MATCH ENGINE MARKETING: PINPOINT TARGETING ANDTRUE RELEVANCY VIA A STRUCTURED INTERNET ENVIRONMENT
THE BIRTH OF FRICTIONLESS ADVERTISING
A New Disruptive Paradigm Following in the Footsteps of GoTo/Overture
The game-changing implications of being able to enter "female + age 37 + $75,000/yr + married + homeowner + 2 children + volleyball + asthma + dog + plasma TV/30 days + 90210" in search/match query boxes . . .
ABSTRACT
Since its initial conceptualization and development in the late 1990's by Idealab's GoTo (later Overture; now a division of Yahoo), search engine advertising; also known variously as search advertising, paid search, paid placement, pay-for-position,or pay-per-click (PPC); has rapidly expanded to today becoming arguably the most effective method and system of bringing buyers and sellers together ever created. With some 200,000+ product and service providers of all sizes and revenues from virtually all industry sectors taking part; PPC 1.0 search advertising is now a $7,000,000,000+/year industry. Despite such success, however,eight identified drawbacks to and problems with such systems are analyzed here which will likely act as constraints to their further growth and implementation in the years to come.
In order to address search engine advertising's difficulties, Match Engine Marketing (MEM) [Paid Match] has been invented, which; depending on the drawback being referenced and embodiment being utilized; substantially to wholly traverses each of theseeight drawbacksvia a combination with and integration of the best attributes and features of search advertising with a new, structured environment based technique called "multigraphic (ie demographic/ psychographic) bidding/targeting."An analysis of this revolutionary new frictionless advertising system and method follows; which includes an examination both of its valuable similarities with; and advantageous differences over; search engine advertising. Seven examples of product and service providers of various sizes from different industries are provided for illustrative purposes in order to assist in further understanding why and how MEM is expected to in the next few years join search advertising as another multi-billion dollar/year "pay only for results" advertising/marketing platform. A conclusion will complete the analysis.
Search Engine Optimization (SEO); the other technology/methodology component which together with search (engine) advertising constitutes and comprises Search Engine Marketing (SEM); though not addressed in detail here, has its own set of well-known problems and drawbacks. These include changing algorithms and relevancy factors by the search engines, a need for regular website (re-)optimization, website blacklisting and removal, optimization fraud, and other "black hat" methodologies.
In addition to its minimization/elimination of search advertising'seight drawbacks; as will be appreciated upon the completion of this analysis; MEM's structured environment and numerous other attributes also provides an effective, easily-implemented, and cost effective alternative to the constant and continuous challenges and difficulties common to SEO.
KEY WORDS
Match Engine MarketingThe transfer of information over computer networks has become an increasingly important means by which institutions, corporations, and individuals do business. Computer networks have grown over the years from independent and isolated entities established to serve the needs of a single group into vast internets which interconnect disparate physical networks and allow them to function as a coordinated system. Currently, the largest computer network in existence is the Internet. The Internet is a worldwide interconnection of computer networks that communicate using a common protocol. Millions of computers, from low end personal computers to high end super computers, are connected to the Internet.
The Internet has emerged as a large community of electronically connected users located around the world who readily and regularly exchange significant amounts of information. The Internet continues to serve its original purposes of providing for access to and exchange of information among government agencies, laboratories, and universities for research and education. In addition, the Internet has evolved to serve a variety of interests and forums that extend beyond its original goals. In particular, the Internet is rapidly transforming into a global electronic marketplace of goods and services as well as of ideas and information.
Current paradigms for generating web site traffic, such as banner advertising, follow traditional advertising paradigms and fail to utilize the unique attributes of the Internet. In the banner advertising model, web site promoters seeking to promote and increase their web exposure often purchase space on the pages of popular commercial web sites. The web site promoters usually fill this space with a colorful graphic, known as a banner, advertising their own web site. The banner may act a hyperlink a visitor may click on to access the site. Like traditional advertising, banner advertising on the Internet is typically priced on an impression basis with advertisers paying for exposures to potential consumers. Banners may be displayed at every page access, or, on search engines, may be targeted to search terms. Nonetheless, impression-based advertising inefficiently exploits the Internet's direct marketing potential, as the click-through rate, the rate of consumer visits a banner generates to the destination site, may be quite low. Web site promoters are therefore paying for exposure to many consumers who are not interested in the product or service being promoted, as most visitors to a web site seek specific information and may not be interested in the information announced in the banner. Likewise, the banner often fails to reach interested individuals, since the banner is not generally searchable by search engines and the interested persons may not know where on the web to view the banner.
Pay for placement database search systems have been developed in which advertisers bid on the placement of their listings in search results returned to a searcher in response to a world wide web query from a searcher. Each advertiser's listing includes a search term and a bid amount. In some embodiments, each advertiser's listing includes a title, descriptive text and a clickable hyperlink or uniform resource locator (URL). The database of search listings stores many such listings, each associated with an advertiser. Upon receipt of the query, the database is searched and listings having a search term matching the query are formatted for display to the searcher as search results.
The advertisers adjust their bids or bid amounts to control the position at which their search listings are presented in the search results. The pay for placement system places search listings having higher-valued bids higher or closer to the top of the search listings. Other rules may be applied as well when positioning search listings. For example, a more senior listing may be positioned or ranked higher than a junior listing for the same search term and same bid. Higher-ranked listings are seen by more searchers and are more likely to be clicked, producing traffic of potential customers to an advertiser's web site.
The searcher is presented with search listings based at least in part on the bid amounts. The search listings may extend over several screens or pages when formatted for viewing. As a result, higher positioned search listings are much more likely to be seen by the searcher. Moreover, some pay for placement systems have affiliate agreements whereby some of their highest-bided search listings are presented to searchers using other general purpose search engines. Because of these affiliate agreements and similar arrangements, an advertiser's web site, if bid highly enough, may today be seen by as many as seventy-five percent of Internet users.
An advertiser wishing to attract searchers to his web site as potential customers for the advertiser's goods and services thus has an incentive to position his search listing relatively high in the search results. An advertiser may enter bids on many search terms. For search terms which are closely related to the content of the advertiser's web site, the advertiser might place relatively large bids. For less closely related search terms, the advertiser might place smaller bids. A number of strategies have been developed by advertisers to increase traffic to advertiser web sites in this manner.
Similarly, pay for placement search systems have developed tools to help the advertisers manage their bids and attract traffic. Overture Services, Inc., (now a division of Yahoo) operating a system at Overture.com; and Google, at Google.com, presented advertisers with a standard bidding page accessible over the world wide web. The standard bidding page allows an advertiser to log in, display and edit all current search listings and review bids. Today, a number of other competitors including Microsoft also offer such pay for placement systems. Despite their current popularity, however, such conventional PPC 1.0 pay for placement systems have at leasteight major drawbacks which both currently and for the foreseeable future will negatively impact and restrain their further growth and implementation.
First, as a result of these systems quickly expanding recognition and use since their development in the late 1990's combined with their having an effective limit on the number of economically viable search terms upon which advertisers are willing to bid on, such systems growth rate is now predicted to decline measurably in the years to come. Due to the popularity of and resultant often rabid bidding for the most effective and responsive search terms, many companies-especially those smaller and/or less-sophisticated (i.e. SMB/Es), are starting to drop out of such systems due to this growing lack of affordability. In fact, some experts now believe that in the years to come, as has been the case with broadcast television, only larger companies, often bidding on 100's to many 1,000's of search terms each, will be able to afford to participate in such systems.
Second, as is well known in this search engine marketing industry, despite these systems best efforts, attempting to match advertisements to search terms is inherently problematic when working within an unstructured environment like the Internet. Because search engines use at least in part impersonal algorithms, link analysis, and other automated methodologies to locate and present search-and advertising-results, the delivery of irrelevant or minimal-relevancy advertisements to the searcher is all too common. Indeed, attempting to discern searchers intent from the search terms they use is often characterized as being akin to trying to read their minds. The result? 1-2% click-through rates are the norm. [5-10%+ click-through rates will be common with MEM.]
A third problem with these systems is their inability to identify those up to 100's of products, services, and benefits the searchers know nothing about yet for which they may--and do--qualify to obtain, use, and benefit from. While knowing ones intent is great (if and when you can discern it), basing (so called) targeted advertising presentations on just that factor shortchanges both entities and the provider/ advertisers. With such "targeted by stated intent only" advertising systems, it's very much a case of "if only you knew how much you don't know."
A fourth problem is the artificial limit such paid search systems, by their structural nature, place on the number of advertisers who can effectively obtain placement-and therefore visibility of their advertising-based on each search term. People conduct searches because they are looking for information of some type from any web site or source which might have it; and, they are not normally very patient about getting it. Numerous studies have shown that few people will view more that the first two or three pages of search results before either changing the search terms and trying again; or trying their search at one or more of the many other readily available search engines. This means that-because computer screens and therefore web pages are of limited physical/viewable size, there's only a precious few positions of any marketing value for advertisers to bid on if they expect their ads to even be seen by the searcher (or by worthwhile numbers of searchers), much less clicked on and forwarded to the advertisers web site for a potential purchase to take place. Relatedly, because people conducting searches usually are doing so to quickly gather what they consider to be unbiased (and preferably advertising-free) information, and not to look at a collectionof ads; if they don't find the information they're actually looking for in the first few pages, as stated, most do not stick around scrolling through pages and pages of ads stuck along the side of or amongst what to them is irrelevant content. If they don't quickly see what they're looking for in the first few pages, anything that follows is not even seen by most; obviously including any remaining ads.
A fifth problem with such systems is click fraud; where clicks on the various displayed paid listings are executed either manually or via automated systems (some now very sophisticated in their operation) not due to an interest in the product or service advertised; but in order to inflict financial pain on targeted advertisers (often conducted by their competitors and disgruntled former or current employees,who are unfortunately able to easily identify the search terms their competition/ employer/former employeris paying for) and/or in order to gain illegal commissions for the entities (or their agents) perpetrating these frauds. Overseas "click fraud rings" have even recently sprung up to take advantage of this vulnerability. Some estimates place such fraud as high as 10% or more of all executed "hits"; especially so on the most valuable search terms and/or within the most competitive industry sectors. Such fraud; considered by many in the field to be far more widespread than is generally known or acknowledged; may according to some accounts be costing many advertisers $100's to $1,000's to 10's of 1,000's of dollars a month or more--each.
A sixth problem with such systems is often their difficulty in delivering search results-and therefore advertisers-who are geographically local to individual searchers. While at this time SEM has become a seven-billion+ dollar/year industry, various estimates place the total potential SEM market to be perhaps three-to-five times this amount; if only locally-based vendors were able to target their products and services only to those people within reasonable driving distance of their places of business. It doesn't do "Joe's Plumbing" any good to be one of the paying advertisers on a search term such as "plumbing," when only a minuscule percentage of "plumbing" searchers are within Joe's geographic service area, and therefore able to take advantage of his services.
A seventh problem with these systems is their inherently complicated, esoteric, "bid on words and phrases" (and even on their common misspellings and mis-typings) nature. While many sophisticated product and service providers have--though usually with the valuable (and necessary) assistance of experts in the field--readily embraced these systems, precious few of the 20+ million smaller companies and professional practices have done so. Already familiar-and comfortable--with such well-established, simpler media as yellow pages, newspapers, direct mail; perhaps even radio and TV; they've understandably shown little interest to date in putting ever more complicated SEM/SEO techniques and methodologies to work in their businesses-even as much additional profit doing so could mean to them. For most, the whole complicated Internet advertising business leaves them lost and confused.
These paid search systems eighth problem is centered around trademark infringement and related intellectual property (IP) issues. An importantpercentage of the words and phrasestargetedby advertisers utilizing SEM systems areactually the legal product, service, and business-name trademarks ofmany 100's to 1,000's of companies around the world who are for the most part understandingly very displeased and "up in arms" over the use of their intellectual property by competitors and others profiting from their well-known creations. Though recent indications are that this issue may be reaching a conclusion and resolution generally favorable to thoseproviding and utilizing such SEM systems within the US. However, as illustrated by French and other European courts, such favorable outcomesmay be few and far between when it comes to other countries; most of which regularly demonstrate a greater propensity for "protecting"their establishedcompanies against real or perceived interlopers and"outsiders" than does the US.
NEXT GENERATION PPC 2.0: Target people. Not words.
Thus, SEM and other traditional paradigms of advertising fail both to provide maximized results to some 10's of millions of businesses/advertisers, while further failing to deliver the up to 100's of little- or un-known yet valuable and useful, relevant, targeted product, service, and benefit opportunities and information via the World Wide Web to individuals, businesses, non-profits, governments, educational institutions, etc. in an accurate, cost-effective manner. Internet advertising done right can offer a level of targetability, interactivity, measurability, and competitive privacy not generally available from other media. With the proper tools, technologies, and methodologies; Internet advertisers have the ability to quickly, easily, affordably, and confidentially target their messages to specific groups of consumers and receive prompt feedback as to the effectiveness of their advertising campaigns.
Ideally, web site promoters should be able to control their placement in match (and/or match/search) result listings so that their listings are prominent in match (match/search) requests that are relevant to the content of their web site and/or their offerings. The match engine functionality of the Internet needs to be focused in a new direction to facilitate an online marketplace which offers consumers and other entities quick, easy and relevant match results while providing Internet advertisers and promoters with a cost-effective way to target consumers. A consumer utilizing a match engine that facilitates this online marketplace will find companies, businesses, government and non-profit agencies, etc that offer the products, services, benefits and information that the consumer is seeking. In this online marketplace, companies selling or offering products, services, benefits, or information in some embodiments bid in an open auction environment for positions on a match result list generated by an Internet match engine.
As used herein, a match engine is, typically, a program (or coordinated set of programs) with related structure (database, interface, etc) able to match entities (individuals, businesses, governments, non-profit organizations, etc) with products, services, and benefits based on traits and characteristics, now known as keytraits, unique to each entity. While there are a number of useful similarities, a principle, foundational difference between match engines and (Internet) search engines are that match engines' database(s) consist of an orderly collection of set-format, easily-identified, easily-correlated, easily-manipulated product, service, benefit information from any number of "member" companies and firms.
Search engines, on the other hand, utilize algorithms, links,and other normally automated techniques and methodologiesto "crawl" the unorganized, unstructured Internet in order to create a huge collection of disparate web (and other) pages of information from sources normally having no nexus of any type with the search engine itself; often in any number of disparate formats; usually gathered from some 100's of millions-or billions-of unrelated sources. Obtainingprecision targeting for advertisers and true product, service, and benefit relevancy for system users with a match engine are therefore, unlike with search engines, goals easily realized.
Since advertisers must in some embodiments pay for each click-through referral generated through the match result lists generated by the match engine, advertisers have an incentive to select and bid on those match criteria which are most relevant to their web site and offerings. The higher an advertiser's position on a match result list in such embodiments, the higher likelihood of a "referral;" that is, the higher the likelihood that a consumer will be referred to the advertiser's web site/offerings through the match result list.
Match Engine Marketing provides a way for product/service/benefit (PSB) providers/advertisers using a computer network to directly targetentities' actual keytraits by; in some embodiments; influencing the positions within a PSB and/or search result list generated by a product/ service/ benefit matching engine. MEM is a system enabling providers/ advertisers to select PSBcriteria relevant (that is, having nexus) to themselves and/or their product(s)/ service(s)/ benefit(s); and to influence in such embodiments the result list positions for theirPSB listings on a match engine result list. After a PSB seeker/ searcher has provided seeker geographic, demographic, psychographic keytraits [in some embodiments; entering such keytrait data directly into a search, match, or combination search/match box/query field; optionally via the utilization of one or more drop-down boxes], the match engine (optionally in concert with a search engine) will generate a results list, with each respective providers' listing(s) in position(s) influenced at least in partby a bid on at least one "matched-to-seeker" keytrait set; aspreviously selectedby each PSB provider/advertiser.
When utilized, profile questions/data request/indicators for individuals may typically include city/ town and/or zip code of residence, date of birth/ age, income (exact dollar amount or range), marital status, presence of children (number, ages, sex), occupation, education level, credit cards used, credit scores, whether homeowner or renter, interests and activities (e.g., bicycling, golf, running, bowling, snow/water skiing, reading, fishing, crafts, Internet surfing, photography, travel [cruise, car, plane, train], wines, coin/ stamp collecting, watching TV, etc.). Also; products owned/ used (auto make, model, year; when/ where/ why/ how bought/ paid for), services used, current/ future intentions (with or without time periods/ ranges; getting married, having a baby, buying/ selling a home; buying/ leasing a new vehicle, RV, boat, aircraft, or any other product, etc), medical/ health status and conditions present (asthma, arthritis, high blood pressure, cancer, etc), types of investments made, social concerns, insurance types held/ desired, musical preferences, nutrition and diet, etc.
In other "non-human" entity system applications (e.g. business to business, business to government, government to government, etc), a questionnaire(s) embodiment may utilize questions and/or "data indicators" appropriate to those applications and markets (e.g. firmographics).
In some embodiments, a provider selects one or more of its desired keytraits and influences a position within a results list generated by those keytraits by participating in an online competitive bidding process. This online competitive bidding process is known as a "pay only for results" process. "Pay only for results" applies market principles to PSB matching on the Internet. Conventional "pure" (no search involved) matching engines such as the very successful GovBenefits.gov and BenefitsCheckUp.org services do not provide a way for providers to control or easily predict the position of their offerings in results lists.
To participate in the process, in some embodiments a PSB provider may access the provider's user account through a secure web site. The provider may use the account to place bids on keytraits that are relevant to the provider's web site (e.g., its products, services, benefits, information). Each bid is specific to at least one keytrait and corresponds to a money amount that the provider will pay to the owner of the matching engine each time a seeker clicks on the provider's hyper linked listing in the result list generated by the matching engine. The seeker's click will result in an access request being sent to the provider's web site, which will respond by transmitting the provider's web page to the seeker's browser. The charge to the provider for the placement is therefore directly proportional to the benefit received, since the charge is based on the number of referrals to the provider's web site that were generated by the matching engine.
The higher the bid, the more advantageous the placement in the result list that is generated when the bided keytraits are entered by a PSB seeker using the engine. The list is arranged in order of decreasing bid amount, with the PSB listing corresponding to the highest bids displayed first to the seeker.
In other embodiments, such targeting may be obtained by charging advertisers an additional amount above the "base" amounts they are bidding on search terms; e.g. a set monetary amount, some multiple of the base amount, some percentage of the base amount, etc.
In still other embodiments, ads or content may be delivered not on/within lists of ads presented to the seekers, but as banner and/or other types of advertising/content; where, for example, the higher the bid/s on the keytraits, the greater the frequency of appearance of ads. Even the size and/or placement location on/within a webpage/site can vary according at least in part on the keytrait bid/s and/or payments.
Before Match Engine Marketing, there was never a way for advertisers to reach their desired targets by bidding on and/or otherwise paying for their advertising based at least in part on the actual keytraits of their targets.
The question may be asked: Will people really take the time to complete questionnaires (in questionnaire-utilizing embodiments), or otherwise provide the requisite multigraphic data? To understand why most everyone offered the opportunity to do so (when done fairly and under the right circumstances, as with a service like MEM) will, it is instructive to consider the following:
#1: The use of questionnaires/ profiles have in fact been an accepted part of our way of life for many decades now. We complete them for product warranty cards (over 20,000,000 million/year in the US alone). We fill them out by mail in order to receive special product and service offers exactly targeted (as with MEM) just to us and those like us (over 10,000,000/year); which offers we don't even receive for some weeks or months after we've returned the survey. Many millions complete them as a condition to receive free e-mail service from companies such as MSN, Google, and Yahoo; as well as sites like MySpace, FaceBook, LinkedIn, and Friendster; even to receive reduced cost Internet service from companies like NetZero; and including as a condition to receive industry magazine, e-letter, etc subscriptions. Many millions even participate in phone surveys every year.
#2: Not long after one or more properly licensed/ authorized MEM systems are up and running, visitors using the systems will pleasantly discover that they are being offered up to 100 or more products and services targeted just to them and others like them. These early adopter/ users will--understandably--quickly and enthusiastically spread the news to others of what such systems are providing them. Why wouldn't they; when:
A: It's easy to do. B: It's (preferably) anonymous. C: It's fun. D: The results are virtually immediate (and ideally confidential). E: It gives them special offers on products and services they've already indicated they like/ want. F: It reveals what is theirs to claim, which they know nothing about and can find out about in no other way. G: In some embodiments they can if they like have their match request processed before, after, or in concert with any search request(s) they're conducting. H: It's (preferably) free to use. Additionally, since in one of its virtually limitless embodiments the visitors can if they wish have their self-modifiable profile stored for their automatic future use, they need make changes or complete a new one, perhaps, just once a year or so to keep the data current and accurate in order to maintain product/service/benefit targeting accuracy.
Having their data stored in this manner enables these users to, if desired, receive automatic match lists with just a single click (far easier than trying to store and track previous search requests/ results); to receive updates at set time intervals of their choosing (once or twice a day, every 5 or 6 hours, etc.); or even receive updates when new offers are made available (or when existing offers are improved/ modified/ about to expire) by one or more advertisers providing visitor pre-selected matched products and/or services.
#3: The popular, excellent GovBenefits.gov site, run by the US Federal Government, has an impressive 5,000,000+ people/year using their version of a matching engine. This in spite of the fact that they do little or no advertising, offer no products or services from any company or business (only state and federal benefits), is available for individual use only (no businesses, governments, etc), and with their system's requirement that visitors complete up to 50 or more detailed questions in their questionnaire in order to receive a match list. How many multiples of this five million would use such a system were it advertised; "daily dynamic," and unlimited in the product and service offers it could provide? The fact is, natural human curiosity (who among us wouldn't want to know what 100+ "things" of ours are hidden behind the "secret door?") and word-of-mouth advertising by themselves will drive such multiples to MEM systems. And people will use such systems over and over again (daily or more "match checks" will be common). GovBenefits proves it.
Simply, as long as we're receiving some reasonable benefit for doing so (as MEM clearly supplies), most people are only too happy to fill out a simple questionnaire/ profile. So, will people take the time to complete one? The fact is, most of us 100+ million adults in America already do. At least several times a year. And normally for a whole lot less benefit than what MEM systems will provide us.
PROOF OF CONCEPT
While it is common for new applications to be Internet available in order for interested parties to test and review; doing so is unnecessary with Match Engine Marketing. Its three core successful operational components/ methodologies; Multigraphic (e.g. demographic, psychographic, firmographic) Matching, Bid-for-Position, and Pay-Per-Click; are readily accessible; with each of their respective value propositions being well proven for some years now in the national and international marketplaces; respectively, by GovBenefits and BenefitsCheckUp (Multigraphic Matching), Yahoo/ Google/ MSN (Bid-for-Position), and Google/ MSN/ Yahoo (Pay-Per-Click). Success plus success plus success most obviously results in and demonstrates success.
Furthermore, since it's invention in the summer of 2004, five giants of the Internet, first Microsoft (in 2006); then Google (in 2008); Yahoo (in 2009); and most recently Myspace (myAds) and Facebook (Facebook Advertising) have--with great industry and advertiser fanfare and interest--launched their own forms/ embodiments of the Match Engine Marketing invention. For the reasons explained above, expect the utilization by advertisers of keytraits to grow rapidly (in both raw advertiser numbers and monthly spend/s per advertiser) as both word spreads about its availability and effectiveness, and as these five leaders, and very likely others who will join them, expand the keytraits available.
Once available, such forward-facing, no-membership-needed-so-
Visit GovBenefits.gov and conduct a benefit match request to gain a comprehensive understanding of how one type of match engine operates andto fully appreciate theobvious value they provide. As is seen in the MERPs (match engine result pages), most everyone will qualify for at least a few state and federal programs/ benefits. Next; extrapolate the large number of results which would be delivered if instead of the only 400+ government programs this service draws from, there were 10's of thousands to 100's of thousands or more different products and services being offered by 100,000-1,000,000+ advertisers and available from the system (as will be the case after a few years of MEM availability).
As will be appreciated, a match list of 100+precisely-targeted, truly relevant products, services, and benefits for each PSB seeker/searcher is not hard to imagine in a realistic scenario such as this. Lastly, picture now all these 100+ advertising results displayed to the PSB seeker/ searcher in a monetarily-ordered manner; highest to lowest according at least in part to the respective bid amounts placed on each displayed result; as is commonly seen with the Yahoo/ Overture, Google, and Microsoft/Bing PPC 1.0 systems/ programs.
Concisely expressed, in some of MEM's most effective embodiments:
Keytraits + Bidding + PPC/CPM = Unparalleled Advertiser Results
EXAMPLES
For illustrative purposes, specific possible examples of Match Engine Marketing ("pure"; i.e. keytraits utilized only, no search involved + result-list/MERP-utilizing embodiment/s) in operation, utilizing varied keytrait sets by various potential advertisers will here be provided. Note much higher projected per click prices due to higher-value customers/ clients resultant from MEM's superior targeting and relevancy. Given this, minimal CPC prices are recommended to be set no lower than $1/click/keytrait set.
EXAMPLE I
General Motors decides to test a special financing program ONLY to everyone who currently owns a non-GM automobile AND who lives in Florida AND who has minor children at home AND who is 18-49 years old AND lives within 20 miles of one of their Florida dealerships. This keytrait set costs them only $7 for the top position, for each of their clicks/referrals; a bargain considering their average lead cost for their dealer network runs almost $80. Because they were able to pinpoint target their offer in this way, the millions of other existing (and potential) GM customers weren't upset that they weren't offered the same special financing this group was. As a result of how other marketing/media options operate, until now, this "non-targeted market awareness" and resultant anger and disappointment was often a big headache for GM. Not anymore.
EXAMPLE II
Sees Candy geographically pin-point offers a buy-one-get-one-free coupon only to people living in those four zip codes closest to each of their 432 stores AND who haven't bought Sees candy in the last 12 months. They pay just $3.55 (for keytrait set position number five) for each click/lead. Since only two boxes of candy pays for both the lead and the coupon; given the excellent repeat and word-of-mouth sales new customers generate, this is the most affordable advertising they've ever done.
EXAMPLE III
Publisher's Clearing House is looking for a new way to bring in subscribers for their 100+ magazine and product suppliers and decides to use the system for an A/B split test; something they're well familiar with. To do so, they divide up the 40,000 national zip codes in half (on an "every other one" basis to insure result accuracy), making two different offers to each of the two sets of recipients. Paying only $2.68 (list position # 13) per click/lead, they discover to their amazement that their ROI is almost three times that of direct mail.
EXAMPLE IV
Amazon.com decides to take their 25 top selling $50-$200 non-book products and tailor a keytrait set unique to each product, based on the profile of those most likely to have bought each product in the past. The results? Paying just $3.10/click/lead for a positional average of five over all the products; their national advertising cost of sale is running 44-76% (depending on product) less than any other media they've ever used before.
EXAMPLE V
Tiffany's has designed an exclusive new line of high-end ($25,000+/piece) jewelry they want to sell over the Internet and by phone to those not living within driving distance of one of their stores. They pay only $9.72 for the #1 spot with the following keytraits: Household income of $100,000+ AND have high-speed Internet access at home or work AND already own at least $50,000 in jewelry AND have a net worth of at least $500,000 excluding their principle residence. The result? Though it's early in the campaign, their cost of sale is averaging less than a third of what they usually spend-just $3,500 per piece. While this amount may sound high, given that these pieces average a whopping 100% markup (as is common in the industry), it's actually almost like printing money.
EXAMPLE VI
A small, local company, Wonderful Weddings, only provides their services to those in the Thousand Oaks, Westlake Village, and Agoura areas. Accordingly, they select the following keytraits: Zip Codes 91359, 91360, 91361, 91362, and 91301 + Females (men rarely make wedding decisions, so why pay to reach them?) + Getting married within the next six months. Since they average $15,000 in products and services sold per wedding, they're only too happy to be paying $2.97/click/lead (criteria set position 7) to reach only their target market.
EXAMPLE VII
AT&T is launching an exciting new DSL service to the business community and wants to move quickly before their tough competitors get wind of it. As a test, they initially target every 10th zip code (an Nth sort); giving them 4000 zip codes worth of businesses at a B2B cost of just $8.32 per click/lead; since they wish to reach all businesses regardless of employee count, revenue, facilities location(s), industry sector, products/services offered, etc; they've decided to not use any other firmographic keytraits on this offer. This buys them the top position. They realize within the first 15 days that this new (avg. $1,000+/ year/ business) service is their biggest winner yet, and so immediately roll their offer out to all 40,000 US zip codes; now paying $8.57per click/lead. By the time their competitors get hold of the offer and try to come up with something to counter AT&T, it's already too late. SBC, Verizon, Southwest Bell, and the rest never knew what hit them.
THE PPC 1.0 DISCONNECT & PARADOX
Recent attempts to "duct tape" demographics on to traditional (e.g. no demographics) paid search (i.e. via "demographic targeting" [as differentiated from MEM's bidding on and/or payment based at least partly on multigraphics] ), because implementing such capabilities requires an even greater level of comprehension and skill-set expertise (a challenge even for the most sophisticated of enterprise-level advertisers); only serves to further shove the large majority of the 10's of millions of small to medium-sized businesses/ enterprises (SMB/Es) even further away from ever using such PPC 1.0 paid search systems.
Furthermore, this "demographic" paid search is still at its core paid search; that is, bidding on words and numbers. Because it does not allow for advertisers to bid directly on or otherwise pay (i.e. via a premium) to reach their own self-chosen sets of multigraphic keytraits, pinpoint targeting continues to be unobtainable via traditional paid search; to say nothing of paid search's other previously addressed drawbacks.
With MEM (whether or not in concert with paid search), an advertiser could in some embodiments, if they wanted to target to such an exacting if admittedly unlikely degree, quickly and easily have their ad seen only by 37 year old football-loving, softball-playing, basketball-hating, asthmatic, Lexus-owning (with a payment of $355/month), VISA card holding (balance over $10,000); gardner, designer-kitchen, and computer wanting; $73,000/year-earning, HR-manager females who live with their basketball playing, baseball-loving, enjoys-reading and playing board games, BMW-owning ($426/month payment), Mastercard holding (balance under $7,500); plasma-TV, RV (up to $63,000 in price), and timeshare wanting; $123,000/year earning, computer engineer husbands and three kids (one 13 year old girl who enjoys playing volleyball and is in mock trial, a 10 year old soccer-playing son who needs help with math, and a bright 5 year old girl who needs gifted-child educational opportunities), one diabetic German Shepard, and a finicky cat who won't eat dry food; in Beverly Hills, California (zip code 90210); in a home with a $500,000 mortgage and today worth between $1,500,000-$2,000,000, that they bought in June of 2000 for $1,000,000.
CONCLUSION
Five years from now, the advertising landscape will look very different than it does today. As new technologies and methodologies are developed, the options available for advertisers to reach their targeted markets--as wellthe identification and selection options for the consumers of these advertisers' products and services--will only become even more relevant and precise. Match Engine Marketing will be one of the leaders among such new paradigm systems, utilizing its unique approach, structure, and methodology to overcome SEM's and other conventional advertising and marketing systems' many drawbacks; while easily and affordably providing pinpoint targeting and true relevancy via a structured Internet environment to millions of companies, businesses, and professional practices of all sizes and revenues; from all industry sectors. Substitute Match, Match Engine, Paid Match, Match Engine Marketing, keytraits, MERP/s, and MEM wherever the respective terms Search, Search Engine, Paid Search, Search Engine Marketing, keywords, SERP/s, and SEM are found. Doing so is perhaps the best way to fully appreciate where this new frictionless advertising paradigm is headed; as well as making clear the opportunities it offers to those both astute and "fleet of foot" enough to take advantage of it before they're shut out (again) from the Internet's next great advertising platform.
Everyone laughed when the then-tiny GoTo.com first launched their odd little pay per click search engine back in 1998. "No one will perform searches there," "No real companies will ever advertise on it," "It won't last," and "What a silly business model!," were common "expert" opinions of the day. Google's breakout IPO and $400+ share price, Yahoo's billion+ dollar purchase of Overture, and one new $7,000,000,000+ a year industry later, the so-called "experts" have been proven wrong once again . . . and no one's laughing any more.
To Search is
to guess; to assume. To Match is to know.
With Match Engine Marketing, you know.
Match Engine Marketing. Don't guess. Know.
Further information including expression of interest opportunities may be obtained by contacting the author/ inventor, Mr. Steve Morsa at (805) 495-3859, or e-mailing him at Steve@MatchEngineMarketing.com. A Powerpoint presentation is available to qualified companies/ entities.
The new paradigm MEM PPC 2.0 ad platform invention has been published by the US Patent and Trademark Office; viewable at their website: uspto.gov; #11/250,908. It follows the previously filed groundbreaking Match Engine/ Benefit Match invention; #09/832,440. Match Engine Marketing is a trademark of the author. All other trademarks are those of their respective holders. This is neither an offer to buy nor an offer to sell securities.
How long will advertisers continue to settle for problematic indirect targeting via bidding on words entered into search boxes . . . once they're able to quickly, easily, and directly target via bidding on and/or otherwise paying at least in part on/for the actual keytraits of their most valuable and desired customers and clients . . . and with the express approval and eager anticipation by millions of paid match system users that the advertisers have done so? In short . . .
How long will we search once we can match?
The various non-scope-limiting, small handful of explanations and examples-only MEM embodiments described herein are in no way exhaustive; nor are they intended to limit the MEM invention to any particular form or forms; representing as they do only a tiny fraction of the actual, potentially virtually unlimited, embodiments of the invention. Furthermore, nothing herein shall be construed as an admission against interest in any matter. Information from sources deemed reliable but not guaranteed. Not responsible for typographical or other website publishing errors or omissions.