Comments on: Google Going On A Slapping Spree On CPA Campaigns http://crunchypost.com/internet-marketing/google-going-on-a-slapping-spree-on-cpa-campaigns/#utm_source=feed&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=feed Wed, 02 Sep 2009 15:53:42 +0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Dee http://crunchypost.com/internet-marketing/google-going-on-a-slapping-spree-on-cpa-campaigns/comment-page-1/#comment-14 Dee Sat, 15 Aug 2009 09:22:00 +0000 http://crunchypost.com/?p=131#comment-14 Yes Dan, you are correct and I agree on the point that we should design our own landing pages and have an opt-on form. Thanks for the comment! Yes Dan, you are correct and I agree on the point that we should design our own landing pages and have an opt-on form. Thanks for the comment!

]]> By: Dan Liptak http://crunchypost.com/internet-marketing/google-going-on-a-slapping-spree-on-cpa-campaigns/comment-page-1/#comment-13 Dan Liptak Fri, 14 Aug 2009 23:10:42 +0000 http://crunchypost.com/?p=131#comment-13 This is why I highly recommend building your own landing page with a optin form. Then you can build a list and market to them over and over. I have been reading on the forums about a lot of people getting banned for using "Google" in the ad. This is never a good idea. Google has always advocated the "user experience" so they will always be going after direct linking. This is why I highly recommend building your own landing page with a optin form. Then you can build a list and market to them over and over. I have been reading on the forums about a lot of people getting banned for using “Google” in the ad. This is never a good idea. Google has always advocated the “user experience” so they will always be going after direct linking.

]]> By: Jim Lillig http://crunchypost.com/internet-marketing/google-going-on-a-slapping-spree-on-cpa-campaigns/comment-page-1/#comment-10 Jim Lillig Thu, 06 Aug 2009 05:27:38 +0000 http://crunchypost.com/?p=131#comment-10 Dee, you are right that the FTC is cracking down on Google Kit type of campaigns. Particularly those that mislead or genuinely do not add value to their AdWords empire. But heretofore, they have profited handsomely by adding hundreds of thousands of accounts due to these types of courses. They allowed an organic business model to erupt over their AdWords campaigns at the hands of online entrepreneurs teaching others how to supposedly do it. Maybe Bing could learn a lesson (I have a post at jimlillig.com on the subject) from Google. I also agree with you that promoting those types of campaigns is a risk most publishers do not need. At our network, Offeratti.com, we look for "authentic guru's" such as Shawn Casey and Justin Blake. They teach you the AdWords game, and a whole lot more than just being a one trick traffic driving pony. Our campaigns are compliant and all of our advertisers use FTC attorneys when reviewing their offers and website language/links. This is a cornerstone of our network and why we will be standing when the FTC's dust clears. Thank you for taking a stand on the Google Kits, as many many publishers are still promoting those offers. Those offers all follow the same formula, a low intro price into a 14 day Risk Free Trial, then into a forced continuity usually for $79 or so, and then they get the phone calls from "coaches" as well as interminable email. The end user never knew what hit them, and these companies bank on the fact that 1/3 of all buyers will not scrutinize their credit card statement for a few months and that's where they make their margin. Few if any of those Google Kits actually give good solid advice. They mostly are very good at making Google more money, and the last time I checked Google was OK with that. Remember, Google up to now didn't really go after anyone that registered their name in a URL. Now all of a sudden, the FTC is taking notice and they are concerned. Seems to remind me of how they dealt with the whole PPC fraud issue - set aside $900MM so the lawyers can get paid, but offer little or no protection/remuneration from fraud within the ad platform. Dee, you are right that the FTC is cracking down on Google Kit type of campaigns. Particularly those that mislead or genuinely do not add value to their AdWords empire. But heretofore, they have profited handsomely by adding hundreds of thousands of accounts due to these types of courses. They allowed an organic business model to erupt over their AdWords campaigns at the hands of online entrepreneurs teaching others how to supposedly do it. Maybe Bing could learn a lesson (I have a post at jimlillig.com on the subject) from Google.

I also agree with you that promoting those types of campaigns is a risk most publishers do not need. At our network, Offeratti.com, we look for “authentic guru’s” such as Shawn Casey and Justin Blake. They teach you the AdWords game, and a whole lot more than just being a one trick traffic driving pony. Our campaigns are compliant and all of our advertisers use FTC attorneys when reviewing their offers and website language/links. This is a cornerstone of our network and why we will be standing when the FTC’s dust clears.

Thank you for taking a stand on the Google Kits, as many many publishers are still promoting those offers. Those offers all follow the same formula, a low intro price into a 14 day Risk Free Trial, then into a forced continuity usually for $79 or so, and then they get the phone calls from “coaches” as well as interminable email. The end user never knew what hit them, and these companies bank on the fact that 1/3 of all buyers will not scrutinize their credit card statement for a few months and that’s where they make their margin.

Few if any of those Google Kits actually give good solid advice. They mostly are very good at making Google more money, and the last time I checked Google was OK with that. Remember, Google up to now didn’t really go after anyone that registered their name in a URL. Now all of a sudden, the FTC is taking notice and they are concerned. Seems to remind me of how they dealt with the whole PPC fraud issue – set aside $900MM so the lawyers can get paid, but offer little or no protection/remuneration from fraud within the ad platform.

]]>