Overture Sitematch - Replaces Inktomi Av And Fast, at Yahoo Options

[Trellian]

Hello All,

It is now official!!!!

The new Yahoo PFI program has been released and is called......
Overture SiteMatch = formally known as Inktomi Search Submit
and
Overture SiteMatch Xchange = formally known as Inktomi Index Connect.

This is from our own press release:


As of the 1st of March, 6pm Standard Pacific time, the Inktomi, AltaVista
and FAST paid inclusion programs have been merged into a single service
titled 'Overture Site Match'.

The new service supports all engines formerly part of the Inktomi and FAST
networks, but also includes listings on Yahoo Search and AltaVista.


What does this mean?
======================
All existing orders submitted to either FAST,
AltaVista or Inktomi will be honoured for the full term of the subscription.
These orders will continue to receive distribution as ordered.
As an additional bonus, Inktomi users are currently receiving traffic from
Yahoo Search. This bonus ends on the 15th of April 15th. After this time,
Inktomi Search Submit customers will need to change over to Overture Site
Match if they wish to continue receiving search traffic from Yahoo!

If you wish to submit new URLs to either Inktomi, AltaVista or FAST, you
need to use the new service. Simply login to your existing PrioritySubmit
account and select SiteMatch from the options menu.


What is Site Match?
===========================
Site Match is Overture's new paid inclusion product offered by
PrioritySubmit, which provides a very simple yet effective method for online
businesses to be considered for inclusion in the main body of search results
pages on multiple portals. By subscribing to Site Match, your web pages are
reviewed for quality and submitted to a database that provides search
results to Yahoo!, AltaVista, AllTheWeb, Overture and many other portals.
Your listings will be included in relevant search results, providing your
business with a source of targeted customer leads.
For more information and an FAQ visit: http://www.prioritysubmit.com


Pricing
=================
Submissions to Site Match consist of a annual Review fee and a CPC (Cost per click)
component. The review fees are:

$49 for the first URL from any domain
$29 for URLs 2-10 and
$10 per URL if submitting 11 or more URLs.

In addition to the yearly review fee, there is also a per click fee of
either $0.15 or $0.30, depending on the content category. (The complete list
of categories is listed on PrioritySubmit.com in the SiteMatch section).

Cheers
David

[Jill]

Wow...that really bites.

Cost per click on top of paid-inclusion?

What do you get for this? Top listings? Or just indexed.

Thanks for the info David! Didn't I just see you at dinner? (IMG:http://www.highrankings.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Jill

[Trellian]

Just indexed, the URLs look like organic results.

and yes dinner was great (IMG:http://www.highrankings.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

If you are an SEO that already does PPC programs than this will not be a big transition.

Cheers
David

[OldWelshGuy]

That is heavy, two sets of charges (IMG:http://www.highrankings.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/mad.gif)

It will be interesting to see how this pans out.

One thing though, if the paid inclusion with a per click cost is indistinguishable from organic, Isn't this against some US ruling with regard deceptive advertising or some such?

[markymark]

Let me get this straight in my mind.

This SiteMatch thing applies to all the Yahoo search engines, ie: inktomi, AV and Fast. So that price covers all those engines, right ?

Annual review - what does this actually mean. Surely they are not going to hand-check all the URLs that are submitted. That would be ludicrously time consuming.

Plus 15 or 30 cents a click - that's the kicker for me. That's far too expensive for many businesses. Particularly, as the higher rate covers things like gifts.

Now where's the free submit option ?

[Dragon]

Very ouch !!
But that said - I am busy weighing my options right now...

Dont know so much about the US ruling, but I do know that psychologically some users prefer to click on what they would deem as "freelistings", as they consider them *more relevant* rather than sites that have pfi.

And if everyone decides to sign up for SiteMatch, where will the freelistings lie in the SERP - 3rd page...4th page....? Who browses that far down the SERP's anymore ? (...unless all the previous 30 results are irrelevant of course....) ...& Yahoo will become the *second major search supplier...* - OK, panic just kicked in....

I am totally confused, cause I can argue benefits & advantages either way...I guess the only reason I am so carefully considering the situation is because of the costs....

Anyone else have thoughts on this..?, really need some outside opinions to help clear my own....
:-)

[Dragon]

...Surely they are not going to hand-check all the URLs that are submitted. That would be ludicrously time consuming.

Now where's the free submit option ?

Perhaps they plan to take on DMOZ as well....

;-)

[OldWelshGuy]

[quote=Dragon,Mar 2 2004, 06:50 AM] Now where's the free submit option ? [/QUOTE]
Perhaps they plan to take on DMOZ as well ;-) [/quote]
I think Google might have something to say about that

[Randy]

One thing though, if the paid inclusion with a per click cost is indistinguishable from organic, Isn't this against some US ruling with regard deceptive advertising or some such?

It's never been applied to search engines to my knowledge OWG. The idea has however been kicked around a couple of times by TPTB in the US Gov't, so we may see it some day. Likely a bit more quickly if something like the above is put into place.

The standard, if there is one, basically come from the Print media model. Where ads in newspapers that could be mistaken for normal articles have to be presented in such a way that the reader can easily distinguish between what is Content and what is Paid Advertising.

In my mind, it' one thing to pay for a review and speedier inclusion/indexing. It's quite another matter when a cost per click is involved, regardless of whether any position is "guaranteed" by the CPC fees. I'm sure the SE will argue otherwise, since they're not guaranteeing any specific position. I'm not so sure the regulators will see things their way though.

[GeordieSEO]

Ouch :doh:

[OldWelshGuy]

Randy that is where I was coming from, I knew that it is illegal in print media, UNLESS you have at the top clearly marked 'Advertising Feature' I remember that from my paper days lol

For some reason I thought I had read it online. I am not sure if it would apply though if there was no pay for placement, then again we are down to arguing over semantics as if they had not paid to be included, would they be placed? I feel a challenge coming on from someone here (IMG:http://www.highrankings.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/tongue.gif)

Geordie SEO< OUCH indeed>

[Randy]

This older article by Danny Sullivan may be the one you're remembering OWG.

Paraphrasing, it's about the US Federal Trade Commission's recommendation to search engines back in 2002 regarding a deceptive advertising claim made because of the way some search engines were mixing and mingling paid and non-paid listings. The main issue being Search Engines should apply the same standard the print media are held to, naemly that "clear and conspicuous disclosures" need to be made where paid ads are concerned.

From memory (no, I didn't re-read the whole article or any of the other docs regarding the recommendation) I don't recall the FTC ever saying that positioning of the paid ads had anything to do with their recommendation . If they're paid, they're paid. Period, end of discussion. Of course my memory is a bit mushy after the hellish day I had yesterday, so I may be remembering that totally wrong.

As far as I know, this recommendation still holds true. I'm betting that Commercial Alert or some other watchdog group will likely be bringing a new complaint as soon as they get all of the details and/or when this new PFI/PPC model goes into effect.

Danny also maintains a large list of links regarding legal issues and the Search Industry. It would probably be a good one to keep an eye on since I'm sure he'll be all over it when something happens regarding this new business model. That one located Here for your reference.

I just did a quick search and looked at the Consumer Alert site and can't find any mention of anything afoot yet. But it's very, very early in the process. I'm sure there will be much more said and written on this issue in the near future.

[See, this jumble of Fav Places I maintin does come in handy every now and then!

[robwatts]

Great news for seo's with corporate accounts, or clients with deep pockets.

It all boils down to your traffic conversion and profit ratios.

If the above are high enough, then you make money, if they aren't then you lose.

Some might even like to call it the $300 per 1000 visitors program or the lets make Yahoo richer program (IMG:http://www.highrankings.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

Scenario 1

Lets assume that a site gets 5k visitors per day on a variety of search terms. It converts around 1.5 % of its visitors with a typical sale earning around $10.

1000 extra yahoo visitors would cost $300 (1000 x .30 cents).

On these figures, this site would make 15 sales on these 1000 visits.

15 sales = $150 making a net loss of $150 per 1000 yahoo visitors.

End result = (IMG:http://www.highrankings.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/sad.gif)

Scenario 2

Lets assume that a site gets 5k visitors per day on a variety of search terms. It converts around 2 % of its visitors with a typical sale earning around $50.

1000 extra yahoo visitors would cost $300 (1000 x .30 cents).

On these figures, this site would make 20 sales on these 1000 visits.

20 sales = $1000 making a net profit of $700 per 1000 yahoo visitors.

End result = (IMG:http://www.highrankings.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

For some it might well be cheaper than adwords, but at the end of the day thats all it is, PPC with a $49 dollar sign up fee :doh:

Sure, their program will work for lots of people and many people will be more than happy with it, but equally the same applies in reverse too.

[Jill]

It's ridiculous...anyone have Ralph Nader's number?

Of course, trusted feed has been doing this in those engines for awhile anyway.

The big question is (and time will tell)...are they going to remove sites that are there for free now? And/or will they continue to spider for free?

Why does something tell me in the back of my head that competitive phrase sites may suddenly disappear if they're not currently in the paid program?

I'm disappointed in Yahoo, because I thought they finally got it right. I guess I'll reserve judgement until I see if they remove or stop adding pages for free.

Jill

[OldWelshGuy]

And while all this is going on the Microsoft search development and marketing team sit back and enjoy all this free market research, ensuring that WHEN they bring their baby to the market, it will be positioned 'just right'.

Don't it make you (IMG:http://www.highrankings.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/puke.gif) how microsoft can be one of the few companies who put no weight on 'first to the market' products. LMAO