My guess is a tentative, temporary yes.

If you aren’t clued in yet, Yahoo! and Google have come to an agreement that allows Yahoo! to display Google paid search results on keyword queries on Yahoo! Yahoo! can now tap into Adsense and Adwords. The agreement is for 10 years and is not exclusive, meaning that Yahoo can create similar agreements with other parties.

There are pluses and minuses to this agreement. But for now, let’s focus on smaller agenices that serve smaller businesses and smaller businesses themselves.

The upside is that there could be less to learn and more reach for small advertisers. Using paid search can get you results on Yahoo! It may be unnecessary to do anything broad-based. That’s a good thing. It may make it easier to enter the arena of local search.

As AdAge points out:

When Google search ads are mixed in with Yahoo search ads for a particular search query, Google will almost always win the better placement, according to search marketers, because it has a better ad-matching and monetization engine. And if Google consistently wins, marketers may be less inclined to bother using the Yahoo system, instead choosing to put their optimization efforts toward a single system. In other words, less to learn, less to manage.

That’s the good part.

Now the down side. It could get more expensive to place search ads. Google’s system tends to be more expensive - and effective than Yahoo’s! That expensiveness will now be extended into the Yahoo! sphere, likely devaluing Yahoo’s! own paid search results.

My thoughts are that, at least initially, this will bode well for locals who are looking to add paid search to their mix. I’m thinking that because I’m guessing the biggest barrier is lack of knowledge on how start off effectively…as opposed to cost.

But that benefit may not last for long if competition becomes to intense for localized keyword searches. Because this does decrease paid search alternatives.

Back in December, I made put forth my predictions for 2008, with #11 being “Conversion attribution will be a big bone of contention”. That’s about to happen. Only now, thanks to Microsoft, it’s called “Engagement Mapping”.

Conversion attribution and/or engagement mapping is basically this. When we buy something, it is often because we’ve been inluenced by several marketing messages from different channels. The online arena offers little measurable sense of exactly what made someone buy, but an (almost) exact sense of where someone came from (a search? a banner?). So, conversion attribution and/or engagement mapping is basically is the call for the revenue from an ecommerce transaction to be dispersed amongst the marketing channels according to some sort of formulaic attribution system of that tries to weigh the influence of each channel. In Microsoft’s version - I’ll stick with engagement mapping - only online channels are mentioned.

This seems to address a issue of real concern, but it fails to address the whole picture. As a result, we’re likely to see an upcoming battle of Titans.

The problem I have with it is that Microsoft will be trying to implement industry wide measurement metrics - more than likely specifically designed in its favor - to get inside our heads and measure the amount of influence all of these marketing channels had when we buy something. I’d rather see something like this worked out by a consortium of companies in the online advertising space.

In all honesty, the current system is a skewed. In the pay-for performance world, which is heavily slanted toward search, we never really know what factors led to that click. I’ve long believed in search, but have had a hard time thinking a small text ad worked wonders all by itself.

Controversy will rise up big time if this becomes standard because Micorsoft’s rival, Google, will stand to lose the most. And that loss could be huge. That’s because EM will be taking into account online display advertising such as banners and boxes and skyscrapers. They have been much derided with their low click thru rates, something that I’ve always have felt was unfair. To me, it’s never taken into account any branding aspects or simple enhancement of name recognition. While Microsoft obviously has a foothold in the search arena, they are players in display advertisng as well. This will be even more true if their attempts to buy Yahoo prove to be successful.

Now it will be Microsoft’s challenge to convince the ad industry to play along. Advertisers - angencies and internal marketing managers may go for EM because it could allegedly give them a more quantifiable measure of marketing ROI spend.

But this cuts right into Google’s business model. They’ll be losing money because yesterday, someone saw a banner ad for a product and today they’re on Google because they put in a industry related keyword and came up with a text ad. But there really is no telling how much weight each played in the purchase. At best, I don’t think we’re there yet.

Microsoft’s plan is short on detail. Look for a lot of headed discussion on this issue. I’ll be following it intensely.

Much like Search Moptimization, we catagorize “Wombagging” as Defensive SEO.

‘”Wombagging”: This exercise tries to protect, or sandbag, your brand from negative or undesirable word of mouth (WOM). This could include anything everything from buying negative keywords on search engines to putting videos on your Web site featuring your CEO begging for patience and forgiveness. For some companies, wombagging might even include employing staffers in defense of bad buzz. But again, all this falls into the defensive branding arena, not outright promotion.’ The Official 2008 Web 2.0 Buzzword Forecast By Pete Blackshaw

However, we at Abraham Harrison actually call the process online brand reputation defense, Internet land grab, domain name registration strategy, search engine brand protection, domain name strategy, and domain name protection — they’re all sort of part of completely owning your own space on Google, Yahoo!, and Live.com proactively, well in advance of anything going wrong.

Why? Well, if you own your first three pages of Google well in advance of an online brand perception crisis, there is a much reduced chance of some negative online buzz being able to shoot right up to the top-five results of Google. It is much easier to fortify your castle than it is to rebuild it. Wisdom, free of charge. Tip of the hat to Jonathan Trenn, via ClickZ

BtoB Online reports that 60.1% of B to B marketers will increase their marketing budgets next year. While that’s more than half, but still shows caution. It’s probable that many are unsure about the direction of the economy.

The good news is that 79.1 percent will be increasing their online budgets for 2008. Of all the methods of marketing, that stand as the highest. What we’re going to be witnessing is companies taking money out of traditional and going online. And we may see a lot of this happening.

Given now that we’re seeing consumer generated goods making their way successfully on the internet through the use of ad units, I’m going to guess that B to B will go that route as well. And a very healthy dose of search. Both should be essential.

I’m wondering though…will we see much devoted to social media. Educational/promo pieces on YouTube, increased blogger engagement, the use of podcasts for current customers. I’m sure this is being done, but more likely in the tech sector. I’m just wondering what other industry cultures will move in that direction.

Einer der bekanntesten deutschen Unternehmen, der Otto Versand, expandiert nach erfolgter Umstrukturierung weiter und schickt sich an, Deutschlands groesster Online Versand zu werden und in der Gruppe der Major – Player, wie ebay oder Amazon mitzuspielen.

Read more…