When running a display campaign, first you build it; then Google recommend the following:

‘’Leave it alone, let it run for two weeks with a decent budget so you can determine where the most suitable traffic will come from’’

Make sense, but being the cynic I also think that means:

‘’Let it run for as long as possible on with as much budget as possible, and DONT alter it.. Then we can take as much media spend on irrelevant sites as possible – No questions asked!’’

Once the GDN campaign has run for its 2 week ‘introductory’ period, the next process is to have a look at which sites on the network generated the most bang for your buck – i.e. the most conversions.

Once these are identified, add them to ‘Managed Placements’ and ensure the GDN campaign is running on ONLY Managed Placements in the Network settings tab.

Great in theory, but how do we determine which sites across the network have performed well and should be kept? The most obvious way if you have conversion tracking is to see which site generated the most conversions – Any sites without a conversion get deleted.

Simply tracking number of conversions and using that as a measuring stick to determine the effectiveness of a site is pretty basic. Of course, you’re going to want to know what sort of revenue those conversions have generated; Especially when working with clients with very specific Profit Margins.

And here lies the problem; Using the MCC, we are only able to see the Total Revenue generated from a GDN campaign, NOT the revenue generated per site.

That’s great if we want to know if a GDN campaign is effective (i.e. profitable), however, we literally have no idea using the MCC which sites on the Network are responsible for that profit.

Without going into detail, one of my clients had 12 conversions in a week period on one particular site – looks fantastic, until we eventually found trawling through analytics that the 12 conversions had generated a smaller revenue than media spend on that site. Luckily the rest of the GDN campaign had performed well!

Since this happened, I’ve spoken to Google’s own Display Network team and no one there knows why the Revenue per site/placement is not available? They gave me the company line of ‘we are making changes all the time’ – which I pretty much read as ‘can you get off the line so I can speak to people who want to spend money with us, not poke holes in our platform’.

So if Google do eventually allow revenue per placement available on the MCC, you now know where they got the idea from!!

A bemused M&S found the action a little heavy and stated that they were doing nothing wrong and their actions fell well within the boundaries of the AdWords protocol and rules.

The key thrust of Interflora’s argument is that while M&S may be acting within Google’s AdWords rules, they may be breaching actual copyright law.

Interflora protect against possible adwords copyright infringement

Marketing director of Interflora UK, Michael Barringer, spoke with OUT-LAW.com to say;

“The Interflora brand is extremely valuable and we will not tolerate competitors taking advantage of it and infringing our right.

“Throughout its history, Interflora has been forced to use legal means to prevent infringement of its valuable trade marks. This action represents only the beginning of a broader strategy to defend the Interflora mark against infringers.”

This legal action could have other ramifications on how company bid on competitors keywords as well as how they react when being bid against.

Google changed its policy on companies being allowed to bid on their rivals’ trademarks back in May 2008 – the result also had a positive effect on the search giants share price. The change in May allows advertisers to bid on any brand names, but prevents them from using a rival’s trademark in the text of the ad that appears in the sponsored search advertisement.

The BPF programme was a commission based system that allowed Google to pay commissions to 3rd party companies, mainly advertising/media agencies and search specialist agencies, for work they carried out on behalf of their client to help plan, facilitate, execute and report on Google AdWords Advertising. The system was introduced for a variety of reasons though the smart money was on the fact the original commissions paid by Google (alongside other media owners and networks) was being abused and in some case being paid back to clients so certain agencies with buying power could negotiate ‘cost-effective’ deals with their clients – these pigeons have now come home to roost.

Like the credit crunch, the impending demise of the BPF has forced those agencies that integrated their business plan with commission, to think again or take a seriously hard look at the business they’re in – maybe even saying with a bah humbug,  TTFN to the business.

BPF – Volume or Value? Digital Clarity’s view

The imminent demise of Google Best Practice Funding (BPF) is one that for those unprepared will require a period of adjustment. Digital Clarity has always felt that sharp practice by larger players in the market lead to quality and delivery being superseded by those concerned with blurred cost effective media schedules.

Digital Clarity welcomes the move and embraces a new era where client of all sizes can see the benefit of an agencies work over and above volume.

The return of client centered practice alongside lean and value driven pricing models augmented to leading solutions & strategy have always been at the heart Digital Clarity’s thrust and this will continue to be the case – BPF or no BPF.

To have a confidential discussion on BPF or if you wish to discuss how this may effect you business, please contact Reggie James (reggie.james[at]digital-clarity.com) or call him on 0845 388 4071.