Also, now you have to buy ads for your own company not just to make it more visible than it would deserve by default, but to prevent your competitors being displayed first even if the user types your exact company name in the search field (what they are encouraged to do).
I read a lot of companies buy advertising specifically for their own name, because if they don't, a competitor will, and will appear first when someone googles the company name.
We regularly bid for our own keyword and it is super competitive as competitors are always trying to buy our company name. It is awkward when you type "My company", and the first page is all competitor ads
Entire model is hostile to those advertising. At least in these cases. You need to advertise your company name in searches so that your competitors advertising on your name don't beat you.
This can only last as long as there is competitors willing to pay for those adds. Which might be getting tighter.
This is a common phenomenon sometimes referred to as the Google tax. Which is why when you search for "company name" you still get ads for that company when the first actual result is their website, they bid on their own name so that competitors don't appear ahead of them.
Now that you mention that, does anyone else find it incredibly scummy that Google shows ads for a company, leading to the company's website, above the first result, which is also the company's website when I search for something like the company name?
The ad is minimally distinguished from the content, and most users don't care anyway, they'll click the top result and cost the company money that they could have saved if Google didn't present that ad there.
I guess, however, that the alternative is an ad for Bar, Inc appearing above Foo, Inc when you search for "foo, inc". In that case, it feels like extortion ("if you want us to show your website first when users search for you, buy the ad").
Companies pay top dollar to show an ad when someone searches their name, otherwise a competitor could make a paid ad slamming the product. We dealt with this first hand a year ago in my company.
Yeah, I had wondered why companies advertise on their own name. The other day I was looking up ad word ideas, and the cheapest option was to run it against a top player in the field. Search volume was as high as a generic search, but only cost 1c instead of $4 for the generic keyword.
Couple that with how most people click the first link on the page (no accident mind you), it’s just downright extortion by Google.
Most directly, if the search results were perfect you would never need to click on an ad.
The most evil thing Google is doing now is pushing brands to buy ads on their own name so that they appear above the organic #1 search result. It's like the time Facebook decided it wouldn't send messages to followers who like you unless you paid up.
This is also a big driver of needing to purchase ads for yourself on your own brand name. If your users are searching for your site on Google in order to log in (which is depressingly common), you don't want to cede the top search result to a competitor in case someone is feeling adventurous that day. It's a real racket.
A search provider that had its users' interests at heart would reserve the top result spot for the best organic search result, not an ad. Even if ads are #2-5, the top result should be what the user searched for.
When you don't have competitors buying ads against your name, and you already have the #1 spot in organic search results, buying your own name is a waste of money.
When you do have competitors buying ads against your name, sure, spend money to defeat them; you'll be able to do it pretty affordably, because of your Quality Score advantage.
But until then, buying ads for your name is a waste of money. (And it confounds your analytics, as TFA points out.)
maybe, just maybe - to prevent others from taking that place. Telling it from my own experience: once I wanted to download some software, typed its name into Google (expecting to see official website as the first result), and saw advertisement for its competitor right at the top. Maybe paying for ads ensures that in this case your link would be on top when googling for your brand name?
As I have mentioned, I have no problem with my competitors being able to do this. The problem is how Google buries ozonetel.com below everything else. It should be absolutely fine if Google puts Ozonetel as first search result(because there is a brand and company called Ozonetel), and then puts the ads below that. Its win-win for everyone.
"If your customers intend to go directly to you, why do they not go directly to your site but instead search for it on a general search engine?"
It's because now mostly people(including me) search for a brand we know and click on the site. Mainly we type in the address bar(without .com) and press enter. The default search engine brings up the list and we click.
Before: more people find your competition when searching for you
After: less people find your competition when searching for you
The issue is that coupling search and ads violates the expectation of "First result = Best result". Especially when A direct 100% fit can be replaced by a competitor (or even a parasite (in legal terms)) targeting your users.
Not it you want to compete with them in the search space (and subsequently search advertising space). It creates something of a channel conflict for them :-) Eventually to actually succeed at it you need your revenue not to be controlled by your competitor.
reply