<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> <rss
version="2.0"
xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
> <channel><title>Business Marketing Online (BMON): Google AdWords Management &#187; Blogstorm</title> <atom:link href="http://www.bmon.co.uk/category/blogstorm/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><link>http://www.bmon.co.uk</link> <description>Google AdWords management for industrial and scientific companies</description> <lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2012 18:00:53 +0000</lastBuildDate> <language>en</language> <sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod> <sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency> <generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator> <xhtml:meta xmlns:xhtml="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" name="robots" content="noindex" /> <item><title>Clear the ads off those searches for your trademarks</title><link>http://www.bmon.co.uk/2011/09/clear-the-ads-off-those-searches-for-your-trademarks/</link> <comments>http://www.bmon.co.uk/2011/09/clear-the-ads-off-those-searches-for-your-trademarks/#comments</comments> <pubDate>Thu, 22 Sep 2011 17:00:51 +0000</pubDate> <dc:creator>Chris Rand</dc:creator> <category><![CDATA[Blogstorm]]></category> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://www.bmon.co.uk/?p=3707</guid> <description><![CDATA[<p>Big news from the courts yesterday for AdWords advertisers: it looks like bidding on your competitors' trademarks is now going to be stopped.</p><p><p><a
href="http://www.bmon.co.uk/2011/09/clear-the-ads-off-those-searches-for-your-trademarks/">Clear the ads off those searches for your trademarks</a></p></p>]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Big news from the courts yesterday for AdWords advertisers: it looks like bidding on your competitors&#039; trademarks is now going to be stopped. The &#034;Interflora vs Marks &#038; Spencer&#034; case is different from some earlier legal moves, where manufacturers unsuccessfully tried to stop retailers from advertising against their name, as this one concentrates on competitive products. You can read more via <a
href="http://www.blogstorm.co.uk/european-court-rules-in-favour-of-interflora-an-end-to-brand-bidding/?utm_source=The%20BMON%2Eco%2Euk%20Blog">European Court rules in favour of Interflora – an end to brand bidding?</a> on <strong>Blogstorm</strong>.</p><p>I guess it&#039;s unlikely you&#039;ll ever find yourself in legal trouble for advertising using other people&#039;s trademarks, as Google will just reject the advertising. However, if you&#039;re running your own AdWords campaign and are targeting competitors, it might be worth taking a look at your strategy. We don&#039;t tend to do this for our clients anyway, as it&#039;s expensive &#8211; Google gives you a rotten &#034;Quality Score&#034; if your ads and landing page don&#039;t mention the trademark in question. If you own any trademarks though, and find competitive ads appearing when you search for those trademarks in Google, you may now be able to put a stop to the practice.</p><p><p><a
href="http://www.bmon.co.uk/2011/09/clear-the-ads-off-those-searches-for-your-trademarks/">Clear the ads off those searches for your trademarks</a></p></p>]]></content:encoded> <wfw:commentRss>http://www.bmon.co.uk/2011/09/clear-the-ads-off-those-searches-for-your-trademarks/feed/</wfw:commentRss> <slash:comments>0</slash:comments> </item> <item><title>Using Webmaster Tools to find what&#039;s not indexed</title><link>http://www.bmon.co.uk/2010/04/using-webmaster-tools-to-find-whats-not-indexed/</link> <comments>http://www.bmon.co.uk/2010/04/using-webmaster-tools-to-find-whats-not-indexed/#comments</comments> <pubDate>Thu, 29 Apr 2010 17:00:36 +0000</pubDate> <dc:creator>Chris Rand</dc:creator> <category><![CDATA[Blogstorm]]></category> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://www.bmon.co.uk/?p=1798</guid> <description><![CDATA[<p>Do you have Google Webmaster Tools installed, and an XML sitemap? If you don&#039;t, you should probably join our Insider Programme and we can get that sorted out for you. But assuming you&#039;ve got all that in place, you should &#8230;</p><p><p><a
href="http://www.bmon.co.uk/2010/04/using-webmaster-tools-to-find-whats-not-indexed/">Using Webmaster Tools to find what&#039;s not indexed</a></p></p>]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Do you have Google Webmaster Tools installed, and an XML sitemap? If you don&#039;t, you should probably join our <a
href="http://www.bmon.co.uk/the-insider-programme/">Insider Programme</a> and we can get that sorted out for you. But assuming you&#039;ve got all that in place, you should be able to see how many pages, from the complete list on your site, that you have in the Google index.</p><p>If it&#039;s a very large site, there&#039;s a strong possibility that quite a few will be missing. Every site has an &#034;indexation cap&#034; based on factors such as PageRank, &#034;Trust&#034;, server speed and duplicate content issues. If you&#039;ve reached that limit, you need to take action. What you don&#039;t want to do is to wait for Google to get around to finding unindexed important pages. If it hasn&#039;t found them already, they&#039;re probably awkward to find and there&#039;s no reason to assume they&#039;ll appear any time soon. Google needs some encouragement.</p><p>A nice technique to set about this task is outlined in <a
href="http://www.blogstorm.co.uk/using-multiple-sitemaps-to-analyse-indexation-on-large-sites/">Using multiple sitemaps to analyse indexation on large sites</a> on <strong>Blogstorm</strong>. This suggests breaking the sitemap into multiple files, and examining the results from each to see where the problem might be. As it concludes, &#034;Once you can diagnose exactly the type of pages that Google doesn’t want to index you can fix the issue by improving PageRank flow to those pages and adding more unique content.&#034;</p><p><p><a
href="http://www.bmon.co.uk/2010/04/using-webmaster-tools-to-find-whats-not-indexed/">Using Webmaster Tools to find what&#039;s not indexed</a></p></p>]]></content:encoded> <wfw:commentRss>http://www.bmon.co.uk/2010/04/using-webmaster-tools-to-find-whats-not-indexed/feed/</wfw:commentRss> <slash:comments>0</slash:comments> </item> <item><title>How to find interesting, relevant search terms cheaply</title><link>http://www.bmon.co.uk/2009/09/how-to-find-interesting-relevant-search-terms-cheaply/</link> <comments>http://www.bmon.co.uk/2009/09/how-to-find-interesting-relevant-search-terms-cheaply/#comments</comments> <pubDate>Wed, 16 Sep 2009 18:00:06 +0000</pubDate> <dc:creator>Chris Rand</dc:creator> <category><![CDATA[Blogstorm]]></category> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://www.bmon.co.uk/leadgeneration/?p=1079</guid> <description><![CDATA[<p>Google AdWords is rapidly becoming my tool of choice when it comes to researching the important keywords for clients. We run an AdWords campaign using what they call &#034;broad match&#034; (so Google shows the ads on any searches it can &#8230;</p><p><p><a
href="http://www.bmon.co.uk/2009/09/how-to-find-interesting-relevant-search-terms-cheaply/">How to find interesting, relevant search terms cheaply</a></p></p>]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Google AdWords is rapidly becoming my tool of choice when it comes to researching the important keywords for clients. We run an AdWords campaign using what they call &#034;broad match&#034; (so Google shows the ads on any searches it can find which appear to be right), and then look at the actual searches which triggered the ad and got the clicks. It&#039;s an alternative to using your analytics data from ordinary (&#034;organic&#034;) searches, but it has a number of advantages. Of course, it also costs money, but that money also happens to drive traffic to your website, so it&#039;s actually an investment which works doubly hard.</p><p>The subject is discussed in more depth in <a
href="http://www.blogstorm.co.uk/evaluating-long-tail-opportunities/">Evaluating long tail opportunities</a> on <strong>Blogstorm</strong>.</p><p>I shouldn&#039;t let the opportunity pass to remind you that we offer AdWords management services here at Business Marketing Online, and we do it on a fixed-cost-per-click basis, which industrial companies seem much more at home with. Also, you pay us for the campaign in a conventional invoiced manner once a month, rather than having to pay Google through a credit card. <a
href="mailto:tony@bmon.co.uk">Contact Tony here for details.</a></p><p><p><a
href="http://www.bmon.co.uk/2009/09/how-to-find-interesting-relevant-search-terms-cheaply/">How to find interesting, relevant search terms cheaply</a></p></p>]]></content:encoded> <wfw:commentRss>http://www.bmon.co.uk/2009/09/how-to-find-interesting-relevant-search-terms-cheaply/feed/</wfw:commentRss> <slash:comments>0</slash:comments> </item> <item><title>Can you get your Google results changed quickly?</title><link>http://www.bmon.co.uk/2009/06/can-you-get-your-google-results-changed-quickly/</link> <comments>http://www.bmon.co.uk/2009/06/can-you-get-your-google-results-changed-quickly/#comments</comments> <pubDate>Mon, 08 Jun 2009 17:00:02 +0000</pubDate> <dc:creator>Chris Rand</dc:creator> <category><![CDATA[Blogstorm]]></category> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://www.bmon.co.uk/leadgeneration/?p=821</guid> <description><![CDATA[<p>Blogstorm reports that a website in Holland has lost a lawsuit brought about by its Google results seeming to imply that a company had gone bankrupt, despite not actually saying that on the page. This has some wide implications. If &#8230;</p><p><p><a
href="http://www.bmon.co.uk/2009/06/can-you-get-your-google-results-changed-quickly/">Can you get your Google results changed quickly?</a></p></p>]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>Blogstorm</strong> <a
href="http://www.blogstorm.co.uk/court-rules-website-liable-for-google-snippet/">reports</a> that a website in Holland has lost a lawsuit brought about by its Google results seeming to imply that a company had gone bankrupt, despite not actually saying that on the page. This has some wide implications.</p><p>If you type in a two-word query into Google, the search engine will return a list of pages which feature both words. For each page, you&#039;ll see the title, and under that, a couple of lines of text. If the two words are in close proximity on the page, those two lines of text will be a &#034;snippet&#034; from the page which contains the two words. (Our <a
href="http://www.bmon.co.uk/ip/">Insider Programme</a> members know all about manipulating this text).</p><p>However, if the two words are a fair distance apart on the page, the descriptive text will have two shorter &#034;snippets&#034; (one for each word), separated by an ellipsis (&#034;&#8230;&#034;). Read together, this could imply a whole new meaning to what&#039;s actually on the page.</p><p>Nobody is suggesting that we should be responsible for our Google results resulting from strange two-word queries. However, it would appear that in the Dutch case, the problem was that the company didn&#039;t take steps to get things changed when a complaint was received. This could happen to any of us &#8211; and would <em>you</em> know what to do if it did?</p><p><p><a
href="http://www.bmon.co.uk/2009/06/can-you-get-your-google-results-changed-quickly/">Can you get your Google results changed quickly?</a></p></p>]]></content:encoded> <wfw:commentRss>http://www.bmon.co.uk/2009/06/can-you-get-your-google-results-changed-quickly/feed/</wfw:commentRss> <slash:comments>0</slash:comments> </item> <item><title>Why there are no runners-up prizes in Google</title><link>http://www.bmon.co.uk/2009/03/why-there-are-no-runners-up-prizes-in-google/</link> <comments>http://www.bmon.co.uk/2009/03/why-there-are-no-runners-up-prizes-in-google/#comments</comments> <pubDate>Wed, 25 Mar 2009 17:00:52 +0000</pubDate> <dc:creator>Chris Rand</dc:creator> <category><![CDATA[Blogstorm]]></category> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://www.bmon.co.uk/leadgeneration/?p=569</guid> <description><![CDATA[<p>Where do you want to be in the Google results? Top, presumably. But is second position nearly as good? What about third? The bad news for those of us with websites targeting informational queries (rather than transactional &#8211; i.e buying &#8230;</p><p><p><a
href="http://www.bmon.co.uk/2009/03/why-there-are-no-runners-up-prizes-in-google/">Why there are no runners-up prizes in Google</a></p></p>]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Where do you want to be in the Google results? Top, presumably. But is second position nearly as good? What about third? The bad news for those of us with websites targeting informational queries (rather than transactional &#8211; i.e buying &#8211; queries) is revealed in <a
href="http://www.blogstorm.co.uk/seo-and-eye-tracking/">SEO and Eye Tracking for Informational &#038; Transactional Queries</a> on <strong>Blogstorm</strong>. It would appear that anywhere in the top four is fine if you just want people to see your result, but unfortunately, unless your title in the results is extraordinary, just seeing the result is pretty useless. You need people to click on it &#8211; and for that, it&#039;s top position or nothing, really. In a Microsoft study, 94% of people saw the top result and 89% clicked on it; the same proportion saw the second result but only 33% clicked on it. By fourth position only 17% were clicking on the result, and by eighth position you may as well not be there. I&#039;m currently looking for search terms where one of my sites has moved from a consistent second position in Google to a consistent top spot (or vice-versa), so I can investigate the change in traffic. I suspect it might be scary.</p><p><p><a
href="http://www.bmon.co.uk/2009/03/why-there-are-no-runners-up-prizes-in-google/">Why there are no runners-up prizes in Google</a></p></p>]]></content:encoded> <wfw:commentRss>http://www.bmon.co.uk/2009/03/why-there-are-no-runners-up-prizes-in-google/feed/</wfw:commentRss> <slash:comments>0</slash:comments> </item> </channel> </rss>
