights of all items=1.3/5.208=0.250).

List classifier 320 may then reclassify the lists. For example, list classifier 320 may determine the probability of each of the lists being generated given the updated on-topic model. As explained above, list classifier 320 may determine the probability that a particular list was generated from the updated on-topic model based on the probability that each of the items in the list is generated from the updated on-topic model. Assume that list classifier 320 determines the probability of the first list as 0.999, the probability of the second list as 0.99, the probability of the third list as 0.4, and the probability of the fourth list as 0.3, as shown in FIG. 6F.

List classifier 320 may assign weights to the items in the lists based on the probabilities of their associated lists. In other words, each item in a list may be assigned a weight equal to the probability of the list. In this case, list classifier 320 may assign the weight 0.999 to each of the items in the first list, the weight 0.99 to each of the items in the second list, the weight 0.4 to each of the items in the third list, and the weight 0.3 to each of the items in the fourth list.

List classifier 320 may then add the weights of the items together to generate total weights for the items. In this case, list classifier 320 may determine total weights for the items in the lists, as shown in FIG. 6G.

List classifier 320 may then update the on-topic model again using the items and their total weights. List classifier 320 may assign a probability to each of the items. List classifier 320 may determine the probability of an item based on the total weight of the item divided by the sum of the total weights of all of the items. For the item Honda, for example, list classifier 320 may determine the associated probability as 0.210.

List classifier 320 may then reclassify the lists. For example, list classifier 320 may determine the probability of each of the lists being generated from the updated on-topic model based on the probability that each of the items in the list is generated from the updated on-topic model. Assume that list classifier 320 determines the probability of the first list as 0.999, the probability of the second list as 0.999, the probability of the third list as 0.3, and the probability of the fourth list as 0.9, as shown in FIG. 6H.

List classifier 320 may assign weights to the items in the lists based on the probabilities of their associated lists. In this case, list classifier 320 may assign the weight 0.999 to each of the items in the first list, the weight 0.999 to each of the items in the second list, the weight 0.3 to each of the items in the third list, and the weight 0.9 to each of the items in the fourth list.

List classifier 320 may then add the weights of the items together to generate total weights for the items. In this case, list classifier 320 may determine total weights for the items in the lists, as shown in FIG. 6I.

List processor 330 may now form a list from the items with the highest total weights or probabilities or select items for the list based on the distribution of weights or probabilities. For example, list processor 330 may select items with a total weight above 0.75. List processor 330 may then present the list of items in order based on the weights/probabilities, as shown in FIG. 6J. Alternatively, list processor 330 may present the list in a random order or by listing the example items first. List processor 330 may transmit the list to client 110 for presentation to the user. The list may be presented to the user as a selectable list of items. Selection of one of the items in the list may cause a search to be performed for documents relating to that item.

Other Exemplary Implementations

Off-Topic Model

Thus far, the off-topic model has been described as generating items at random according to the relation: P(W.sub.iC0)=u, for all W.sub.i Unlike the on-topic model, the off-topic model is not updated in this implementation. Accordingly, the off-topic model may always output items uniformly at random.

In another implementation, the off-topic model is generated based on one or more example items that are off topic. Like the on-topic example items, these example items may be provided by a user (or client 110). The off-topic model, in this case, may be biased toward the example items given by the user, meaning that the example items may be given a higher probability of being generated by the off-topic model than any other items. The off-topic model may maintain this initial probability assignment for processing of the lists. Alternatively, it may be possible for processing relating to the off-topic model to update and reiterate similar to the processing related to the on-topic model.

Hit List Index

A hit list index has been previously described as containing a mapping of items to the lists in which the items appear. It is inefficient to scan and classify all lists on network 130 and/or network 140 in real time. The hit list index makes it possible to locate relevant lists quickly. Relevant lists are lists that contain one or more of the example items that are on topic. All other lists can be assigned a predetermined (low) probability and not be considered further (though they may be considered in later iterations after updating of the on-topic model).

When updating the on-topic model, it may also be possible to consider only highly relevant items (i.e., items with total weights above a threshold). Low weighted items may be discarded. This may serve to expedite the list generation process by eliminating consideration of items with low weights and lists with none of the highly relevant items.

Master-Slave Configuration

Instead of performing list generation processing on a single device, such as server 120, the processing may be spread over several devices. FIG. 7 is an exemplary diagram of a master-slave system 700 consistent with the principles of the invention. System 700 may include master 710 and multiple slaves 720. Each of slaves 720 may be responsible for a subset of the total existing set of lists (referred to as list subset 730). Master 710 may generate the on-topic and off-topic models. Master 710 may then distribute the models to slaves 720.

Slaves 720 may classify the lists in their respective list subset 730 based on the models. Slaves 720 may also assign weights to the items in the lists and generate the total weights for the items, as described above. Slaves 720 may return the items with their total weights to master 710. Master 710 may then update the on-topic model (and, if necessary, the off-topic model) and send the updated model(s) to slaves 720. This process may repeat for a predetermined number of iterations, as described above.

CONCLUSION

Systems and methods consistent with the principles of the invention automatically generate lists given one or more examples. The systems and methods may use probabilistic modeling to predict lists in a noise tolerant, efficient, and quick manner. Using a probabilistic approach allows the list generation process to be more noise tolerant because there is no deterministic inclusion or exclusion of examples from the predicted list. Instead, all items are assigned weights.

The foregoing description of preferred embodiments of the present invention provides illustration and description, but is not intended to be exhaustive or to limit the invention to the precise form disclosed. Modifications and variations are possible in light of the above teachings or may be acquired from practice of the invention. For example, while a series of acts has been described with regard to FIG. 4, the order of the acts may be differ in other implementations consistent with the present invention. Moreover, non-dependent acts may be performed in parallel.

Also, it has been described that list identifier 310 locates existing lists that are available on network 130 and/or network 140. It has also been described that list classifier 320 classifies the lists identified by list identifier 310. In another implementation, list classifier 320 classifies existing lists that are stored in one or more databases (locally or remotely connected to server 120) instead of, or in addition to, the lists available on network 130 and/or network 140.

Moreover, it has been described that the probabilities of lists (and items in the lists) are determined as part of the list classifying process. In other implementations, other measures of confidence or uncertainty, such as ad-hoc weights or scores of confidence or uncertainty, may be used to classify lists (and items in the lists).

Further, certain portions of the invention have been described as "logic" that performs one or more functions. This logic may include hardware, such as an application specific integrated circuit or a field programmable gate array, software, or a combination of hardware and software.

No element, act, or instruction used in the description of the present application should be construed as critical or essential to the invention unless explicitly described as such. Also, as used herein, the article "a" is intended to include one or more items. Where only one item is intended, the term "one" or similar language is used. The scope of the invention is defined by the claims and their equivalents.

Automatic budget matching beta - from google adwords team

Written by power @ 8:16 AM permanent link on | Post a Comment | 0 comments

Google has slowly rolled out a new feature where it automatically manages campaigns where the daily budget is not fully spent , adds more keywords to the campaign and automatically finishes the daily budget.

This is a cool new feature since we often had trouble finding ways to clear client budget.

According to adwords advisor a representative from yahoo,

A few quick comments, as I see this subject is generating quite a lot of interest and speculation:
* First off, I have already passed your feedback along to the right teams - so your comments and concerns have been heard - and will continue to be heard.
* Please be aware that this is a limited beta test, available as an option to a small number of advertisers.
* Future plans for the feature will certainly be influenced by feedback from folks who participate in the beta. So if you are one of those invited, who then choose to participate in the beta, please be sure to comment early and often.
* Advertisers offered a spot in the beta may certainly turn off the feature if they wish.
* This feature is not intended to 'exhaust the budget' - rather it is only meant to deliver additional traffic where performance metrics such as CTRs and CPCs stack up well against the adgroups current CTR and CPC. If there is no additional relevant traffic to direct to the advertisers campaigns, automatic matching will not spend additional money.
* The queries will appear in Search Query reports.
As always, I'll continue to pass your feedback along - directly to the teams most involved with this beta

Yahoo and click forensic joins hands to fight click fraud

Written by power @ 1:38 PM permanent link on Tuesday, March 25, 2008 | Post a Comment | 0 comments

Click forensic a leading company which monitors click frauds in google's and yahoo's paid search results has now joined hands with yahoo to monitor click fraud in yahoo's search results.

This is a big move since click forensic had been accusing yahoo for not monitoring click fraud happening in their search results. Now yahoo will be more tough towards click fraud which has scared away a lot of advertisers from their pay per click program. Yahoo search marketing yahoo's infamous pay per click program has ever been accused of not monitoring click fraud happening in their search results. The Yahoo-Click Forensics relationship may result in being a step towards the same path. If nothing more, this merger will give Yahoo a position which shall distinguish it from the world leader Google.

Media companies to battle web portals like yahoo and google for competitive ads

Written by power @ 1:34 PM permanent link on | Post a Comment | 0 comments

Forbes Inc., is expected to announce Monday that it will start selling ads this spring for about 400 financial blogs. In recent months, Conde Nast, Viacom Inc., CBS Corp. and other major media companies also have unveiled topic-specific ad networks to lure advertisers that want to buy more ads than any single site can sell.
So advertising in blogs will be a huge future soon. If big companies target blogs then most of the bloggers will be richer

Ebay announces own partner network,

Written by power @ 1:27 PM permanent link on | Post a Comment | 0 comments

Ebay has announced own partner network, Announcing the launch of the eBay Partner Network ebay has described as follows

"The new platform will go live on April 1st, 2008 PST, at which point eBay will no longer be running its affiliate program through Commission Junction. Beginning April 1st, affiliates should register with eBay Partner Network and migrate their links from CJ to the new platform.
While CJ and Value Click have been valuable partners to eBay throughout the years, we've decided to give our affiliate community a customized experience. eBay will continue its partnership with Value Click's technology division, Mediaplex, for ad serving, tracking and other custom projects.
All the great tools and benefits of working with the eBay program will remain the same - access to the Editor Kit and affiliate API, the flexible destination tool, the great payout structure. Please note that there will be no changes in the pricing structure as part of this transition. In addition, the eBay Partner Network will provide several new features:
Easy global registration to multiple countries simultaneously
New, targeted banners and rich media creatives
New landing page optimization and geo-targeting capabilities
More detailed reporting capabilities for eBay's programs"

Did I reand april 1st 2008 it mostly looks like a April fool Joke to me what do you think? Ebay has been partnering commission junction for its paid ads for a long time so do you think they are starting their own network now or its just a April fool prank played by Ebay,

Flat rate PPC services- how does it work?

Written by power @ 1:23 PM permanent link on | Post a Comment | 1 comments

Many companies out there offer flat rate Pay per click management and publishing services. Many of us wonder how it works.

Flat rate PPC is possible for regional targeted keywords. Say we charge the client 400$ that month for PPC we spend 300$ flat rate in google advertising. We set the maximum bit per day as 30$ and if the money runs out we stop the campaign. Eventually we set the budget for the month as 300 dollars. When 300 dollars runs out PPC is stopped for that month and will be continued for next month. There are lot of clients who are just looking for these type of services so its not bad to offer something like that where both the client and the PPC management company doesn's loose anything

Google still leads by a major margin in search industry

Written by power @ 11:29 PM permanent link on Monday, March 24, 2008 | Post a Comment | 0 comments

Google still leads with a whopping 58% searches done by all US internet users according to comcore month report published this december 2007


comScore Core Search Report*December 2007Total U.S. - Home/Work/University LocationsSource: comScore qSearch 2.0

Core Search Entity
Share of Searches (%)
Nov-07
Dec-07
Point Change Dec-07 vs. Nov-07

Total Core Search
100.0%
100.0%
0.0
Google Sites
58.6%
58.4%
-0.2

Yahoo! Sites
22.4%
22.9%
0.5

Microsoft Sites
9.8%
9.8%
0.0

Time Warner Network
4.5%
4.6%
0.1

Ask Network
4.6%
4.3%
-0.3

* Based on the five major search engines including partner searches and cross-channel searches. Searches for mapping, local directory, and user-generated video sites that are not on the core domain of the five search engines are not included in the core search numbers.
Americans conducted 9.6 billion searches at the core search engines, representing a 3.9-percent decline versus November. With many Americans traveling and spending time away from home during the holidays, search activity typically experiences a seasonal decline during December. Google Sites saw 5.6 billion core searches during the month, while Yahoo! Sites recorded 2.2 billion.
comScore Core Search Report*December 2007Total U.S. â€" Home/Work/University LocationsSource: comScore qSearch 2.0
Core Search Entity
Search Queries (MM)

Nov-07
Dec-07
Percent Change Dec-07 vs. Nov-07

Total Core Search
10,030
9,636
-3.9%

Google Sites
5,882
5,629
-4.3%

Yahoo! Sites
2,249
2,211
-1.7%

Microsoft Sites
984
940
-4.5%

Time Warner Network
453
442
-2.6%

Ask Network
463
415
-10.3%

First win over trademark infringement in Google adwords

Written by power @ 11:01 PM permanent link on | Post a Comment | 0 comments

As far as I know this seem to be the first win over trademark issue in google adwords PPC advertising programme, A company named Storus sued Aroa for using their trademark in online advertising campaign.

Document says

"1. Aroaa.

a. Undisputed Facts4Aroa sells "money clip products" under the mark Steinhausen, (see Andara Decl.,filed December 28, 2007, Ex. E at 59), on the website steinhausenonline.com, (see id.Ex. G). From 1998 to January 2001, Aroa also sold, pursuant to an agreement with Storus, Storus' Smart Money Clip. (See Kaminski Decl. ¶¶ 7-8.)

Google Inc., an internet search engine, operates an advertising program titled"AdWords," under which an account holder can "create ads and choose keywords." (SeeChoi Decl., filed December 28, 2007, ¶ 4.) Under this program, "[w]hen people search on Google using one of the account holder's keywords, the account holder's ad may appear next to the search results, and people can then click on the account holder's ad." (See id.)Aroa, an AdWords account holder, chose various keywords for inclusion in the program, including "smart money clip," and provided Google with an ad to be generated when a usersearched using any of the chosen keywords. (See id. Ex. B at 3, 5.) In particular, under the AdWords program, if a consumer searched on Google for the phrase "smart money//Case 3:06-cv-02454-MMC Document 212 Filed 02/15/2008 Page 6 of 12
5Storus asserts, and defendants do not dispute, that defendants stopped using "smart money clip" as a keyword in the AdWorks program at some point after the instant action was filed. Consistent with Storus' assertion, documents produced by Google, in the instant action, refer to the "status" of Aroa's keyword "smart money clip" as "paused," as opposed to "active." (See Choi Decl. Ex. G at 5.)7clip," the following Aroa ad may appear on the results page:Smart Money Cliphttp://www.steinhausenonline Elegant Steinhausen accessories. Perfect to add toany collection.(See Andara Decl. Ex. G.)5 The "Smart Money Clip" portion of the ad is underlined and setforth in a larger font than that used in the rest of the text in the ad. (See id.)

During the period from November 13, 2006 to October 12, 2007, the above advertisement was displayed 36,164 times in response to a search for "smart money clip,"and such displays resulted in 1,374 "clicks," i.e., the consumer "clicked on [Aroa's] ad after viewing the page where it was displayed." (See Choi Decl. ¶ 5, Ex. B at 4-5; Andara Decl.Ex. E. at STOR00673-74.)

b. Analysis

In light of the above undisputed facts, the Court finds Aroa used a mark identical to Storus' mark with respect to the same type of product, a money clip, and that both Storus and Aroa marketed their respective money clip products over the internet. Defendants' argument, that the first of the "factors of the internet trilogy," similarity of the marks,nevertheless weighs in Aroa's favor, is unpersuasive. Although, as defendants point out,Aroa's Google ad includes a reference to Aroa's mark "Steinhausen," the subject ad, as noted, begins with a mark identical to Storus' mark, underlined, and in a font size larger than that used for any other text in the ad. Defendants appear to argue that consumers would know Steinhausen is the mark of a company different from that of the company owning the Smart Money Clip mark, and, thus, if consumers proceed to Aroa's site, the consumers would not be confused as to the source. Defendants offer no evidence,however, to support such a finding. Moreover, even if such evidence had been offered,defendants' argument would be unavailing. As noted, under the "initial interest confusion"Case 3:06-cv-02454-MMC Document 212 Filed 02/15/2008 Page 7 of 121
6Defendants rely on the concurring opinion in Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. Netscape Communications Corp., 354 F. 3d 1020 (9th Cir. 2004), in which Judge Berzon expressed concern that Brookfield was "wrongly decided" and "may one day, if not now, need toreconsidered en banc." See id. at 1035. Nevertheless, this Court is bound by Brookfield.Moreover, Judge Berzon's concern pertained to application of the holding in Brookfield to adefendant who, having used the plaintiff's mark as a keyword, causes consumers to viewan internet ad "clearly labeled" as an ad for the defendant. See id. This concern is inapplicable to the instant matter; Aroa's advertisement is not "clearly labeled" as an ad for Aroa, given that the largest words in the advertisement consist of a mark identical to Storus' mark.8theory of trademark liability, "source confusion" need not occur; rather, in the internet context, the wrongful act is the defendant's use of the plaintiff's mark to "divert" consumers to a website that "consumers know" is not Storus' website. See Brookfield, 174 F. 3d at1062.6

Accordingly, the Court finds no triable issue of fact exists with respect to any of the three "factors of the internet trilogy," each of which weighs in favor of Storus. SeePerfumebay.com, 506 F. 3d at 1174. Consequently, the burden shifts to defendants tooffer evidence to support a finding that the remaining factors "weigh strongly against alikelihood of confusion." See id. at 1174-75.

In that regard, defendants offer no evidence to show a lack of actual initial interest confusion. The only evidence relevant to this factor is offered by Storus, specifically, undisputed evidence that during the period from November 13, 2006 to October 12, 2007, when Aroa's ad appeared thousands of times in response to searches for "smart moneyclip," such ad generated 1,374 "clicks." (See Choi Decl. ¶ 5, Ex. B at 4-5; Andara Decl. Ex.E. at STOR00673-74.) In other words, on 1,374 occasions, consumers who were searching for a website by using Storus' mark were, in fact, "diverted" to an Aroa website selling money clips that compete with Storus' money clips. Such diversion constitutes the "initial interest confusion" prohibited by the Lanham Act. See Brookfield, 174 F. 3d at 1062,1065.

Defendants offer no evidence as to their intent in selecting Storus' mark as akeyword in Google's AdWords program. Again, the only evidence relevant to such factor isoffered by Storus, specifically, evidence that Aroa, before it began using "smart money clip" Case 3:06-cv-02454-MMC Document 212 Filed 02/15/2008 Page 8 of 12
7The Court makes the same finding irrespective of whether the Court employs aburden-shifting approach as set forth in Interstellar Starship and Perfumebay.com, orconsiders each factor without burden-shifting. See, e.g., Playboy Enterprises, 354 F. 3d at1026-29. As discussed above, the only evidence offered with respect to five of the Sleekcraft factors is undisputed and each such factor weighs in favor of Storus; defendantsconcede a sixth factor weighs in favor of Storus; a seventh factor is of little importance; and the eighth factor is irrelevant.9as a keyword in Google's AdWords program, had actual knowledge that Storus used the mark "Smart Money Clip" to market money clips. (See Kaminski Decl. ¶ 7.)

With respect to the strength of the Smart Money Clip mark, defendants rely on their argument that Storus' mark is descriptive and, consequently, weak. "Whether the mark is weak or not is of little importance," however, "where the conflicting mark is identical and the goods are closely related," see Brookfield, 174 F. 3d at 1059 (internal quotation and citationomitted), which is precisely the situation presented herein.

Defendants concede the "degree of consumer care" favors Storus, because "consumer care for inexpensive products is expected to be quite low." (See Defs.' Opp. at14:25-27.) The remaining factor, "likelihood of expansion," is, in the instant case,"irrelevant" because the goods sold by the plaintiff and the defendant are "related." See Playboy Enterprises, 354 F. 3d at 1029.

In sum, there is no triable issue with respect to any of the three "factors of the internet trilogy," and defendants have failed, on behalf of Aroa, to make any showing, let alone the requisite "strong" showing, that the remaining factors weigh against a finding of alikelihood of confusion. Under the circumstances, the Court finds Storus has shown no material issue exists as to a likelihood of confusion by reason of Aroa's having used Google's AdWords program in the above-described manner.72. Skymalla.

Undisputed Facts

Skymall sells products to consumers through its website www.skymall. (SeeAndara Decl. Ex. M, last page, unnumbered.) The products sold thereon include "apparel,business accessories, computer products, electronic equipment, automobile accessories,Case 3:06-cv-02454-MMC Document 212 Filed 02/15/2008 Page 9 of 12
8Watte's deposition was taken September 19, 2007. She also testified that "thesearch functionality [of Skymall's search engine] has been enhanced so that [customerservice employees] can locate products easier." (See id. Ex. N at 20:4-8.)10gift items, collectable items, housewares, home-furnishings, personal-hygiene products,health-care products, fitness products, food items, pet accessories, travel accessories,seasonal items, gift-certificates and other general merchandise." (See Schewe Decl., filed January 11, 2008, Ex. 2 at 8.) Skymall's website has a search engine that consumers canuse to search the Skymall website. (See Andara Decl. Ex. M at 93:21-23.) Among the products Skymall has sold are "Gadget Universe" money clips supplied by Aroa. (See id.Ex. L at 13:3-14, 54:12-15, 84:11-19; Ex. M, last unnumbered page.) On July 14, 2005,Skymall, on its website, offered for sale a Gadget Universe money clip; the description ofsaid product included, in two places, the phrase "smart money clip." (See id. Ex. M at91:21-92:10.)

b. Other Evidence

At his deposition, Skymall's Chief Financial Officer, Dick Larson ("Larson"), was asked whether, if a consumer used Skymall's search engine to search for the term "SmartMoney Clip," a webpage showing one of Aroa's money clips would come up; Larsonresponded, "I would expect [Aroa's] product to come up." (See id. Ex. M at 94:10-12.) Ather deposition, Skymall's Customer Service Manager, Jeanette Watte ("Watte"), was asked, "[I]f you typed in 'Smart Money Clip,' do you believe that based on that searchengine it would bring you [Aroa's] product"; Watte responded, "Today it would, probably."(See id. Ex. N at 19:23-20:2.)8

c. Analysis

With respect to Skymall, Storus' theory of liability is that if a consumer enters the phrase "smart money clip" in Skymall's search engine, the consumer would be directed to apage, in what is essentially an electronic catalog, on which Skymall offers for sale an Aroamoney clip and on which the words "smart money clip" appear in conjunction with such offer. Put another way, its is Storus' theory that when a consumer asks if Skymall offers aCase 3:06-cv-02454-MMC Document 212 Filed 02/15/2008 Page 10 of 12

9A defendant can only be liable for trademark infringement if it engages in anunconsented "use" of another's mark. See 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1). Such "use," in a claim ofthe type alleged against Skymall, could be proved, e.g., by evidence showing the defendant directs a consumer who searches for "smart money clip" to a webpage on which it offers acompeting money clip, and where that page contains the phrase "smart money clip," either expressly stated thereon or in a metatag. Here, Storus offers no evidence as to how Skymall's search engine works; specifically, Storus offers no evidence, or even argues, that Skymall's search engine directs a searching consumer to its pages based on metatags found on those pages, or by some similar mechanism not visible to the consumer by which Skymall itself makes "use" of the mark "smart money clip." Consequently, based on the record before the Court, Storus can only establish the requisite "use" if it proves Skymall's search engine directs a consumer searching for "smart money clip" to a page in its catalog that expressly contains the phrase "smart money clip."11"Smart Money Clip," Skymall answers, "yes," and directs the consumer to a page offeringan Aroa money clip. Relying on a claim of initial interest confusion under Brookfield andthe above-described deposition testimony offered by Larson and Watte, Storus arguessuch theory can be established as a matter of law. The Court disagrees.

Although Skymall conceded having, on July 14, 2005, a webpage containing the phrase "smart money clip" in a description of an Aroa money clip, Skymall has not conceded that, at that time, a consumer who entered "smart money clip" in the Skymall search engine would have been directed to that particular page. All that Skymall conceded,in the above-referenced deposition testimony, is that at present or, at best, at some unspecified time, if a consumer were to enter "smart money clip" in Skymall's searchengine, the consumer would likely be directed to a webpage depicting an Aroa product.9Critically, Storus points to no concession by Skymall that such a consumer would bedirected to a page containing the phrase "smart money clip," let alone to a page identical tothat found on Skymall's website on July 14, 2005. Indeed, it appears, from the limited evidence submitted, that a page offering an Aroa money clip will appear as a search resultsolely because the consumer searches using the phrase "money clip," irrespective ofwhether the consumer adds the word "smart" to the search term and irrespective ofwhether the page contains the word "smart." (See id. Ex. M at 93:18-94:9.) Put anotherway, although the evidence is undisputed that, in July 2005, Skymall's catalog contained awebpage that included the words "smart money clip," the record reflects no evidence, or atCase 3:06-cv-02454-MMC Document 212 Filed 02/15/2008 Page 11 of 12 best a triable issue, with respect to whether, at that time, Skymall had a search engine that would direct consumers to that page if they were to enter the term "smart money clip." Conversely, although there is evidence that, at the present time, Skymall's search engine would direct such consumers to a page advertising an Aroa money clip, there is no evidence that, at this time, any such page contains the words "smart money clip." In sum,the inquiry of Larson and Watte at their respective depositions is too imprecise to support, as a matter of law, the inference Storus seeks to draw.

Accordingly, the Court finds Storus has failed to show no material issue of fact exists as to a likelihood of initial interest confusion based on Skymall's search engine.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, Storus' motion for partial summary judgment oftrademark infringement is hereby GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, as follows:

1. The motion is GRANTED and Storus shall have judgment in its favor as against Aroa on the issue of trademark infringement, specifically, that Aroa's use of Storus' mark inconnection with Google AdWords is infringing.

2. In all other respects, the motion is DENIED.IT IS SO ORDERED?"

pub.bna.com/eclr/06cv2454_021508
.pdf

Top Four Common types of Affiliate program

Written by power @ 2:04 AM permanent link on | Post a Comment | 0 comments

This information may be helpful for you if you are just starting with affiliate marketing. Know about the various affiliate programs accessible on net and grasp the benefits. However, not everyone realizes that there are various methods to make money online with affiliate programs, so let me summarize the top four common types of affiliate program for you:









1. Pay Per Sale (PPS) - This is one of most common kind of affiliate program online. When advertising your products or services on a pay per sale format, the affiliate only make money when a sale take place through affiliate link. Generally the money earned is a proportion of entire sale, which is commonly known as affiliate commission. With such kind of program, it is very crucial for marketer to choose products and programs that are highly saleable. Otherwise, you may waste lot of time in getting your actually expected sales results.

Tips - if you desire to make sale over and over again in a Pay Per Sale program, the products, the sales letter and the merchant all three must be very good and well established.

2. Pay Per Click (PPC) - A pay per click affiliate is the most famous affiliate program that involves advertising to an extent. Instead of the affiliate programmer suggesting specific products and services, they just incorporate advertisements on their site/blog or in their email newsletters. When website visitors or readers click on to that particular ad, the affiliate marketers make some money through it. Among PPC the most popular is Google Adsense program, which gaining more and more popularity.

Tips - PPC programs are well-liked with many people, at they think they do not really have to in fact try and sell something. Instead of that, you could offer great content/article on your blog or website, so that the visitors click ads with interest.

3. Pay Per Lead (PPL) - Pay per Lead affiliate programs are also trendy as an affiliate market could make money online by just giving away something for free. There is no sale caught up, and the affiliate commissions are frequently quite rewarding.

With this programs, the market generally needs to get the site visitor to complete a form asking for more information, or fill in a study or estimation poll. In other cases, all that a marketer has to do is get the site visitors to sign up for an email list, and they could make money from such actions.

4. Pay Per Action (PPA) - This phrase is usually used synonymously with any of the above terms. With a pay per action affiliate marketing, the affiliate's profession is to get their targeted site visitors to take an exact action. Sometimes that act is to purchase something; sometimes it is also simply requesting free data or information. Other times the site readers have to take a study or sign up for the email list. The kinds of performance differ from one affiliate program offer to other, but same like the other affiliate payment kinds above, once the action is done, the affiliate earns a commission.
ABC search buys social portal aftervote.com

Written by power @ 10:38 PM permanent link on Sunday, March 23, 2008 | Post a Comment | 0 comments

ABCSearch is a subsidiary of Internext Media Corp. and a major player in online cost-per-click advertising. Aftervote recently voted No.1 on PC magazines The 100 best undiscovered websites of 2007″ is acquired by ABC search a major private help cost per click advertising company.

Google buys doubleclick for 3.24$ billion

Written by power @ 10:33 PM permanent link on | Post a Comment | 0 comments

Google has bought the famous internet advertising company for a whopping 3.24 billion dollars. That is very good deal for doubleclick. Cost was a bit more than what google was quoted buying doubleclick last year. Doubleclick will bring in a major impact when it comes to google's revenue areas and its idea of expanding customer base

Live search webmaster center now out of beta

Written by power @ 10:30 PM permanent link on | Post a Comment | 0 comments

Yahoo's new ad testing feature - rocks,

Written by power @ 10:15 PM permanent link on | Post a Comment | 0 comments

Yahoo search marketing now provides an ad testing feature where we can test run our ads and prioratize based on which ads perform the best, Its a cool new feature since our clients have always complained ROI from yahoo ads are very bad,

Yahoo don't have anywhere near the amount of traffic google has and it is very important we run a well organized campaign to get any returns from yahoo paid results. Since ads are judged by quality and click through rate it improves the ROI. Even lower cost ads can perform well based on the new quality index on yahoo search marketing.

Yahoo banning cigaratte ads

Written by power @ 10:03 PM permanent link on | Post a Comment | 0 comments

Yahoo search marketing has finally come up hard on certain things that are definitely not appropriate for youngsters and sensitive users. Yahoo has banned ads on cigarettes, cheating essays where people trick their colleges by buying essays online, firearms, ammunition ads etc.

This is a great move since I personally never wanted these ads to be displayed, Following is from yahoo's official search engine marketing blog,

Cigarettes-Sure, James Dean looks cool smoking in that "Rebel Without A Cause" movie poster, but in our search listings we will not accept ads that sell, facilitate the sale, or promote the sale of cigarettes.
Essay-Writing Services-School is hard, writing papers is a drag, but going through life never learning a thing is even more painful. We no longer accept ads that promote academic paper-writing services and the sale of pre-written essays, theses and dissertations.
Fake IDs and Fake Diplomas-These days lots of things can be fake-nails, lips, other body parts. But we have to draw the line at fake IDs or credentials. For that reason, we will not accept ads that offer fake IDs, diplomas or educational transcripts.
Firearms, Ammunition and Fireworks-Go blow 'em up and shoot 'em up somewhere else, because we will not accept ads that offer or promote the sale of fireworks, firearms or integral parts for these weapons.


Fake IDs again is a major problem since children with fake ids enter adults only blogs and spoil learn things they are not supposed to do at their age,

Adwords editor - free ad editing tool,

Written by power @ 9:58 PM permanent link on | Post a Comment | 0 comments

Google is providing free tool to manage large and multiple campaign simultaneously. That way we can manage campaigns in the comfort of our home without logging into online adwords control panel every time.

This tool is simple to use yet pretty secure,

Following steps help to upload your changes,

You can post all changes in your account, or you can select specific campaigns to post. To post all changes in your account, follow these steps:
Click Post Changes in the tool bar.
You'll see a summary of the changes that will be posted to AdWords.
Click Post to upload your changes, or click Cancel to cancel the post.
If you click Post, you'll see a detailed summary, by campaign, of the progress of your post. (If desired, keep a record of your post by copying this report into a separate document.)
If you need to pause while your changes are posting, click Pause in the posting dialog. Then click Resume Post when you're ready to begin.
Click Close when the post is complete. To post changes in select campaigns, follow these steps:
In the tree view, select the account name. If you only want to post one campaign, you can select the campaign name.
On the Campaigns tab, select the campaigns you want to post.
Click Post Selected Campaigns in the tool bar.
Select the radio button indicating you only want to post changes in your selected campaign.
Click Post to upload your changes, or click Cancel to cancel the post.
If you click Post, you'll see a detailed summary, by campaign, of the progress of your post. (If desired, keep a record of your post by copying this report into a separate document.)
If you need to pause while your changes are posting, click Pause in the posting dialog. Then click Resume Post when you're ready to begin.
Click Close when the post is complete.

www.google.com/intl/en/adwordseditor/

Google PPC introduces Demographic bidding,

Written by power @ 9:53 PM permanent link on | Post a Comment | 0 comments

According to adwords blog,

What is demographic bidding? It's a feature that helps you target your ads to users of a particular age group (such as ages 18-24), by gender, or to combinations of those groups. You can use demographic bidding whether you are using contextual or placement targeting and with both CPC and CPM bidding. You can refine your reach based on users' gender and age on certain sites in the Google content network such as MySpace and Friendster, whose users provide that information about themselves. AdWords receives the data in anonymous and aggregate form from participating partner sites, which means that users can't be personally identified. Here's an example of how demographic bidding works: suppose you sell women's basketball shoes and want your ad to be seen by 18-24 year-old females. You could raise your bids to increase the frequency with which those users see your ads. You can also restrict your ads from certain users if you think they're not meeting your ROI goals. In the case of women's basketball shoes, you might find that the male, 18-24 year-old demographic is receiving a significant number of impressions but not clicking-through or converting well, and decide to restrict that group.Overall, demographic bidding gives you more control over the demographic groups who see your ads. These metrics can help you decide how to adjust your bid modifiers and restricts to reach the audiences that give you the most clicks and the best ROI.Lastly, it's helpful to know that demographic bidding and demographic site selection are two separate ways of targeting your ads. Demographic site selection, found in the AdWords Placement Tool, helps you find and target entire websites that, in general and based on comScore data, have the audience you're trying to reach. On the other hand, demographic bidding lets you modify your bids or restrict your ads' visibility based on the age and gender of the users viewing your ads on participating sites in the Google content network.

Looks like a cool new way of bidding through adwords we are planning to give it a try very soon, We feel this is a very good option since different audiences see ads in different ways. I am 26 when I search for a particular product and see google sponsored results I get a bit freaky when it doesn't read properly to me,

Try the new google demographic bidding and post your comment here,

What is Pay per Click?

Written by Adtya sen @ 11:48 PM permanent link on Friday, March 21, 2008 | Post a Comment | 0 comments

Pay per click (PPC) is a marketing or advertising model which is used on advertising networks, search engines, blogs and content websites. Here the advertisers pay only when a netizen clicks on the ad to visit the advertiser's website. The advertisers make a bid on the keywords which they predict as their target market and these keywords will be used as the search terms when netizen are looking for a service or product. When a netizen types a particular keyword matching the advertiser's keyword list, or sees a page that has a relevant content, the advertiser's ad(s) will be displayed. These ads are called "Sponsored Ads" or "Sponsored Links", which will appear beside or above the organic/natural results on search engine results pages; it may also appear anywhere a Blogger/webmaster choose on a content page.

10 Tips for Choosing Bid Management Software

Written by power @ 7:13 AM permanent link on Tuesday, March 18, 2008 | Post a Comment | 0 comments

Don’t even think about building it yourself. I speak from experience here. Building bid management software requires a full-time team, ongoing maintenance, and a lot of trial and error. It will take you at least a year to build a basic version, and at least two to three engineers to maintain and iterate it after that. And it won’t be as good as the software currently available on the market.

Assess your expertise and what you really need. Assuming you listened to my first tip, you next step is to understand how you are going to use the software. First, let’s talk about your level of expertise. If you are an expert, you may want to let the bid management software run your tail terms (the 98% of keywords that make up 2% of your revenue) and focus on optimizing the head yourself. If you aren’t an expert, you probably need software that can manage everything for you, with a very simple interface, and possibly the option of full-service bid management combined with the software. Either way, you need to know exactly what you want before you start talking to software providers. Otherwise, you might end up paying for a Ferrari when all you really needed was a station wagon.

Understand implementation and de-implementation effort and impact. A lot of bid management software only works if you install a snippet of code on your Web site and if you allow the bid management company to change your URLs on the search engines. This can require significant effort by your internal tech team and changing your URLs in your search campaigns can result in a loss of keyword history (i.e., you will need to pay more to get the same position). Moreover, you need to understand what happens if you end your relationship with the company - will they change your URLs back, or are you stuck with their tracking for the rest of your life?

Always do a trial first. I’ve seen some really great PowerPoint presentations from bid management companies. It turns out its easier to make a good PowerPoint than it is to make a good bid management software. Never sign up for anything until you have taken it for a test drive for at least one month and if possible three or four months.

Set benchmarks for initial and ongoing success. Before you start any trial, understand the status quo of your campaigns. What’s your current revenue? Profit? Margin? Tell the bid management company your actual metrics and tell them what you expect them to hit for them to win your business. Make sure you factor in the cost of their services. For example, if a bid management company wants to charge you 5% of your spend, and you currently have a 10% margin on your spend, you should demand that they at least bring you 15% margin (and probably higher). By the way, most bid management companies will thank you for this - it gives them something tangible to shoot for!

Look for hidden fees. Does the contract include API costs, or do you have to pay these? Is there a charge for consulting and implementation? Is there a minimum monthly bill? Read your contract carefully and ask a lawyer for help if you are at all confused.

Ask for performance pricing. I know my co-panelist Kevin Lee is going to kill me for saying this, but don’t be afraid to ask your bid management company to put some skin in the game. If a company’s bid management software is a good as they say it is, offer them 50% of the incremental profit they make you to prove it! More realistically, perhaps ask them to take a slightly lower percentage of spend in return for a performance bonus if they achieve certain goals (see Kevin, I’m not as unreasonable as I first seem!)

Get a short contract. If possible, try to get a month-to-month contract (though this will be hard to do). If you can’t make this happen, a six month contract is usual very doable.

Be hesitant about handing over your head keywords. For the 50 to 100 keywords that drive most of your revenue, I usually recommend good old human management. Why? Well I believe that a good search analyst just gets an almost intuitive feel for how to grow top keywords, something that computers just can’t do. And managing your top keywords in-house can save you a lot on bid management fees, especially if less than 50 keywords make up 20-30% of your ad spend.

Keep testing new competitors. The bid management world is ever-changing. I see new and exciting bid management companies popping up regularly. Always keep a campaign or two available for the next great thing.