local search will pay !!!

Yes .... Local Search WILL pay !!!

< Two local advertising players have enhanced their offerings this week. YellowPages.com scored a distribution deal with AOL Yellow Pages, and ReachLocal added Efficient Frontier's algorithmic bid management product to its local search packages. >
------------------------------------

ReachLocal offers advertisers packages that include paid search ads from Google and Yahoo!; Internet Yellow Pages listings from SuperPages.com; paid inclusion from LookSmart; and geo-targeted banner ads on the Advertising.com network. The service includes campaign set-up and management, simplified online media buying, and campaign reporting.

"The ability for businesses to capitalize on the local search market has been largely untapped. The combination of ReachLocal and Efficient Frontier removes the barriers to entry, providing these marketers a manageable way to be a larger part of the growing online search market," said Ellen Siminoff, president and CEO of Efficient Frontier. >

http://www.clickz.com/news/article.php/3511151
---------------------------------------------

Back on Tuesday ,11/01/05 I wrote of listening to the CEO of INCX (Interchange), who spoke of the cost (CPC) factor at the time, (.45cpc for a T1 cost, against an average .15c/.16c/.17c or .18c cost, for a T2 CPC entry), as to the reason why "Tier One" would NOT 'stoop down', to appear on a "Tier Two" search request. (Economics, wouldn't allow, for starters). I then said, that I was NOT convinced, that it will not be ultimately used, as 'pagefill' content, in due course. He had also mentioned (in his opinion), that T1 would not necessarily, (ever) call on a T2 for a result, although I suspected, that the lack of 'critical mass' he spoke of, (for INCX), was INCX's (only problem), or, reason, that he said this. (Only 5000 advertisers, ATT, as against LOOK's, what? .... 25,000 maybe?/or, more?). Verizon and another 'dozen YP sites' were mentioned, within his CC, as being 'on board' with INCX.

I also thought (at the time) that it would be fair to then assume, that LOOK too, would/must have some of these 'other' YP 'deals', by now? - (As, at the time, we we already had an involvement with both Verizon, plus BellSouth).

I also wrote, that of those SME's, ( & there are 10 million small-and-medium-sized enterprises, [small businesses], the bulk of which have fewer than nine employees and ....), they do conduct the majority of their business, within 50 miles of their locations.

So, LOCAL SEARCH @ that average cost of .15c/.16c/.17c or .18c (a cost for T2), as previously mentioned, *NOW suddenly becomes attractive. Remembering also, that: "only about 35 percent of local SMEs advertise in the Yellow Pages, which makes the conceivable advertiser base for 'local' paid search, potentially much broader."

My thoughtline is/was at the time, that THIS is 'over & above', or, additional ('part') shared revenues, for the likes of an AOL Yellow Pages, or, others. LOOK's deal with Bellsouth may be small, but could be growing with KNOWN improved efficiencies, of late.

On 11/01/05 I noted, that (from within this article, Link below), it was mentioned:

"For their part, Internet Yellow Pages have started working on improved usability and begun to partner with search providers to offer pay-per-click advertising to their local Yellow Pages advertisers. For example, print Yellow Pages publishers BellSouth and Verizon announced deals late last quarter with LookSmart (and others to be named) and FindWhat, respectively. More such deals are no doubt in the works."

h##p://searchenginewatch.com/searchday/article.php/3296721

I figure, in the context of 'the bigger picture', LOOK's offerings will also 'bundle' the recent (& upcoming) UpSnap mobiles deal 'revelations', with the (YP) news, talked of, above. After all, it's all to do with, both LOCAL SEARCH & Yellow Pages. (And of course, costs, all round!!)

:)
LC

* Dispite DSTZ's posting on Yahoo, of, both CNBC and Bloomberg's,(yesterday a.m), reporting, that there WAS a decline ... "For prices paid on keywords..." - Someone on Yahoo may care to check this, as being correct?