My thoughts, not those of my employer...

The folks at Search Engine Lowdown say:

Not a smart move on Yahoo's part, they are advertising on Google. Why isn't it smart. Let's see, could it be because they are giving their biggest competitor a thumbs-up just before Google intends to raise umpteen-billion dollars?

Oh, please...

"Not a smart move" huh? Let's think about that a bit.

First, the way Google's ad program works, if people don't click the ads frequently enough, Google stops running them. Put another way, they automatically remove low performing ads. Yahoo's ads are still there. What does that tell you?

It tells me the ads must be working well enough for Google to keep 'em alive. I'd call that "smart" and suspect that folks in the ad business would agree.

Second, it's public knowledge that Yahoo has a small chunk of pre-IPO stock. The more money Google makes in the IPO, the more money Yahoo could potentially cash out, right?

That last point really doesn't matter. I don't think that any reasonable people actually believe that the presence of these ads on Google will really have any imapct whatsoever on the IPO.

Let's get real here. The IPO is going to be a circus regardless of how Yahoo decides to spend a few advertising dollars.

How about some real news guys? This transparent Yahoo bashing seems rather juvenile.

Posted by jzawodn at June 08, 2004 06:50 AM

Reader Comments
# Josh Woodward said:

Of all the things Yahoo! Shopping could advertise, "RSS"? Hmm, something tells me that millions of dollars aren't trading hands over this one. ;)

on June 8, 2004 06:59 AM
# Kaishaku said:

I read both articles and there are two major misconceptions as I see it:
1. Advertising on a competitor's site is bad.
2. RSS means "Rich Site Summary"

For the first it is never "bad" to advertise on a competitor's service. And, in this case, the "author" (for lack of a better term) on Search Engine Lowdown fails to realize exactly what is being advertised and so misunderstands the purpose. So their opinion counts for very little to me.

As for the second point, correct me if I'm wrong but I always thought the official acronym of RSS meant "Really Simple Syndication."

on June 8, 2004 07:24 AM
# ben said:

I mean, they could at least make RSS point at the My Yahoo RSS module. :)

on June 8, 2004 12:05 PM
# Andy Beal said:

Interesting observations, but why would Yahoo bid on the term "RSS" anyway and then send it to Yahoo Shopping. What is the motive there?

on June 8, 2004 04:40 PM
# Aristotle Pagaltzis said:

I'm not sure about the pre-1.0 RSS versions, but in RSS 1.0 it stands for RDF Site Summary and in RSS 2.0 it stands for Really Simple Syndication. This is as per the specs for the respective formats.

on June 8, 2004 08:50 PM
# Adam said:

No strong feelings on the whether-it's-a-good-idea-for-Yahoo-to-advertise-on-Google thing, but from a purely nitpicky perspective... Yahoo's ads could stay at the top simply by having a middling CTR but a very high bid price. Google uses a 'multiplier' of sorts to rank ad order, albeit with a bare CTR-floor.

on June 9, 2004 03:10 AM
# Dirk said:

If it makes money, why not?

on June 12, 2004 02:13 PM
# malloreigh said:

"First, the way Google's ad program works, if people don't click the ads frequently enough, Google stops running them."

No, they don't.

on January 23, 2006 10:52 AM
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed here are mine and mine alone. My current, past, or previous employers are not responsible for what I write here, the comments left by others, or the photos I may share. If you have questions, please contact me. Also, I am not a journalist or reporter. Don't "pitch" me.


Privacy: I do not share or publish the email addresses or IP addresses of anyone posting a comment here without consent. However, I do reserve the right to remove comments that are spammy, off-topic, or otherwise unsuitable based on my comment policy. In a few cases, I may leave spammy comments but remove any URLs they contain.