Found 8 bookmarks
Newest
HouseFresh disappeared from Google Search results. Now what?
HouseFresh disappeared from Google Search results. Now what?

Claude Summary - HouseFresh's Battle Against Google's Algorithm and Big Media Dominance

Key takeaway

HouseFresh, an independent publisher, has experienced a dramatic 91% loss in search traffic due to Google's algorithm changes, which favor big media sites and product listings, prompting them to adapt their strategy and fight back against what they perceive as an unfair digital landscape dominated by manipulative SEO tactics.

Summary

  • HouseFresh published an exposé in February 2024 warning readers about untrustworthy product recommendations from well-known publications ranking high in Google search results.

  • The article explores tactics used by big media publishers to outrank independent sites, including:

    • Dotdash Meredith's alleged "keyword swarming" strategy:

      • Identifying small sites with high rankings for specific terms
      • Publishing vast amounts of content to push competitors down in rankings
      • Leveraging their network of websites to dominate search results

    • Forbes.com's expansion into pet-related content:

      • Publishing thousands of articles about pets to build authority in the space
      • Creating statistics round-ups to encourage backlinks
      • Using this content to support pet insurance affiliate marketing

    • Legacy publications being acquired and repurposed:

      • Example of Money magazine being bought by Ad Practitioners LLC
      • Shifting focus to intent-based personal finance content surfaced from search results
      • Expanding into unrelated topics (e.g., air purifiers, garage door openers) for affiliate revenue

    • Use of AI-generated content by major publishers:

      • Sports Illustrated and USA Today caught publishing AI-written content under fake author names
      • Outsourcing to third-party providers like AdVon Commerce for commerce content partnerships
      • Layoffs of journalists while increasing AI-generated commercial content

  • Google announced a "site reputation abuse" spam policy update, effective May 5, 2024, aimed at curbing manipulative search ranking practices.

  • HouseFresh experienced a 91% loss in search traffic following Google's March 2024 core update.

  • The author criticizes Google's current search results, noting:

    • Prevalence of generic "best of" lists from big media sites
    • Abundance of Google Shopping product listings (e.g., 64 product listings for a single query)
    • Lack of specificity in addressing user queries (e.g., budget-friendly options)

  • HouseFresh disputes various theories about why they've been demoted in search rankings, including:

    • Use of affiliate links
    • Conducting keyword research
    • Not being an established brand

  • The article suggests Google Search may be "broken," potentially due to:

    • The merging of Google Ads and Search objectives
    • Changes in leadership, with the Head of Google Ads taking over as Head of Google Search in 2020

  • HouseFresh plans to adapt by:

    • Focusing on exposing scam products and critiquing big media recommendations
    • Expanding their presence on various social media and content platforms
    • Leveraging Google's emphasis on fresh content to maintain visibility
    • Using Google's own broken results to get their takedowns in front of people

  • The author expresses frustration with the current state of search results and advocates for a more open and diverse web ecosystem.

  • HouseFresh remains committed to producing quality content and fighting for visibility despite the challenges posed by Google's algorithm changes and the dominance of big media tactics.

Through this strategy, Dotdash Meredith allegedly identifies small sites that have cemented themselves in Google results for a specific (and valuable) term or in a specific topic, with the goal of pushing them down the rankings by publishing vast amounts of content of their own.
“IAC’s vision for Dotdash Meredith — to be a flywheel for generating advertising and commerce revenue — is finally starting to pan out.  […] More than 80% of Dotdash Meredith’s traffic and digital revenue come from its core sites, such as Food & Wine, Travel & Leisure, and Southern Living, that deliver a form of what one might think of as commerce-related service journalism.” — Allison Schiff, managing editor of AdExchanger
To give the pet insurance affiliate section of Forbes the best chance to succeed, the Forbes Advisor team pumped out A LOT of content about pets and built A LOT of links around the topic with statistics round-ups designed to obfuscate the original sources in order to increase the chances of people linking to Forbes.com when using the stats
All this hard work paid off in the form of an estimated 1.1 million visitors each month to the pet insurance section of Forbes Advisor
This happened at the expense of every site that has produced content about dogs, cats, and other pets for many years before Forbes.com decided to cash in on pet insurance affiliate money.  They successfully replicated this model again and again and again across the huge variety of topics that Forbes covers today.
Step one: buy the site. Step two: fire staff. Step three: revamp the content strategy to drive new monetizable traffic from Google
“As a journalist, all of this depresses me,” wrote Brian Merchant, the technology columnist at the Los Angeles Times. He continued, “If journalists are outraged at the rise of AI and its use in editorial operations and newsrooms, they should be outraged not because it’s a sign that they’re about to be replaced but because management has such little regard for the work being done by journalists that it’s willing to prioritize the automatic production of slop.”
Here’s a recap so far: Digital media conglomerates are developing SEO content strategies designed to out-publish high-ranking specialist independent publishers. Legacy media brands are building in-house SEO content teams that tie content creation to affiliate marketing revenue in topics that have nothing to do with their original areas of expertise. Newly created digital media companies are buying once successful and influential blogs with the goal of driving traffic to casino sites. Private equity firms are partnering with companies like AdVon to publish large amounts of AI-generated content edited by SEO-focused people across their portfolio of media brands. And here’s the worst part: Google’s algorithm encourages all of them to rinse and repeat the same strategies by allowing their websites to rank in top positions for SEO-fueled articles about any topic imaginable. Even in cases when the articles have been written by AI and published under fake authors.
#seo#companies/google#enshittification#advertising#magazines#platforms#internet#business#trends#search
·housefresh.com·
HouseFresh disappeared from Google Search results. Now what?
$700bn delusion - Does using data to target specific audiences make advertising more effective?
$700bn delusion - Does using data to target specific audiences make advertising more effective?
Being broadly effective, but somewhat inefficient, is better than being narrowly efficient, but less effective.
Targeting can increase the scale of effects, but this study suggests that the cheaper approach of not targeting so specifically, might actually deliver a greater financial outcome
As Wiberg’s findings point out, the problem with targeting towards conversion optimisation is you are effectively advertising to many people who were already going to buy you.
If I only sell to IT decision-makers, for example, I need some targeting, as I just can’t afford to talk to random consumers. I must pay for some targeting in my media buy, in order to reach a relatively niche audience.  Targeting is no longer a nice to do, but a must have. The interesting question then becomes not should I target, but how can I target effectively?
What they found was any form of second or third-party data led segmenting and targeting of advertising does not outperform a random sample when it comes to accuracy of reaching the actual target.
Contextual ads massively outperform even first party data
We can improve the quality of our targeting much better by just buying ads that appear in the right context, than we can by using my massive first party database to drive the buy, and it’s way cheaper to do that. Putting ads in contextually relevant places beats any form of targeting to individual characteristics. Even using your own data.
The secret to effective, immediate action-based advertising, is perhaps not so much about finding the right people with the right personas and serving them a tailored customised message. It’s to be in the right places. The places where they are already engaging with your category, and then use advertising to make buying easier from that place
Even hard, sales-driving advertising isn’t the tough guy we want it to be. Advertising mostly works when it makes things easier, much more often than when it tries to persuade or invoke a reluctant action.
Thinking about advertising as an ease-making mechanism is much more likely to set us on the right path
If your ad is in the right place, you automatically get the right people, and you also get them at the right time; when they are actually more interested in what you have to sell. You also spend much less to be there than crunching all that data
#advertising#data#privacy#business#business/models#industry#tools/CRMs
·archive.is·
$700bn delusion - Does using data to target specific audiences make advertising more effective?
Insider Trading Is Better From Home
Insider Trading Is Better From Home
Oh ElonWell, look, if I were the newly hired chief executive officer of a social media company, and if the directors and shareholders who brought me in as CEO had told me that my main mission was to turn around the company’s precarious financial situation by improving our position with advertisers, and if I spent my first few weeks reassuring advertisers and rebuilding relationships and talking up our site’s unique audience and powerful engagement, and then one day my head of software engineering came to me and said “hey boss, too many people were too engaged with too many posts, so I had to limit everyone’s ability to view posts on our site, just FYI,” I would … probably … fire ... him?
I mean I suppose I might ask questions like “Is this because of some technological limitation on our system? Is it because you were monkeying with the code without understanding it? Is it because you tried to stop people from reading the site without logging in, 3 and messed up and stopped them from reading the site even when they logged in? Is it because you fired and demoralized too many engineers so no one was left to keep the systems running normally? Is it because you forgot to pay the cloud bills? Is it because deep down you don’t like it when people read posts on our site and you want to stop them, or you don’t like relying on ad revenue and want to sabotage my ability to sell ads?”
no matter what the answers are, this guy’s gotta go. If you are in charge of the software engineers at a social media site, and you make it so that people can’t read the site, that’s bad.
Over the past 10 days, [Ultimate Fighting Championship President Dana] White said he, Mr. Musk and [Mark] Zuckerberg — aided by advisers — have negotiated behind the scenes and are inching toward physical combat. While there are no guarantees a match will happen, the broad contours of an event are taking shape, said Mr. White and three people with knowledge of the discussions.People keep emailing to ask about, like, the fiduciary duties and securities-law disclosure issues here, but I’m gonna wait until they’re in the octagon before I worry about that stuff
#news#twitter#faang#rich people#leaders#business#product strategy#advertising#amusing#companies/meta
·bloomberg.com·
Insider Trading Is Better From Home
Amazon discontinues charity donation program amid cost cuts : r/technology
Amazon discontinues charity donation program amid cost cuts : r/technology
when a customer wants to buy a product, they usually go straight to Amazon.com and enter what they’re looking for. But there’s also a large segment of customers who begin their search on google, and ends up at Amazon. Well guess what. When that type of search to purchase experience happens, Amazon has to pay google. Internally, Amazon thought that if they could force users to go straight to Amazon, offer a small but obviously less amount of money to charity from each customer than would have been paid to google, it would help kill customers going to google, save Amazon more money than paying google, and be good overall for the brand value of Amazon.
There is no way for a customer to go through the traditional shopping experience, and then during checkout decide they want to give a portion of their purchase to charity, because giving to charity isn't the point of the overall program. Amazon Smile was developed by the Traffic Optimization team, whose entire purpose is increasing efficiency and lowering costs of getting customers to Amazon. A team of Amazon employees whose sole purpose is doing good in the world doesn't exist, despite employees repeatedly asking for such a team to be built in pretty much every single all-hands meeting.
Literally everything the company does is about profits, and extended customer lifetime value. Everything. Even the charity programs are just designed to save Amazon money.
#business#advertising#search#insider#business/models#companies/amazon
·reddit.com·
Amazon discontinues charity donation program amid cost cuts : r/technology
Discord: The Server as Community
Discord: The Server as Community
Discord stands at an exciting moment in history, in which brands and businesses evolve from a Web2 mindset to a Web3 mindset where more dynamic and organic communities come first. The expansion of Discord from a gaming platform to one all brands can leverage is a clear sign that gamification is becoming the new mainstream: designing for niche-driven communities who are seeking co-creation opportunities and rewards for participation
#business#advertising#trends#web3#Games
·medium.com·
Discord: The Server as Community
Ad Tech Revenue Statements Indicate Unclear Effects of App Tracking Transparency
Ad Tech Revenue Statements Indicate Unclear Effects of App Tracking Transparency
it is very difficult to figure out what specific effect ATT has because there are so many factors involved
If ATT were so significantly kneecapping revenue, I would think we would see a pronounced skew against North America compared to elsewhere. But that is not the case. Revenue in North America is only slightly off compared to the company total, and it is increasing how much it earns per North American user compared to the rest of the world.
iOS is far more popular in the U.S. and Canada than it is in Europe, but Meta incurred a greater revenue decline — in absolute terms and, especially, in percentage terms — in Europe. Meta was still posting year-over-year gains in both those regions until this most recent quarter, even though ATT rolled out over a year ago.
there are those who believe highly-targeted advertisements are a fair trade-off because they offer businesses a more accurate means of finding their customers, and the behavioural data collected from all of us is valuable only in the aggregate. That is, as I understand it, the view of analysts like Seufert, Benedict Evans, and Ben Thompson. Frequent readers will not be surprised to know I disagree with this premise. Regardless of how many user agreements we sign and privacy policies we read, we cannot know the full extent of the data economy. Personal information about us is being collected, shared, combined, and repackaged. It may only be profitable in aggregate, but it is useful with finer granularity, so it is unsurprising that it is indefinitely warehoused in detail.
Seufert asked, rhetorically, “what happens when ads aren’t personalized?”, answering “digital ads resemble TV ads: jarring distractions from core content experience. Non-personalized is another way of saying irrelevant, or at best, randomly relevant.”
opinion in support or personalized ads
does it make sense to build the internet’s economy on the backs of a few hundred brokers none of us have heard of, trading and merging our personal information in the hope of generating a slightly better click-through rate?
Then there is the much bigger question of whether people should even be able to opt into such widespread tracking. We simply cannot be informed consumers in every aspect of our lives, and we cannot foresee how this information will be used and abused in the full extent of time. It sounds boring, but what is so wrong with requiring data minimization at every turn, permitting only the most relevant personal data to be collected, and restricting the ability for this information to be shared or combined?
Does ATT really “[deprive] consumers of widespread ad relevancy and advertisers and publishers of commercial opportunity”? Even if it does — which I doubt — has that commercial opportunity really existed with meaningful consumer awareness and choice? Or is this entire market illegitimate, artificially inflated by our inability to avoid becoming its subjects?
I've thought this too. Do click through rates really improve so much from targeting that the internet industries' obsession with this practice is justified?
Conflicts like these are one of many reasons why privacy rights should be established by regulators, not individual companies. Privacy must not be a luxury good, or something you opt into, and it should not be a radical position to say so. We all value different degrees of privacy, but it should not be possible for businesses to be built on whether we have rights at all. The digital economy should not be built on such rickety and obviously flawed foundations.
Great and succinct summary of points on user privacy
#advertising#business#trends#culture#tech
·pxlnv.com·
Ad Tech Revenue Statements Indicate Unclear Effects of App Tracking Transparency