Disruption Tour --- Run To Survive

Customized Landing Pages: The Unsung Hero of PPC By Zeeshan Javed Search Marketing Specialist iProspect   There's no question about it.  When it comes to search engine optimization(SEO), marketers get the value of content.  In fact, if you listen closely, you might even hear them chanting the SEO mantra: "Content, Content, Content."  Yet with pay per click advertising (PPC), a shift takes place.  In this arena, keyword bidding and ad copy creation take precedence, while content development is largely ignored.  This is both unfortunate and unwise, especially when it comes to landing pages.    Why you should care While it is understandable that search marketers would give priority to keywords and ad copy  - after all, these elements affect the visibility of ads and entice click-through - this approach overlooks an important factor.  Namely, that customized landing page content can have considerable impact on a PPC campaign.  In fact, it could be the very thing you need to push your PPC campaign forward.  Not only does it drive the time users spend on a website, it also affects the quality score of PPC ads.  Moreover, it also has the power to improve conversions.  In essence, customized landing page content really is the unsung hero of paid search. Making it happen Benefiting from customized landing pages requires development resources.  So before you jump-in, it's important to first take a look at how to select the content that is most relevant to your users.  Below is a four step plan on how to do just that. Assess the major groups of users that click on your PPC ads.  This will help establish your target user groups and set a foundation upon which to perform conversion analysis.          Analyze your landing pages to assess the path users take from the time they land on the website through conversion.  Doing so will reveal where the greatest bounce rate occurs, and in turn, pinpoint where additional content is needed.        Research the types of content your target users seek.  This is important as users have predetermined interests when they click on a PPC ad.  For example, a user who clicks on a health insurance PPC ad is most likely looking for comparative pricing information between providers.  However, if that type of content is absent from the ad destination page, the user will likely leave and go to a competitor's site.        Conduct multivariate testing to determine what content leads to the largest net increases for time spent on the website, and what content actually decreases the bounce rate.   Overall, PPC marketers would be wise to adopt their SEO brethren's above mantra, as content really does matter, even in paid search.  The more customized the content, the more time a user is likely to spend on your website, and the more likely they are to convert.  Smart marketers will be sure to make it a priority, and fully capitalize on its value.

CITYSEARCH SUED FOR CLICK FRAUD

Yusef Robb wrote:

For Immediate Release / May 27, 2008

Contact: Yusef K. Robb / 323-384-1789

 

CITYSEARCH SUED FOR CLICK FRAUD

 

Los Angeles – Citysearch.com is defrauding its advertising customers of millions of dollars by not only turning a blind eye to click fraud, but in fact encouraging it as well, according to a lawsuit filed today in Los Angeles Superior Court by Kabateck Brown Kellner, LLP.

 

"Most click fraud cases involve companies that simply turn a blind eye to it," said the victims' attorney, Brian S. Kabateck, Managing Partner of Kabateck Brown Kellner. "Citysearch does this too, since it has no real program to prevent click fraud.  But Citysearch goes beyond indifference to actively incentivizing click fraud. Citysearch's motive is simple: clicks equal cash, whether they're fraudulent or not."

 

Kabateck recently won a multi-million dollar settlement from Yahoo! and was part of an earlier $90 million settlement from Google on behalf of advertisers who were victimized by click fraud. He also recently filed a federal class action suit against Google for fraud within its "AdWords" pay-per-click advertising system.

 

Citysearch, part of IAC/InterActiveCorp, which is headed by Barry Diller, pays commissions to its salespeople based on the number of clicks their customers' ads receive, providing an incentive for click fraud, according to the lawsuit.  Furthermore, the suit contends, contrary to Citysearch's own representations to its advertisers, it takes no real steps to prevent click fraud. And when customers become victims of click fraud, Citysearch fails to adequately advise them that they have been victimized or refund the money paid to Citysearch for that fraudulent activity.

 

The lawsuit seeks to represent all people or entities in the United States who paid money for pay-per-click advertising through Citysearch.com.

 

As detailed within the suit, the case of plaintiff Tom Lambotte shows Citysearch refusing to acknowledge blatant indications of click fraud.

 

Lambotte's Citysearch ad received a total of 7 clicks (plus two more that he generated) between December 11 and 25, 2007. On December 26 he received a response from Citysearch to his December 22 request to cancel his ad.  Suddenly, his ad began receiving 12 to 16 clicks a day, for a total of 69 clicks between December 26 and December 31, when his ad was finally cancelled. He received in these five days 10 times as many clicks as he had received in the previous two weeks. Despite this, Citysearch refused his repeated requests to reverse these charges.

 

Click fraud can be detected by software that can track suspicious patterns, such as repeated clicks from the same source. Although Citysearch assures its customers that it applies this technology, the experiences of many of its customers shows otherwise, according to the suit.  Still, customers are led to believe that Citysearch is in fact actively fighting against click fraud.

 

According to Citysearch's "Invalid Click Policy": "Citysearch also has sophisticated algorithms to track sessions and user behavior on our site to assist us in identifying click patterns that would indicate invalid clicks.  In the event we identify a click as invalid, our customers are not charged for such clicks."

 

"Citysearch is operating contrary to its own contract with its customers," Kabateck said.

 

Kabateck Brown Kellner, LLP is one of the nation's foremost consumer law firms. Its clients have won more than $750 million against Coca Cola, Farmer's Insurance, Eli Lilly and other major corporations. As a plaintiff's-only firm, Kabateck Brown Kellner is always on the consumers' side.

 

###

Microsoft Pays You For Using Its Search (If You Live In The US)

mashable.com

Microsoft has a big announcement today, one that should show the world they’re capable of running a search business even without Yahoo: their Live Search CashBack program will enable you to use special savings “coupons” after you buy stuff you’ve found using Live Search.

The detailed explanation of how this works can be found on here; the lowdown is as follows: You search for deals using Live Search; when you find deals with a special coin shaped icon, it means you’ll receive a small amount of money after you’ve bought something. When your balance reaches $5, you can claim your cash.

If this sounds like those special customer cards your local store clerk has been bothering you with, you’re right. Personally, I don’t care for such deals, but I’m sure there are people who enjoy saving a buck here and there. However, there are several of problems with Microsoft’s cashback; after I list them all, many of you will find that the program simply isn’t for you.

First of all, according to the FAQ, you’re elligible for the program if you are a U.S. citizen or legal resident, and at least 18 years of age. Everyone else, forget about it. Secondly, Microsoft does not guarantee you’ll receive cashback bonuses if you use an alternative payment method when purchasing items, such as PayPal or Google Checkout.

On the merchant side of things, be aware that we’re not talking about cost-per-click advertising model; we’re talking about cost-per-acquisition, which means that the advertiser pays only when a customer clicks on the ad and actually completes a purchase. There are certain situations in which this works well, but we all know that AdWords are mainly CPC and that that’s one of the main reasons behind its success.

Will Microsoft lure more people into using Live Search? Definitely. But my guess is that they’ll only use it to find cheap deals, and use Google for general purpose search. Google is still the best global search engine, while the demographics Microsoft is aiming here is narrow in comparison: US-based surfers, older than 18, who like to shop online and are willing to switch from PayPal for certain payments. It’s a solid initiative, but it’s not enough to move from search engine number 3 to the second and first position anytime soon.

The True Fiction of Microsoft Live Search

gigom.com

Yesterday, I read a post on Google’s blog about their focus on improving search quality. Today, I read a press release from Microsoft in which it said its Live Search product will be used to give “cash back” to those who use it to find and buy things. Innovation vs. buying your way into the market…in my book, that kinda speaks for itself.

Microsoft’s “Live Search cashback” site…promises to pay back a portion of the purchase price — ranging from about 2 percent to more than 30 percent — to people who use it to find designated products and buy them online from participating retailers…including the online sites of large retailers such as Barnes & Noble, Sears, Home Depot, J&R Electronics, Office Depot and others. [via]

Instead of jumping to conclusions, I decided to make a list of my thoughts on this, many of which the folks at Microsoft are not going to like.

• We shouldn’t be surprised that Microsoft is using the lure of the cash. When it comes to beating Google in the search game, cash is the one asset it already has.
• Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates is still running the company, despite not being the CEO. He talked about paying people to search almost three years ago.
• eBay is using Microsoft to generate traffic. That leaves lead-generation players on a slippery slope.
• TechCrunch notes that this program is based somewhat on Jellyfish, a company that Microsoft bought back in 2007. In other words, this isn’t a new idea, just new spin.
• Will this work? That remains to be seen. Remember a company called iWON? Well, despite all the cash and prizes it handed out, it failed miserably. Will Microsoft’s size and online presence give it a leg up? Maybe.
• It really doesn’t address the issue of Microsoft continuous loss of market share in search.
• Microsoft will need to find a way to overcome resistance to register for the service.
• Microsoft Live Search Cashback has 200 merchants, compared with the average comparison shopping engines, which each have about 10,000 merchants.
• Microsoft is pretty serious about what amounts to little more than a gimmick. They recently bought Cashback.com, showing how committed Microsoft is to this effort.
• What Microsoft is indicating: It will shift to a cost-per-acquisition model, instead of the more generic cost-per-click model, which I think is actually a good thing.
• What they really need to do is to upsell merchants to other types of online advertising they offer — search, contextual, content and display. Now that could prove to be a very big opportunity

Final thought: Microsoft’s traditional strategy of “We will charge less and crush the competition” really doesn’t cut it anymore. How long do you think merchant partners are going to stick around and waste their resources if they can’t make money? This is not some PC-maker-schmuck they have in a headlock. Take a look at all the other new technologies where Microsoft hasn’t been able to dominate — this is a sad reflection on that trend.

Cash for Search...Microsofts new service...

Buzzmachine.com

Jeff Jarvis

Microsoft’s (MSFT) effort to bribe/reward/cajole ecommerce search business away from Google (GOOG) with customer rebates is the product of dubious business economics. It’s a trap: a customer acquisition cost that becomes a habit hard to break.

It’s just like premiums given by magazines to get you to subscribe. When I was at Time Inc. in the ’80s, Sports Illustrated had a big hit on its hands — or so they thought — with the Sneakerphone, free with your subscription. Time and other of the company’s magazines followed with clocks and other geegaws. In the end, though, they found that people weren’t subscribing to the magazines; they wanted the Sneakerphone and when it came time to renew, because they already had what they wanted, they canceled — and renewals are where magazines begin to see a return from their marketing to acquire subscribers. Advertisers eventually realized that they weren’t talking to readers; the magazines were the premium. The Sneakerphone turned out to be a very expensive problem. It took painful effort for Time Inc. to ween itself and its subscribers from the expectation of freebies with subscriptions.

Microsoft’s fees are a marketing cost, pure and simple. The company could pay to advertise its search or it can pay consumers to search. I’m glad to see money going into the pockets of consumers — the internet dividend strikes again. But I doubt that these economics are sustainable; this is just an effort to poke Google in the kidneys and I doubt that the giant will even notice. This is akin to Mark Cuban’s sillyass idea to pay/bribe/reward/cajole advertisers into leaving Google.

Michael Arrington has a well-done analysis of the Microsoft gambit. He concludes that it could increase Microsoft’s share of valuable commerce search:

A year ago Microsoft basically did a trial run of Live Search CashBack with Live Search Club, which lured searchers to Microsoft with offered of prizes to users for using Live Search. Microsoft went from 10.3% to 13.2% market share in a month, a nearly 30% rise. Live Search CashBack, which gives a much more straightforward payout to users, should see significantly better results.

But earlier in his post, I think he defeated that argument when he said, quite rightly:

This is a winner-take-most market: Having 9% of search doesn’t mean Microsoft has 9% of search marketing dollars. Far from it - publishers go to Google to partner on ads, which means advertisers must go there to get inventory, and a very healthy auction system pushes up prices. So not only does Microsoft (and Yahoo, and everyone else) have much fewer queries than Google, they are also generating much less revenue per query as well.

Right. So Microsoft pays heavily to raise it share but still doesn’t get critical mass. Then let’s say that Cuban gets on the board of Yahoo and convinces them to follow his plan and they lower their profit margin by paying advertisers, forcing Microsoft to do likewise. And what will they be left with? A warehouse filled with sneakerphones.

Is there a way to defeat the Google beast at search? Not this way. How about the Mahalo or Wikio method? I’m not sure about them either. They all have to try to change what is already a well-ingrained consumer habit and a critical mass of advertiser participation.

Does this mean that search is Google’s forever? Well, I still don’t see anything to topple them — certainly not Microsoft’s plan. It has been tried before. Remember IWon.com? I barely did.

The Empire Strikes Back: Our Analysis Of Microsoft Live Search Cashback

techcrunch.com

Michael Arrington

Everyone has an opinion on today’s move by Microsoft to shake things up in the search space. Their new Live Search Cashback product shifts search advertising from cost-per-click (CPC) to cost-per-action (CPA) and give a lot of the revenue back to users. Most writers are negative. Some excessively so. After hearing Bill Gates give the pitch and trying the service myself to make a couple of purchases, here’s what I think: It’s a bold move that goes for Google’s throat, and it will likely have a material impact on their search market share.

Our complete analysis is below. The key takeaway: Google’s search dominance is growing, and everything Microsoft has historically thrown at them has done nothing to slow them down. This new approach is both desperate and brilliant. Desperate because Microsoft is giving away most of the search revenue to get market share gains. Brilliant because they have such a small share of search revenue today that they have little to lose, and they are hitting Google hard in their core business.

The Numbers

Microsoft had to do something fairly drastic to get back in the search game. They’re third in U.S. search market share with under 9.1% of the total pie. Just six months ago they had 9.8% market share. Google, by contrast, has 61.6% and is growing steadily:

Without search market share, Microsoft can’t get search revenue market share. And it isn’t just a matter of splitting up the pie. This is a winner-take-most market: Having 9% of search doesn’t mean Microsoft has 9% of search marketing dollars. Far from it - publishers go to Google to partner on ads, which means advertisers must go there to get inventory, and a very healthy auction system pushes up prices. So not only does Microsoft (and Yahoo, and everyone else) have much fewer queries than Google, they are also generating much less revenue per query as well.

So how much revenue are we talking about? Today the worldwide online advertising market is somewhere in the $40 billion range, and there are estimates that it will grow to $80 billion by 2010. The search piece of that is big - about 40%. So $16 billion or so today, growing to $33 billion by 2010. Google gets the vast majority of that search revenue today.

Microsoft’s core revenue is derived from Windows and Office, and the future doesn’t look to be very bright for desktop software sales. Google’s revenues, currently at $20 billion a year, could someday surpass Microsoft’s (Microsoft is currently at about $50 billion/year in revenue) if nothing is done to change the game.

Remember how everyone feared Microsoft’s dominance in the OS and Office worlds in the late nineties? That’s Google today in the search advertising space, a much bigger long term market.

How To Disrupt Google

It’s clear that technology alone will not unseat Google as the dominant player in this market. Microsoft already tried that with their AdCenter improvements in 2006; Yahoo tried with Panama last year. Google’s dominance only grew.

That means Microsoft has to do something different than just build new software that improves on the cost per click advertising model. And moving to a CPA model isn’t enough - Google and others are already experimenting with that. So instead, Microsoft is taking the CPA model, which lowers risk to advertisers, and combining it with a straightforward payback mechanism to users.

This only applies to ecommerce related searches for now. But frankly that is all that matters. Only about a third of searches are commerce related, but those searches generate 80% of search revenue. Get the commerce searches and you’ve got the revenue. And here’s another interesting statistic - 68% of online purchases begin at a search engine or shopping comparison site. Only about 30% are from direct navigation to the ecommerce site itself.

Will It Work?

Yes, it will work and it will almost certainly increase Microsoft’s market share in search, particularly in commerce search. The question is, how well will it work?

A year ago Microsoft basically did a trial run of Live Search CashBack with Live Search Club, which lured searchers to Microsoft with offers of prizes to users for using Live Search. Microsoft went from 10.3% to 13.2% market share in a month, a nearly 30% rise. Live Search CashBack, which gives a much more straightforward payout to users, should see significantly better results.

And really, what does Microsoft have to lose? They have a tiny piece of the revenue pie today, pay out money-losing revenue guarantees to partners like Digg and Facebook, and the online division itself is losing a cool $1 billion a year on about $2.4 billion in revenue. This new model isn’t going to give them a lot of profit, but it isn’t a money loser, either. Sometimes, desperation is a good place to be because it forces you to try crazy stuff.

The User Experience

I made two purchases today with Live Search Cashback. Microsoft presents results in a straightforward manner with the price of the item and the rebate clearly shown. After the purchases, the rebate appeared instantly in my CashBack account. No hiccups, great user experience. I came away with a totally different opinion from others.

Microsoft's Cashback: Changing the Internet Industry Forever

Crossprofit.com

Cashback is definitely a catchy word. Now if only Microsoft (MSFT) can cash-in on the cash-back we could have a real winner here. The majority of articles written on the latest MSFT initiative have been negative. However, to be fair, the majority of articles we read were written by industry related people.

Whenever a company comes out with a novel marketing idea that entails lower profit margins for the sake of gaining market share, the entire industry takes up arms attempting to forestall or outright kill the concept. This is human nature and is to be expected. The same happened when the first horseless carriages were introduced. Where are the horse breeders today? Don't forget that at first horses were more reliable and faster as well. Not to mention that horses commanded more than 61% of the market (Google's (GOOG) search share) yet the concept was slowly accepted for one reason only - it made sense!

The Consumer

From the consumers' perspective, why not get back $5 on a $50 purchase that I was going to do anyway. Why not spend an extra minute or two on MSFT's frustrating inferior search portal to find what I'm looking for and make a few bucks? The obvious conclusion is that if MSFT makes it easy for me to get my cash back I will do it BECAUSE IT MAKES SENSE.

Think of it this way: Why should I use Google (GOOG) to buy a book from Amazon (AMZN) for $20 when I can buy the exact same book from the exact same Amazon for the exact same amount and get back $2. Show me an American or European or Australian that doesn't like using a free coupon especially when there is no clipping involved. All that is required is a one time sign up that takes less than three minutes and low and behold I get a never ending stream of clippings delivered directly to the cash register.

Now if only we could fill up the gas tank over the internet…

The MSFT Perspective

Obviously MSFT wants to build its internet business and do so for profit. Numerous articles claim that by offering 'rebates' or 'profit sharing' MSFT is effectively shooting itself in the leg for one of three reasons or all combined.

First, the coupon business is not that simple. If the coupon isn't large enough then people won't bother clipping, or is that clicking. If the coupon is too large then it erodes the entire profit margin. To this we say, MSFT has plenty of cash on hand and is not a new startup that has to watch every penny. If they get it wrong at first, they can always give the strategy a tune-up. Besides, all they need is a worthwhile gimmick to get people to sign up and the rest is history.

Second, once you start you can't stop because as soon as you do you will lose your customer base. In this case, many caution that MSFT will be giving away any potential profits forever. To this we say, currently MSFT isn't making money on search. Get the traffic and breakeven. In the odd chance that MSFT doesn't know how to monetize the traffic, without relying on ad income, we do. This, however, we are not giving away for free in this article as there are numerous applications that are applicable to many companies and industries.

Third, people are so accustomed to using Google (GOOG) that they won't switch for two reasons: 1) Google search is better. 2) Everyone has Google as their homepage (or toolbar) and like the 'clean look' of the Google homepage. To this we say, yes - Google search is better - for the time being. However, money talks and it will take less money once MSFT improves its search. As to the feel and look, well MSFT is just going to have to emulate Google by putting up a clean Cashback homepage. Getting people to install the homepage as the default is easy; simply offer an additional $5 Cashback on the first purchase…

Some pundits claim that MSFT has no intention of making money out of this and the sole reason they have embarked on the Cashback initiative is to strike back at Google. O.K., what's wrong with that? If MSFT needs some more time to fix their search then so be it. If in order to take the wind out of Google's sails they have to spend a little, it's still less than spending $47B (or $40B) on acquiring Yahoo! and then still have to fix the search.

No matter how you clip this, this is the right move for MSFT.

The Industry

The internet industry loathes this move. In effect, MSFT has embarked on reshaping the industry forever. Presently there are only two ways to make a dime on the internet, either sell goods or sell ads. There are millions of sites that can't breakeven without Google sharing their ad income with them. This created a clutter of small sites that barely cover their costs, yet can survive.

Now MSFT is turning the table around. Instead of ads supporting the millions of sites, goods will be king. Sites that don't sell goods will miss out on search revenue as they will not be included in the Cashback program.

In essence, MSFT is changing the hierarchy. Until now the pecking order was: Google -> site owner -> advertiser -> customer. The new order is: MSFT -> customer -> advertiser -> site owner. Since Microsoft is not going after the website Adwords business, MSFT doesn't have a problem with this. The internet industry has a major problem with this because very little revenue is derived directly from the end customer. Site owners and advertisers provide the bulk of direct revenue. By moving them further down the food chain, there will be less profits for these two groups, translating into lower industry sales.

Microsoft will be quick to point out that in reality while the end customer gains, only site owners lose out as advertisers are not affected by the hierarchy change. Well, maybe so at first but give it time and advertisers will probably be pinched as well in favor of the customer.

The bottom line is that MSFT is putting the public back in the internet's driver's seat. Once Joe six pack figures this out, the industry can yelp as much as they want but can only flutter with clipped wings.

Google Exec: Hell No We're Not Paying Anyone To Use Google

siliconalleyinsider.com

Dan Frommer |

Not that anyone ever expected Google to chase after Microsoft's (MSFT) new "Cashback" gimmick, but at Goldman's annual Internet conference, Google product director Nicholas Fox didn't beat around the bush:

"No, we have no plans to pay users to use our product," he said. "Our fundamental belief is that we should compete by building a great user experience -- making our users happy by delivering excellent search results and excellent quality. And that's where we're focusing our efforts, rather than paying users nickels and dimes."

Microsoft's Secret Plan To Kill Google Explained

Siliconalleyinsider.com

Henry Blodget |

We chatted with Microsoft (MSFT) about the economics of Live Search cashback, its new commerce search system. More on that soon, but first an overview of Microsoft's latest macro plan to kill Google (GOOG), about which we were also educated.

(And in fairness to Microsoft, we should begin by saying the company didn't present it as a "secret plan to kill Google." Microsoft pitched it as its plan to build a big, successful search business.)

The plan is based on three premises:

• Today's search is klugy, and it will change.
• Microsoft has unique assets that will allow it to capitalize on this change
• Microsoft will lead the innovation of the next-gen search product and business models

Our analysis:

• We disagree that today's search is klugy. Crappy search, of course, is the premise upon which dozens of next-gen Google-killing search products and companies are based, but we think today's search is far better than these companies think. For example, we don't think people actually want to type natural language questions, except in very specific circumstances. When people are searching for "Paris Hilton," moreover, we think they are smart enough to understand that they'll get better results if they type "Paris Hilton" instead of just "Paris," in which case they might get travel offers (though they'd still get plenty of Paris Hilton). The "today's search sucks" crowd loves to invoke the stat that "40% of searches are subsequently refined." The corollary to this is that, remarkably, 60% of searches don't need to be refined. Can search be improved? Of course. But Google continues to make incremental improvements, and we just don't see them suddenly getting leapfrogged.

• We don't think Microsoft has unique assets to capitalize on search changes--at least not relative to Google, Yahoo, and others. Microsoft has exceptional technologists, but we don't think they make Microsoft more able to innovate in search than Google. We also don't think the other assets Microsoft views as unique--data centers, infrastructure, etc.--give it an advantage over Google. Microsoft's greatest strength is PC and enterprise computing, and it unquestionably has "unique assets" in this business. In search and cloud computing, however, Microsoft is at a distinct disadvantage--in part because it has so much riding on the PC business.

• Microsoft may be able to lead some of the innovation of the next-gen search products and business models, but we doubt they'll lead all of it. Unless Microsoft makes a quantum leap, moreover--which, again, we think is unlikely--we think Google will quickly be able to match whatever it comes up with that works. Remember how good Microsoft used to be at incorporating software improvements thought of by others? Today, in search, the positions are reverse. Similarly, Microsoft can afford to play around with business models because it has very little to lose, but if it stumbles upon one that works, Google will rapidly adopt it (If it's a lower-margin model, this will hit Google's stock, but it won't hurt its market position.

Next, execution. Here's how Microsoft plans to capitalize on the above trends:

• Deliver great search results.
• Simplify key common search tasks (Entertainment, Commerce, Reference, Navigation)
• Change the business model

Analysis:

• Good search results are necessary, but even if Microsoft's results are widely agreed to be better than Google's--which today's certainly aren't--this won't help. Why not? Because most consumers won't notice or care. Google works, and Google is synonymous with search. And of course "great results" are an advantage only if the great results are better than Google's, and we'll believe that when we see it.

• Simplifying key common search tasks sounds like a sustaining innovation, not a disruptive one. Google simplifies common tasks continuously (that's what Universal Search is all about). In Google's model, moreover, it's a single step: Just type keyword and all kinds of results will appear on one page. If you try to specialize in "Entertainment" or "Navigation", you'll just slow the user down.

• Changing the business model sounds good, and we like the cashback concept...but it won't work. Three reasons why: 1) For most searchers, the savings on each transaction are small; 2) cashback only works with participating retailers and products, and at least in the early going, Google usually unearths retailers that sell for less even with no cash back; and 3) Again, if necessary, Google can always respond. Google is already working on cost-per-action pricing, for example, which is a key feature of Microsoft's cashback.

In short: Microsoft is right that advertisers are rooting for it to succeed--no one likes being beholden to a monopoly. What makes Google so powerful, however, is its vast share of search queries, and this is a function of both quality and consumer habit. We think cashback is certainly worth trying, and it will probably produce a small bump in Microsoft's query share. But we see nothing in Microsoft's plan that makes us think it will be able to change the Google = search dynamic over the long term, let along claw back major market share.

Can Microsoft Make Search-Engine-Specific Pricing Work?

Microsoft's announcement this week that would offer rebates for purchases made through its search engine is shaking the E-Commerce world. But the very lengthy list of gotchas—including making consumers wait potentially 11 weeks after purchases before seeing the rebate checks—is raising questions about whether it would work. The idea of offering consumers financial bribes if they use a particular search engine has been tried before, without success. But Microsoft's entry into this field—the latest in a series of Redmond gambits to try and breathe life into its search engine—is very different from earlier efforts. Read more.