1) That it employs a marketing company for its Search Engine Marketing (SEM) strategy
2) That it, as Marc Sands marketing director at GNM confirms, buys thousands of keywords a week
3) That it doesn’t have oversight of what the marketing company does
4) That it is relying on SEM instead of Search Engine Optimisation (SEO). Do a Google search for “Madeleine McCann” and note which media group ranks most highly but has not had to resort to buying the phrase
5) That, despite all the hubris at Farringdon Road about a mature approach to web readership, it’s all about unique numbers and holding on to its No 1 position
6) We now know how the Guardian got back to No 1 - by buying its way there
SEM is a bit like bulk sales of the newspaper - you spend large amounts of money buying sales for very little return other than to hold up your numbers. It has nothing to do with the quality of your content or its relevance.
For the record - the Telegraph Media Group does not buy event or people-specific keywords except on major stories and only occasionally. It does, however, buy keywords for commerical areas on telegraph.co.uk.
[...] Even more painfully, Williams published a further post, asserting the newspaper’s use of paid listings shows it is unable to compete [...]
Hmm I just read a few more posts and realised this is a “Telegraph are faultless and Guardian are evil” blog.
Are you relying on the comments to provide a balanced viewpoint?
Robert,
I do not pretend that the Telegraph is faultless! TMG has made plenty of mistakes with its search strategy but I think that it is now getting things right broadly.
My point about search strategies is that we’re not yet at a point where the industry has a common and mature approach. Pay per click is fine except that it has nothing to do with the relevance of a site’s content. We could all just buy our way to the top of Google rankings if we so desired.
As Google ranks pages on traffic as well as relevance, I argue that pages that come higher in the rankings (without sponsorship) are more likely to be trusted by the end user.
And the Guardian’s purchasing of “Madeleine McCann”? Ironic given its rather sanctimonious and self righteous coverage of media interest in the circumstances of her disappearance.
Justin
“And the Guardian’s purchasing of “Madeleine McCann”? Ironic given its rather sanctimonious and self righteous coverage of media interest in the circumstances of her disappearance.”
> but Marc Sands already confirmed that this was their SEM agency buying terms without checking them with the Guardian’s marketing team. So your point is?
And no, I don’t work for the Guardian. I found your article through a link from Paidcontent. I use a blind email address because I have a distinctive name and work in the industry, not because I have a biased view or am unwilling to back up any of these points in a discussion offline.
Your blog and your recent SEM/SEO postings are interesting but you do your point no favours by harping on about something that wasn’t their fault. It just looks like sour grapes from a the ex #1 who has been recently deposed.
And I know this is the wrong comment trail, but your other point about the Times front page SEM is what exactly? That they are covering all bases by buying SEM to attract readers to their content? Jaysus. That’s amazing. Have you noticed that ebay bulk buy across every search term possible too? Is it a conspiracy or just websites finding traffic in universally accepted and effective ways?