~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~
THE
SEARCH LIGHT
{SPECIAL EDITION – LookSmart}
Guiding your web site to the
top of the search engines...
~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~
15
May 2002
Vol. 2 Issue # 5
Editor
: Kalena Jordan, CEO, Web Rank Ltd
------------------------------------------------------------
Welcome
to the "THE SEARCH LIGHT".
You
are receiving this newsletter because you
are one of our clients,
you've subscribed, requested
a free ranking report or
quotation via our site, sent us
an FAQ or someone has
forwarded it to you.
UNSUBSCRIBE instructions
are at the end of this
newsletter. (Replying to
this email WILL NOT unsubscribe you).
If
you like this newsletter, please forward a copy of it to any
friend or colleague who is responsible for a web site and
would like to improve their
ranking in the search engines.
------------------------------------------------------------
IN THIS ISSUE
------------------------------------------------------------
=> Editor’s
Message
=>
Sponsorship Notice
=> Feature
Article – LookSmart Answer Their Critics
(Interview With Damian Smith)
=>
Industry News – Announcements From LookSmart
– [SCOOP!] FBI to Investigate LookSmart
– LookSmart Critics Lash Out in Fury
– Other LookSmart Articles and Resources
– Feedback From Our LookSmart Article
=>
End Note
=> Subscribe
/ Unsubscribe information
------------------------------------------------------------
EDITOR’S MESSAGE
------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Readers,
Well,
last month’s feature article “LOOKs Can Be
Deceiving” certainly made waves – huge 10 foot
high ones at that – LOL!
In
fact somebody anonymously emailed it to
LookSmart Australia CEO Damian Smith, which
resulted in him contacting me and providing the
feature article of this Special Edition: an exclusive
interview. [Please
note this edition does not replace
our usual monthly newsletter due out later this
month].
In
the interview, Mr Smith attempts to address
some of the criticism LookSmart have received
since changing their Directory at Looksmart.com
from a Paid Directory to a Pay Per Click model
and forcing their existing customers to “roll over”
in the process.
Do
the answers provided by LookSmart shed
much light on their decision or go any way
towards resolving the issues? I'll let you make
up your own mind.
Also
included in this issue are some comments
and feedback I’ve received from readers in
response to my original article, some updated
links to the latest on the LookSmart debacle
and even an insider scoop on why the FBI has
taken a sudden interest.
Happy
Reading!
Kalena
J
------------------------------------------------------------
SPONSORSHIP NOTICE
------------------------------------------------------------
Trying
to promote your web site online? Not sure if
you’re targeting the right keywords in the search
engines? Like to know which keywords are the
most popular with your target audience?
Considered
"Best of Breed", WordTracker is a
sophisticated online keyword research tool that not
only locates keywords and phrases that people are
typing in to the search engines, but also suggests
related keywords that you may never have thought of!
Click
Here to get your WordTracker FREE TRIAL:
http://our.affiliatetracking.net/wordtracker/af.cgi?2014
------------------------------------------------------------
FEATURE ARTICLE
LookSmart
Answer Their Critics
by Kalena Jordan
------------------------------------------------------------
Transcript
of interview with LookSmart Australia CEO, Damian Smith:
(WR)
= Web Rank, (DS) = Damian Smith
Question
1 (WR) - Hi Damian. Why did
LookSmart Ltd decide to change
LookSmart.com from a Paid Directory to a Pay Per Click model?
(DS)
Our customers told us to. For 24 months, since we launched our first
Submit product, customers wanted to know what they were getting for
their
US$299. They wanted a guarantee. We couldn't give them one, since
results
are served according to relevancy.
Now,
you only get charged when you get a lead to your site. Strict
accountability.
If we don't deliver traffic, we don't get paid. If the leads don't
convert, you won't
keep paying us either. With
the new model, the users' need for a relevant
search result, the advertisers' need for a qualified lead and the
distribution
partner's need for revenue are perfectly aligned.
Question 2 (WR) - Why did LookSmart Ltd decide to force their customers
to
rollover into the new model instead of grand fathering their listings?
(DS)
We're giving our legacy customers US$300 in value-that's more than they
ever paid in the first place. Plus, we're giving them 20 months to stay
in the
directory and see for themselves how well the product works. In
addition, if
listings are critical for relevancy, they'll stay in the directory
regardless of paid
status.
Question 3 (WR) - Why wasn't the model introduced for LookSmart.com.au?
Did local consumer protection laws or other legal issues prevent this?
(DS)
We've decided not to move our directory in Australia to a pay-per-click
model for SME's purely for business reasons - most notably making it
easier
for our sales channels to sell the product. Our sales channels in
Australia will
be very different from those in the US - most notably, because of our
relationship with Pacific Access, their salesforce (sic) will be selling
our SME
product alongside Yellow Pages Online and their other products. We
expect
this to be our dominant sales channel within a short period of time.
Because
these products tend to be fixed or annual fees, we believed there would
be
difficult issues for sales people in trying to sell products on very
different bases.
We certainly don't believe there are any legal issues involved in a move
to a
different pricing basis.
Question
4 (WR) -
If there was no move to a PPC model, why did LookSmart
Australia see the need to increase the paid submission fee and introduce
an
annual fee here?
(DS)
We've always intended to move to an annual fee, and think that's a
perfectly
reasonable basis for directory inclusion - just like a Yellow Pages
model,
where businesses pay annually for inclusion. The fee increase reflects
the
significant increase in distribution over the past 12 months - most
notably
OptusNet and GOeureka, which are now exclusively powered by LookSmart.
AUD$400 per annum (pre GST) is excellent value given the volume of
traffic -
and the highly qualified nature of the leads - we're sending to SME's.
Question 5 (WR) - Under the
revised LookListings submission model for
LookSmart.com.au, is there a limit to the number of sites and/or URL's
you can
submit?
(DS)
Yes, you can list up to 3 URL's from the same domain via this process.
For
sites who want to list more than 3 URL's from same domain, we ask them
to
contact our Sales team directly, where a tailored cost-per-click
campaign can be
developed specifically for that client.
Question 6 (WR) - Looking at your new LookListings TOS for
LookSmart.com.au,
it appears the only way to request a change or update a listing is by
re-submitting
and paying an additional AUD 440 for a complete review. How do you
expect small
businesses to afford this?
(DS)
You've raised a fair point, and we're introducing a new product shortly
to
allow small businesses to update their listing for a much modest fee. We
should
have full details on this product in the next week or so.
Question
7 (WR) - Will LookSmart Australia be switching to a similar PPC model in
the near future? If so, can you guarantee existing customers of
LookSmart.com.au
won't be forced to rollover like those of LookSmart.com?
(DS)
Given the issue our sales channels in Australia - see question
3 above - we
won't be moving to a CPC model for SME's. We will continue to offer CPC
- the
preferred method - for larger clients, as we've been doing for over 2
years. We do
hope to offer SME's the opportunity to list in the premium
"Featured Listings" or
"Sponsored Matches" placements now seen on many of our
partners, most notably
Yahoo! Australia & NZ. This would be on the same CPC basis as other
clients,
but would obviously be entirely discretionary for those SME's to decide
whether they
wanted to list this way. Again, the Yellow Pages analogy is worth
considering - a fee
for inclusion, and then opportunities to pay for prominence on relevant
keywords.
Question 8 (WR) - Because of the recent outrage caused by
LookSmart.com's move,
many Australian and New Zealand customers of LookSmart Australia feel
that
LookSmart.com.au is tarred with the same brush and are hesitant to
remain as
customers. What do you say to them?
(DS)
Look, while there are some SEO's that are complaining, and we hope to
work
with them and address their complaints in a sensible and balanced
fashion, we believe
that over the next few months, most end use customers - the businesses
who
actually pay the bills at the end of the day - have recognized that they
can get better
long-term service & value in the US out of our new product. The
pricing is only one
part of the change - there's also a raft of new options for customers on
reporting
and flexibility in controlling exposure and spend each month.
Obviously,
not every customer will always be happy. That's part of life, and you
should accept that any company may have customers for whom it cannot
deliver
profitable service - and in
that case, no one should expect the parties to "have"
to do business with each other. That's a pretty reasonable stance for a
company
to take, I would have thought.
LookSmart
Australia shares a business model with LookSmart in the US. We
have different products to give life to that business model, as you'd
expect from
any sensible global business in this day and age. The data suggests very
clearly
that listing in LookSmart Australia is a "must-have" part of a
marketing spend
for SME's online who are interested in Australian traffic. People can
read about
what we're offering, call and ask us questions, and if they believe they
can
obtain value from our services, then they can buy our listings products.
If not,
then that's their right also.
Question 9 (WR) - How sustainable is it to operate completely different
business
models in various countries in a global market? How do you expect SEO's
and
resellers to explain the different LookSmart search models and recommend
competing services?
(DS)
We have a single worldwide business model - but not surprisingly, we
have
different products and channels to deliver those products in different
markets. It'd
be a funny sort of company that had exactly the same product in every
market. I
can promise you won't see a toasted ham, cheese & tomato sandwich on
the
menu at McDonalds© in Iowa, but you will in Australia! While we have a
single
world-wide business model - search-targeted marketing - it shouldn't
surprise
people that the actual products and channels to sell those products vary
market
to market. It's pretty reasonable business practice to adapt your
products to the
local market.
Question 10 (WR) - For a long time now, LookSmart Australia has claimed
to reach
66% of the Australian search market via partnerships with OptusNet,
NineMSN,
News Interactive, F2 and GoEureka. Given the changes to the industry and
the
rocketing popularity of Google with Australian users, is this figure
still accurate?
(DS)
Very much so - in fact, we've just rechecked the figure with AC Nielsen,
who
are, along with Red Sheriff, the authoritative sources on this subject.
Their
unduplicated reach figure for our network is over 66%. It's pretty
simple. If you
want Australian traffic, inclusion in the LookSmart directory is a
pretty vital part
of a small business marketing spend.
Question 11 (WR) - Given all the negative feedback they're currently
receiving from
existing customers, do you think LookSmart Ltd should have handled the
model
merge differently?
(DS)
Despite what some people might believe, LookSmart is receiving very
little
negative feedback. As of today, we've received thousands of new orders,
with far
fewer customer service issues than anticipated. We messaged the change
in
advance, and have provided information through email, on site and
through
customer service to help customers transition. Obviously, you can build
&
improve on any product implementation, and we intend to do that.
Question 12 (WR) - LookSmart Australia recently announced a deal with
Yahoo!
Australia & NZ to provide "pay-per-position" search
results to Yahoo users. What
are the benefits of the deal for LookSmart Australia customers and is
the deal
with Yahoo LookSmart Australia's way of breaking into the Pay Per Click
market
here?
(DS)
LookSmart's deal with Yahoo! Australia & NZ is part of our new
"looklistings"
distribution network in Australia. Across a number of properties - which
at the
moment include Yahoo! Australia & NZ, Goeureka, OptusNet and
LookSmart
Australia - we now provide the top 3 search listings on a CPC basis for
highly
relevant listings. Only highly relevant results will make it in there -
we're not going
to sell the keyword "home loans" to someone selling tickets to
sporting events,
for example! The commitment to relevance is a big part of the reason
those major
distribution partners have signed up with us. I can promise you that if
Yahoo!
Australia & NZ believes we're providing poor results, they'll let us
know, pretty
damn quick.
For
Australian customers, the product has a very simple benefit - highly
relevant,
guaranteed prominence listings on the major search properties in
Australia,
attracting LOCAL traffic only. Sure there's Australians typing in
"home loans" on
Google - but there's millions more Americans doing the same thing,
whereas on
our network partners, it's all local traffic. Relevance comes from local
traffic, as
much as from the work of our team and the search algorithm. We believe
the ROI
on our product will beat the rest.
LookSmart
has always been in the "pay per click" market in Australia -
most of our
larger clients pay on this basis rather than on a fixed annual fee.
Those clients -
such as ebay, Seek.com.au, Wizard Home Loans etc - have been on the CPC
basis for some time, and will continue to do so.
It's the preferred method of
paying for listings for larger clients, and works very well in terms of
tracking leads
and calculating ROI across a very large number of listings.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Web
Rank would like to thank Damian Smith for taking the time to respond to
our
questions. If you have additional questions for LookSmart as a result of
reading this
interview, Damian suggested emailing him directly at mailto:dsmith@looksmart.net
Further
information on LookSmart.com's LookListings for Small Business and
LookSmart Australia's LookListings product can be found via the links
below.
More:
http://listings.looksmart.com/
https://www.looklistings.com.au/
-----------------------------------------------------------
The
above article may be re-published as long as the following paragraph
and URL link are included at the end of the article:
Kalena
Jordan, CEO of Web Rank Ltd, was among the first
search engine optimization experts in Australasia and is
well known and respected in her field. For more of her tips
on search engine ranking and online marketing, please visit:
http://www.high-search-engine-ranking.com
------------------------------------------------------------
SEARCH ENGINE INDUSTRY NEWS
------------------------------------------------------------
Following
on from last month’s announcement, LookSmart has rarely
been out of the spotlight. Looksmart and their directory model have
received plenty of publicity and even generated some of their own.
Below is a summary of all the
developments, with links to further resources:
Announcements
From LookSmart
For
starters, LookSmart Ltd announced their Q1 Results at the end of
April.
Details can be found here:
http://www.shareholder.com/looksmart/news/20020429-79156.cfm
http://news.cnet.com/investor/news/newsitem/0-9900-1028-9812520-0.html.
The
market's response to the announcement can be witnessed here:
http://www.shareholder.com/looksmart/chart.cfm?Period=1&Bench1=
Then,
on May 7, LookSmart announced a deal with InfoSpace to provide
search results to Excite and Webcrawler:
http://www.shareholder.com/looksmart/news/20020507-79970.cfm
Finally,
on May 13, possibly in response to all the negative feedback,
LookSmart
released a press release announcing their new Business Listings'
product
had exceeded expectations:
http://www.shareholder.com/looksmart/news/20020513-80355.cfm
FBI
to Investigate LookSmart [SCOOP!]
Yes,
we have a very rare industry scoop for you! Sources tell me that the
FBI
are interested in talking to LookSmart Ltd about their new model.
Seems they
have received hundreds of complaints from LookSmart customers via
their
Internet Fraud Unit (URL below). At this stage it is unclear what type
of fraud
LookSmart has been accused of by their customers, but we'll keep you
posted.
Rumours
abound that customers plan to file a Class Action against LookSmart
regarding their new PPC model. Nothing concrete to report on that, but
it won’t
be the first time they are on the receiving end
of legal action. LookSmart's
own
stockholders filed a Class
Action suit against the company back in July last
year (URL below).
More:
http://www1.ifccfbi.gov
http://classactionamerica.com/cases/case.asp?cid=907
LookSmart
Critics Lash Out in Fury
It
wasn’t just me getting stuck into LookSmart over the last month. A
wide
range of search engine industry representatives spoke out in surprise
and
anger over the way LookSmart treated their customers as a result of
their
move to PPC listings. Below is a
sampling:
The Look-not-so-Smart
Directory
Pandia Post Newsletter No 16, May 6, 2002
http://www.pandia.com/post/013-search-engine-news.html#looksmart
LookSmart
Looks Dumb Again
Jill Whalen, Traffick.com, April 19, 2002
http://www.traffick.com/article.asp?aID=53
LookSmart
US Changes The Rules!
Make Me Top Newsletter (UK), May 2002
http://www.makemetop.co.uk/news/monthly_news.htm
LookSmart
Infuriates Customers With New Pricing Model
MarketPosition
Monthly, May 2002
http://www.webposition.com/mp-0502.htm
I-Search
Mailing List Archives
LookSmart Coverage, Issues 420-423, April 2002
http://list.adventive.com/SCRIPTS/WA.EXE?A1=ind0204&L=i-search
Looks
Like Hoodlums
HighRankings Advisor, Issue 008, May 1, 2002
http://www.highrankings.com/issue008.htm
Other
LookSmart Articles and Resources
The New LookSmart PPC
Program
http://www.pandia.com/sw-2002/13-looksmart.html
(Outline of the new
program and costs involved)
The
Bumpy Road To Maximum Monetization
The
Search Engine Report, May 6, 2002
http://searchenginewatch.com/sereport/02/05-money.html
(Interesting look at the move towards PPC search)
ActDumb.com
http://www.actdumb.com/
(Entertaining
satire on the whole LookSmart debacle)
LookSmart
Changes To Cost-Per-Click Listings
The
Search Engine Report, May 6, 2002
http://searchenginewatch.com/sereport/02/05-looksmart.html
(Solid detailed review of the new model, pros versus cons)
LookSmart
in the Search Engine Forums
http://www.ihelpyouservices.com/forums/f12/s
http://www.webmasterworld.com/forum17/
http://searchengineforums.com/bin/forumdisplay.cgi?action=topics&number=10
(Various
search engine forum threads about LookSmart)
Feedback
From Our LookSmart Article
Below
are some examples of the feedback I received from last month’s
feature article “LOOKs Can Be Deceiving”. I would’ve been happy
to
publish opposing opinion, but I’ve only received one email
criticizing the
article and the profanity used prevents me from listing it here.
Hi
Kalena,
I
just read your article about Looksmart. I checked my listing yesterday
and they have already deleted my listing. I wish I had
downloaded the
original Terms of Service from when I listed back in July of last
year. I
was under the impression that the one time fee was for a permanent
listing. This "shakedown" is not going net them
one cent from my
company.
Judith
www.friendshipgestures.com
-------------------------
Thanks
for your "LOOKs Can Be Deceiving" article. You summed up my
feeling very well. I
wish there was a way that everyone who has been
harmed by this could
fight back. Thanks for
doing what you did. At
least
it made me feel somewhat
vindicated that they will get some bad press.
Christopher
Roberts
www.fonts.com
-------------------------
Hi
Kalena,
I
enjoyed your article. I just shake my head at all this.
Not
being in the mood to waste words tonight, let me just say that I wish
LookSmart
would go to hell. They're out of second chances.
All
the best,
“A
well known writer in the SEO field."
[Name
withheld upon request]
-------------------------
Dear
Kalena,
I
just read your "looks can be deceiving" article and agree
that
Looksmart must be in trouble, or run by adolescents with no
business sense.
I
do optimising for client sites, so I was doubly upset when
Looksmart did their backstabbing of me and my customers.
I
had a perfectly proper and relevant site, dumped from page
one, (which I paid $299 to index less than six months ago),
because I refused to increase my account to $150 per month.
They
should change their company name to Lookstupid,
because they will not find many webmasters who recommend
clients to go with them now.
Goodbye
Looksmart...
Roger
Hughes in Florida
www.celebration-florida-celebration-usa.com
------------------------------------------------------------
END NOTE:
------------------------------------------------------------
This
has been a Search Light
Special Edition. Our
regular
newsletter issue will be out later this month.
You
can find back issues of The Search Light at:
http://www.high-search-engine-ranking.com/free_newsletter.htm
------------------------------------------------------------
COPYRIGHT INFORMATION
------------------------------------------------------------
No
part of this newsletter may be copied without permission from
Web Rank, the copyright owners 2002.
You may forward this
newsletter, as long as it's kept in its entirety.
------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER
------------------------------------------------------------
The
information presented in The Search Light has been compiled
from
various sources for the benefit of our clients. You should not rely on
the information contained within this newsletter as detailed advice.
The views expressed herein do not necessarily reflect the views of Web
Rank. In
providing this information, we make every effort to ensure it is
correct and up to date. However, because of the widespread nature of
our information sources, no guarantee is given for the accuracy of
content throughout this publication. Web Rank disclaim all
liability in
the event of inaccuracies found.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Web
Rank Ltd, Search Engine Ranking Specialists
Visit our web sites : www.high-search-engine-ranking.com,
www.webrank.biz