Google cost-per-action. Is this how mass media ends?

Google has put its much-awaited pay-per-action ad model live (in beta at least). Take a look at the details for yourself here.

So, what's the deal? Google says: "Pay-per-action advertising is a new pricing model that allows you to pay only for completed actions that you define, such as a lead, a sale, or a pageview, after a user has clicked on your ad on a publisher's site. You'll define an action, set up conversion tracking, and create ads that publishers in the Google content network can then choose to place in new ad units on their site."

It's only available within the US at the moment - and you have to apply to join in.
But the potential impact is huge. Scott Karp over at Publishing2.0 has an interesting take in his post Can Google Transform the Entire Web into a Direct Marketing Machine?

I agree with the risks Scott identifies for the web. But for publishers I think there's an even greater potential risk - the final nails in the coffin for mass media.

This closes a loop for advertisers. If I understand it correctly, it removes all risk on their side.

Now they can say "I'll only pay when I make a sale". They have to pay bigger than for a straightforward "I'll pay when you click my link" model. But it's a 100 per cent efficient model.

This has an obvious impact on those media companies who are trying to move their position in the value chain by 'taking a cut' on purchases - rather than charging for ad impressions or clicks.

But its greatest impact is in the way this must absolutely destroy the value of accruing (any old) eyeballs that mass media has delivered and ad buyers have fallen over themselves to buy.

Huge ad impressions, giant page impressions, masses of unique users - they all impress the advertiser who can't measure how many will buy his product when he places his ad.

The cost-per-click model gave that a severe kicking.

The cost-per-action model (if it's per sale) kicks it into touch.

And so what is the value of mass media in this world? What is it for?

Mass (produced) media is well and truly over, mass micro media may have a chance (focused on communities with shared interests).

Now that those communities have no (cost) barriers to entry they can organise, produce and share their own media. 'Media' companies must understand their new place in this world.

Your comments, are very welcome.

What's in your wallet? Part II

Tomi T Ahonen's post about the recent Tokyo 3G conference (on ForumOxford - see resources) reveals NTT DoCoMo has scored a rapid and growing success with its pay-by-mobile model - FeliCa.
In 18 months from launch they have reached 8 million users -16% of their subscribers.
Tomi says: "You see FeliCa users everywhere... as you move around town in the subway trains, at vending machines, etc."
Pay by mobile is no longer niche - it's the fastest growing payment method going. I haven't checked recently ((if anyone knows better, do share), but if I were paypal, I'd be hooking in a mobile payment method asap.
Just one more hurrah for the mobile as THE convergent device.
And if you want to sell your print product or digital download to young people - you could be making it easier right now if you let them pay with phone credit. It's a simple way of buying on credit too (the bill doesn't come until the end of the month, after all).
See also What's In Your Wallet - oh a sim card

How NOT to do search

I liked this post for the real life example (poor Nike!) it offers.

AND it's got a great link to this SEO tool to help with keyword research.

Anyway - the mistakes big brands make with search are (according to writer Wil Reynolds, and detailed in his article):

1. Missing out on the long tail: Search daddy Danny Sullivan says: "Typically, big brands want to target the big unbranded terms like "tennis rackets," "golf clubs," or "running shoes." I do recommend that they target such terms as a way to position their brand in the minds of people who are searching. But they often miss terms like "golf club reviews" or "women's trail running shoes." Typically, these long-tail terms are the ones that convert best.

2. All-Flash sites with no alternative.

3. Not reinforcing search query results on landing page.

4. Not developing a descriptive meta description tag.

5. Making things 'cool' rather than easy to find.

6. Driving a user with a very specific query to the homepage - a waste of pay-per-click budgets

7. News flash—you can't pay to be No. 1 on Google anymore. An algorithm that decides how well your landing page matches with the user's search mission will affect where you rank (along with your cost per click, and other factors). Yahoo is apparently going this route as well.

8. Flash sites adversely impact natural search rankings

9. Flash sites do poorly on froogle

10. Great tools are a mistake without investment to drive traffic to them