Gone very quiet
Discussion
Frimley111R said:
Forester1965 said:
People are far thicker than you imagine. They will enter financial details on a site that to someone switched on is obviously not what the thick people think it is. It's very depressing.
Our company name is very close to that of a big pensions company. Every day people ask us about their pension and many send in all their details and even ID documents! If the internet taught us anything, it's how thick the majority of people can be.My Bank details are 40-447-858, account # 4175eleventy
My mother's maiden name is Charlie
My password is password
Could you check my pension?
I had a phone call from an 'SEO Expert' the other day saying that our search terms or keywords were concerning as we were ranking high for 'free chlorine'.
He was concerned as it suggested we were giving away free product, and was being a proper smart arse with me on the phone, talking to me like a complete and utter idiot (I build and maintain all of our websites, and do all our SEO in house).
I had to explain to him that 'free chlorine' is a term within our industry, and that if someone is told to increase their free chlorine levels, surely ranking well for that is a good thing.
He was concerned as it suggested we were giving away free product, and was being a proper smart arse with me on the phone, talking to me like a complete and utter idiot (I build and maintain all of our websites, and do all our SEO in house).
I had to explain to him that 'free chlorine' is a term within our industry, and that if someone is told to increase their free chlorine levels, surely ranking well for that is a good thing.
TownIdiot said:
They even automatically suggest your rival's names as search terms for your own adverts.
I have a vague understanding of it all and I still click on the wrong stuff.
Edited to add - it's not really a true search engine anymore. Far too skewed towards those that pay.
I think it’s rather than your rivals have bid on that search so as to appear highly - I’ve never been involved in search ads, only performance and display. But I’m absolutely baffled people on here are questioning whether people click and use ads on Meta (who also own Instagram don’t forget, VERY shopable ad units) and Google. It’s why any temporary drop in their share price will always recover. These companies make LOTS of money and advertising is always on. I have a vague understanding of it all and I still click on the wrong stuff.
Edited to add - it's not really a true search engine anymore. Far too skewed towards those that pay.
okgo said:
I think it’s rather than your rivals have bid on that search so as to appear highly - I’ve never been involved in search ads, only performance and display. But I’m absolutely baffled people on here are questioning whether people click and use ads on Meta (who also own Instagram don’t forget, VERY shopable ad units) and Google. It’s why any temporary drop in their share price will always recover. These companies make LOTS of money and advertising is always on.
They certainly used to pre populated suggested search terms and in my experience this included rivals names.I got involved in a heated debate with one very angry competitor over it.
This was a few years ago though
Forester1965 said:
Here's an example of consumer behaviour on Google.
In the financial advice world, someone rings their pension company and asks for some advice. The pension company say they can't give advice and you need a financial adviser. They say they can't recommend a specific adviser but if the person goes on the internet and looks on Unbiased.co.uk they can find one (Unbiased is a directory for finding IFAs).
The person goes on to Google, types in 'Unbiased co uk' (try it), and the top result will almost certainly* (*not always) be a lead generator (not Unbiased, though they do advertise and they appear top on organic). People a happily click on the advert, enter their details and off they go, none the wiser they've never visited the place the pension company told them to go.
Entirely common. I don't know if the competitors are using "unbiased.co.uk" as their keyword or just "unbiased." If the latter, frankly unbiased.co.uk have a problem with a generic name. If the former, that's more controversial - should Google prevent company 1 from using company 2's url as a keyword? Comparison advertising isn't prohibited (so an ad saying "X is better than Y" that shows when you search for "Y" is fine, whether you think it should be or not), but the URL (which is only likely to be put in the Google search box when the user hasn't thought to just put it into the address bar) is certainly more controversial.In the financial advice world, someone rings their pension company and asks for some advice. The pension company say they can't give advice and you need a financial adviser. They say they can't recommend a specific adviser but if the person goes on the internet and looks on Unbiased.co.uk they can find one (Unbiased is a directory for finding IFAs).
The person goes on to Google, types in 'Unbiased co uk' (try it), and the top result will almost certainly* (*not always) be a lead generator (not Unbiased, though they do advertise and they appear top on organic). People a happily click on the advert, enter their details and off they go, none the wiser they've never visited the place the pension company told them to go.
They're using 'unbiased' keywords (no problem with this, fine to use competitors' brands in keywords). The dodgy bit is presenting themselves as Unbiased in the ad/landing pages to trick naive consumers into believing they are where their pension provider have sent them.
Usually Google will act on trademark infringement in ad copy but for some reason aren't acting on these ones.
Usually Google will act on trademark infringement in ad copy but for some reason aren't acting on these ones.
Forester1965 said:
They're using 'unbiased' keywords (no problem with this, fine to use competitors' brands in keywords). The dodgy bit is presenting themselves as Unbiased in the ad/landing pages to trick naive consumers into believing they are where their pension provider have sent them.
Usually Google will act on trademark infringement in ad copy but for some reason aren't acting on these ones.
That seems to happen a lot on government sites like passport and car tax etc - there are loads of sites that will charge you for the pleasure of applying through them rather than direct, quite surprised the government don't clamp dow on them unless they are owned by an MP!Usually Google will act on trademark infringement in ad copy but for some reason aren't acting on these ones.
classicaholic said:
Forester1965 said:
They're using 'unbiased' keywords (no problem with this, fine to use competitors' brands in keywords). The dodgy bit is presenting themselves as Unbiased in the ad/landing pages to trick naive consumers into believing they are where their pension provider have sent them.
Usually Google will act on trademark infringement in ad copy but for some reason aren't acting on these ones.
That seems to happen a lot on government sites like passport and car tax etc - there are loads of sites that will charge you for the pleasure of applying through them rather than direct, quite surprised the government don't clamp dow on them unless they are owned by an MP!Usually Google will act on trademark infringement in ad copy but for some reason aren't acting on these ones.
skwdenyer said:
Forester1965 said:
Here's an example of consumer behaviour on Google.
In the financial advice world, someone rings their pension company and asks for some advice. The pension company say they can't give advice and you need a financial adviser. They say they can't recommend a specific adviser but if the person goes on the internet and looks on Unbiased.co.uk they can find one (Unbiased is a directory for finding IFAs).
The person goes on to Google, types in 'Unbiased co uk' (try it), and the top result will almost certainly* (*not always) be a lead generator (not Unbiased, though they do advertise and they appear top on organic). People a happily click on the advert, enter their details and off they go, none the wiser they've never visited the place the pension company told them to go.
Entirely common. I don't know if the competitors are using "unbiased.co.uk" as their keyword or just "unbiased." If the latter, frankly unbiased.co.uk have a problem with a generic name. If the former, that's more controversial - should Google prevent company 1 from using company 2's url as a keyword? Comparison advertising isn't prohibited (so an ad saying "X is better than Y" that shows when you search for "Y" is fine, whether you think it should be or not), but the URL (which is only likely to be put in the Google search box when the user hasn't thought to just put it into the address bar) is certainly more controversial.In the financial advice world, someone rings their pension company and asks for some advice. The pension company say they can't give advice and you need a financial adviser. They say they can't recommend a specific adviser but if the person goes on the internet and looks on Unbiased.co.uk they can find one (Unbiased is a directory for finding IFAs).
The person goes on to Google, types in 'Unbiased co uk' (try it), and the top result will almost certainly* (*not always) be a lead generator (not Unbiased, though they do advertise and they appear top on organic). People a happily click on the advert, enter their details and off they go, none the wiser they've never visited the place the pension company told them to go.
But I pretty much use startpage or searx, but do often end up back at Google for the best results.
I just get this feeling it’ll be regulated soon. The space is so hot with competition now as ‘the internet’ has become adverts.
Even Netflix is onto adverts now.
Everyone wants their slice of adverts.
Meta want their omniverse so they can have in essence a virtual high street with hot property they can rent you. Ie, a walled garden of adverts for the people who pay the most.
I think apple are the only hold out for now. I wish they’d launch a search engine and a £5pcm sub for Apple Private or something, and act like a black-hole for all this web-spying and adverts.
In this hot competition the practices are getting more and more subversive.
Regy53 said:
There is somthing going on out there that is not normal, i can not ever remember being this quiet in used plant sales.
The phone just is not ringing at all, a very sharp decline since feb / march. Its deadly.
Latest inflation figures tell a tale. CPI 2.3% for year to April 2024 sounds OK. But CPI services was 5.9%, whilst CPI goods was -0.8%. Yes, deflation in goods prices.The phone just is not ringing at all, a very sharp decline since feb / march. Its deadly.
Whilst that sounds good for consumers, as we know, the underlying cost of stuff hasn't obviously eased a great deal. This looks like a lot of discounting to me. Meanwhile, services inflation is reflecting some (but not all) of the costs actual businesses have to carry.
Customers can reign in spending on goods to offset the continuing services inflation. Which is fine, but will just continue to squeeze - wages will (if lucky) track CPI, but if your underlying costs are rising at 6% pa then that's a problem.
I'd expect to see a lot of "lumpiness" - some parts of the economy doing OK, others really badly.
Mr Whippy said:
I think apple are the only hold out for now. I wish they’d launch a search engine and a £5pcm sub for Apple Private or something, and act like a black-hole for all this web-spying and adverts.
Google pay Apple billions a year to be the default on iPhones.Do not under estimate what impact Google's latest updates will have on the wider economy.
Honestly if they carry on the web will just die (well, be the sane old s
t at the top so as good as dead).Back OT, I'm noticing massive tail off's at month end.
Worrying.
Forester1965 said:
Does energy come under goods?
CPI is a balanced basket. I can't quite see how the underlying data are good news. The biggest falls were in "Furniture and household goods" (-0.9%). "Miscellaneous goods and services" by contrast rose 3.4%, yet "all goods" is shown as -0.8%.Energy was a deflator, certainly. "Core CPIH" (which means CPIH excluding food, energy, alcohol and tobacco) rose 4.4%. "Owner occupiers' housing costs" rose 6.6%; health rose 6.8%; and so on.
It looks to me as if unavoidable stuff is still going up (energy perhaps excluded, but a lot of people may have signed up to expensive fixes and now be unable to take advantage of falling prices); mortgage rates as we know are hitting more and more people; but the only real 'good news' is in "furniture and household goods" which for most people are optional expenditure.
We are engineers who make capital equipment, the phone and email have been dead for months now, we still feature in the top pages of google, it just seems like no one is re-equipping or replacing machines at the moment, a lot of our competitors are in a similar position and a few have given up and closed.
Online retail is very quiet atm - never known it so quiet for so long. Out of town stuff like garden centres still seem busy though. A chap I was speaking too was saying industrial units for the first time in the past decade are becoming difficult to re-let.
I would be amazed if the UK doesn't go back into recession in the next 12 months.
I would be amazed if the UK doesn't go back into recession in the next 12 months.
Gassing Station | Business | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff