Yahoo has released a new zip code targeting feature for Panama search advertisers that allows them to direct ads to searchers based on their zip codes.

The service comes with an interactive mapping interface that allows advertisers to specify cities and zip codes and is more precise that the geo-targeting feature in Google Adwords which is only city-specific.

Yahoo’s service - like Google’s geo-targeting feature in Google Adwords - is based on identifying a searcher’s IP address, as well as some other factors. As such, it’s not fool-proof and Yahoo notes that the accuracy of its geo-targeting is not guaranteed.

Currently, the service supports cities and zip codes in approximately 3,500 municipalities in the U.S and Canada.

Source: Zachary Rodgers, “Yahoo Adds Granularity to Local Search Ads”, The ClickZ Network, October 20, 2008

Yesterday, we debunked the duplicate content penalty myth. However, it would be wrong to suggest that duplicate content is completely harmless.

Why? For two main reasons…

Firstly, Google DOES penalize those who blatantly scrape content from other websites:

“There are some penalties that are related to the idea of having the same content as another site—for example, if you’re scraping content from other sites and republishing it, or if you republish content without adding any additional value,” writes Ms Moskwa.

Secondly, Google may not PENALIZE… but it may equally not INDEX duplicate pages on your website. For example, if you have two landing pages that are the same (e.g. because you are running some kind of landing page test), Google will tend to index one and not the other. This also applies if you have multiple URLs on the same domain pointing to the same content.

But it makes sense, doesn’t it? Google and the other search engines are aiming to give search engine users relevant results based on their search query. If one result doesn’t happen to satisfy a searcher, then there should be lots of other – different - results to select from. How helpful would it be if Google’s index was full of the same pages? Not very.

Equally, you will often find that, over time, Google begins weeding out the results for many of those duplicate articles on the Internet. Again, it’s not to ‘penalize’ anyone - it’s to deliver relevant, distinguishable results to search engine users.

Okay, so that’s the duplicate content penalty myth out of the way. What’s the other myth that bugs me? I’ll leave that for a later issue…

Source: Susan Moskwa, “Demystifying the ‘duplicate content penalty’”, The Official Google Blog, September 12, 2008

Last Thursday, Google announced improvements to its Quality Score, which it introduced in July 2005 to vary minimum bids for keywords based on relevance.

Google is making three key changes to Quality Score:

1. Quality Score will now be calculated at the time of each search query. On that basis, Google will evaluate an ad’s quality each time it matches a search query. Consequently, Quality Score will vary according to such factors as where an ad displays (Google, search partner, content site) and where the searcher is located (country, state).

2. Keywords will no longer be marked ‘inactive for search’. Rather than be deemed inactive for search due to low relevance and/or searches, all keywords will be able to have ads shown on Google and the content network (unless you’ve paused or deleted them).

3. “First page bid” will replace the “minimum bid”. First page bids are an estimate of the bid it would take for your ad to reach the first page of search results in Google, based on the ‘exact match’ version of the keyword, the ad’s Quality Score, and current advertiser competition on that keyword.

So what do these changes mean?

Well, as far as a more dynamic Quality Score goes, it probably just confirms the need to keep keywords relevant. The good news is that, theoretically, YOUR ideas over what is relevant can be borne out by the behavior of your target market, rather than be deemed by Google. Provided, of course, that you get it right.

The lifting of the ‘inactive for search’ restraint is, I think, good news. Again, provided that you know more about your market than Google’s algorithm.

As for the replacement of the “minimum bid” with the “first page bid”… this sounds suspiciously like an excuse to make Google Adwords advertisers pay more. Hopefully not, but we won’t know until Google rolls out these “improvements” over the next few weeks.

Source: Trevor Claiborne, “Quality Score Improvements”, August 21, 2005

Search engine marketers have long argued about which position in the paid search listings is optimal, taking into account the cost-per-click, click-through-rate, and the sales value per click.

AdGooroo has attempted to measure the exact relationship between cost-per-click and clickthrough rate, and how these critical campaign metrics are affected by the length of the searcher’s keyword phrase, as well as the average position in which the ad appears on Google AdWords.

Based on its research, AdGooroo has developed a proprietary index, known as the “AdGooroo search index”, which shows the relationships between these factors across the spectrum of ad positions on Google.

AdGooroo believes its index can be combined with standard website metrics, such as conversion rate and average order size, to reliably predict the optimal average position for both broad and niche keywords.

Based on the report, some quick generalizations can be made:

1. For short keywords (one to two words) it’s not profitable to bid for the first or second positions, where you’re likely to compete against “brand” marketers who are willing to pay a premium for greater visibility. For direct response marketers, the most profitable positions for short keywords are the fifth and sixth positions.

2. For three-word keywords, you are still likely to lose money in the first position, but will find the most profitable positions to be the second and third positions. (Brand advertisers are unlikely to be as interested in the lower volumes of clicks available on these longer tail keywords). Eric Enge, writing for Search Engine Watch, believes it reasonable to assume that the three-word keyword data would also apply to four- and five-keyword phrases.

Sources: Eric Enge, “When Being First Isn’t Worth It”, Search Engine Watch, July 16, 2008, AdGooroo, “How keyword length and ad position impact CTR and CPC on Google AdWords”, AdGooroo, June 22, 2008