This is why you *must* be careful

I’ve been a Google Adwords advertiser for six, maybe seven years now?

There’s only one constant with Google Adwords and you know what it is: change.

I was asked on today’s Apostle webinar what I think of Armand Morin’s video on Adwords and affiliates.  I couldn’t say because I hadn’t seen it.

If you haven’t seen the video it’s worth watching, if for no other reason than to learn something about human psychology and how we make erroneous assumptions – even those of us at the top of our craft.

When you finish watching the video, then look at the “who’s who” of gurus joining the fray of mis-informed hysteria.

Now, in the past I’ve been known for being a wee-bit inflammatory where others are concerned.  And I’m past that (mostly).  I don’t need to dig on any of these folks – but I do have opinions and I have facts to back those opinions up.

Go ahead, watch the video and then come on back . . .

http://www.armandmorin.com/major-google-issue-affects/

1.  Google is not going to lose any money by losing the ‘Internet marketing’ crowd.  We’ve heard this same story since the first big Google change – the single URL rule.

“Google will be sorry!”, they cry.  Overinflated egos tend to overestimate their self worth.  Last I heard, Google is *still* growing in spite of their ‘dunderheaded’ approach to business.

It’s a credibility killer to me when I hear someone who runs a million dollar per year business question the business logic of a multi-billion dollar per year business.  Armand is hugely successful, but . . .

2.  There is a fundamental misunderstanding/non-understanding of what Google means when they say “bridge page”.

Here is what Google wrote to me on the issue:

To provide the best possible experience for our users and advertisers, Google does not permit ads for bridge pages that are solely intended to direct the user to another website with the same or similar information.

We’ve found that pages with multiple ads leading to the same site provide less relevant results and a lower-quality experience for our users.

I interpret as more “a non-essential page that adds no value to the search experience”.

Or, “Four and a half years ago we created the single URL rule to promote diversity in our search results – and now you guys think you’ve gamed us and figured out how to get around that?  Not even.”

1.  We have not seen the actual letter sent to the affiliate.  All of the letters I have seen sent out address multiple websites – not singular instances.

Therefore nobody knows the specific issue with this specific instance – it’s an assumption.

It is quite possible that of the three sites Google references (3 seems to be the magic number in these letters) that the affiliate was using bridge pages to promote other products and this site is in violation of something else.

You be the judge; is that what’s occurring?  Is the user being sent to another website with the same or similar information?  This is not to say that the site evaluator, hired on the cheap by Google, isn’t inaccurate in their individual assessment of the site.

But I say “no” is the only answer.  This is not a bridge page instance.

3. What I am seeing is a trend between both Google and the FTC to crack down on advertisers making outrageous claims with outrageous marketing.  Google has made it clear that they do not want hype in ads or or on websites.

Regardless of whether you and I agree, they’re making an effort to protect their user-base.  Because I can assure you that a percentage of the population view Google as a source they can trust – and if they buy something from someone they cannot trust then they are complaining to Google “why did you recommend this to me?”

You tell me . . . when was the last time you yelled out loud, “Hey honey!  I just found a hyped up sales letter promising me 100,000 visitors per month!  And it was all because I started out doing a search on Google!” . . .

. . . not since Naven Johnson found his name in the phone book my friend.

Google’s success is based on the perception they’re going to provide the best, most accurate information for search.

Do you disagree?

In short, you’re seeing the death of hype in marketing – at least marketing on Google.  Google is targeting sites that hype.

This is what I mean – taken from the video on SecretPPC.com

How would you like over 100,000 visitors a month to your website?

Sure!  But, for the average person is this realistic or is this exaggeration?  Are you telling me my Grandmother could do this?

How would you like to quickly and easily build a list of 130,000 people?

Sure!  But, again . . .

Any site I choose can get over 100,000 visitors per month . . . NO JOKE!

OK . . . this may not be a joke but ANY site?  GTFOH.

I’ve taught my HIGH END coaching clients to do this and they too are getting 10′s of thousands of visitors a month starting from DAY ONE!

10′s of thousands per month starting from DAY ONE? Maybe from month one – and I’m not picking on semantics.  This is where the BS detector goes ape.

Uh, the truth revealed?  If you’ve taught this to your HIGH END coaching clients, who’ve probably spent thousands for that privilege, why are they getting 10′s of thousands of visitors a month (20,000 is technically 10′s of thousands) when you’re claiming I can quickly and easily get over 100,000 for $297?  That doesn’t make sense.  It does not compute.

And what about those graphics showing “proof” of clicks and impressions?

I am not saying that what Armand is saying when he shows “proof” of his results in untrue, but a generic graphic with no branding, dates, etc . . . how hard is that to falsify?  Is that adequate “proof of claims”.  If I see that on a Chris McNeeney website or Mr. X #32′s site, am I believing that for a second?

HELL NO!

Could any of this be seen as …

*  Extremely misleading/unverifiable or inaccurate claims

or …

*  “Get-rich quick” sites that make unrealistic promises

??????

I would say these claims are definitely misleading, unverifiable and unrealistic for 99% of anyone who ever considered calling them self an Internet marketer.

4.  I *do* agree with Armand’s point about having a site in your advertiser history that you cannot change.  If you’re direct linking to another site – a site that you have no control of, you had better be REALLY sure that it’s not going to violate Google’s standards.  I pointed this out in my “Letters from Google” post.

5.  It is no surprise that the SecretPPC.com landing page is having issues.  One of Google’s new, big criteria is easy site navigation.  There is no navigation and that’s a common denominator for all of my sites that have gotten in trouble.  You can no longer get away with not offering any value other than a sales letter – or sales video.  And although required, “About Us” and “Privacy Policy” are not enough – you need to give people a sense of the company, and you need to offer more accessible free information.  On this one, I hate to say Perry Marshall got this right before I did.

In other words, Armand’s program aside, SecretPPC.com is a site that offers a visitor NO VALUE at all.  That just doesn’t cut it with Google in 2010.  Google wants people to find value on your site whether they decided to buy, optin or download – or not – period.

6.  MOST websites that offer the possibility of a sales transaction lead to another website.  Is Google going to eliminate merchants using Google Checkout?  Not likely.  In fact, if you do a search for a half dozen different keyword phrases, click the links of advertisers and step up to the point of buying the product you will see A LOT of those sites feature final check out on another domain.

That’s not the problem here.

Ladies and gents, stop and look around.  There are absolutely affiliate sites running ads in major niches on Google.  There are sites running ads that have a shopping cart / checkout that resides on another domain.  Before you buy into what *anyone* says (me included), do your own due diligence.

I am not saying that Google is not a pain in the ass – they are.  But, you know, if you want to date a supermodel expect some issues.

I could go on, but I have other things to do.

The main point here is that sometimes a limited amount of information mixed with some emotions can deceive the smartest and wisest amongst us.

It is just my opinion, but my opinion is that we’re seeing a lot of grasping at straws by people who only have a limited piece of the puzzle to look at.

It is also my opinion that those who are committed to figuring this out will profit in huge ways.

Dudes, I’m not bummed.  Not even.

All the best to you – X