Sam Tomlinson holds the esteemed position of Vice President, Digital Strategy & Data Analytics at Warschawski, where he plays a pivotal role in overseeing client accounts and driving the strategic direction and execution of integrated digital marketing and data analytics initiatives.
With over seven years of experience in business and data analytics, digital marketing, and strategy, Sam is a seasoned professional in his field. Currently serving as Warschawski’s EVP and head of the Digital & Analytics teams, he has been instrumental in building and training the agency’s expanding digital team. Moreover, Sam has led successful digital programs, campaigns, and analytics solutions for numerous prominent clients of the agency.
Not only does Sam excel in his role at Warschawski, but he is also an active participant in the industry. He is a member of the esteemed Digital Analytics Association, further cementing his dedication to advancing the field of digital analytics. Additionally, Sam contributes his expertise as a frequent columnist for leading publications in the industry, including Marketing Insider, Convince & Convert, and Duct Tape Marketing.
Sam Tomlinson’s profound knowledge and experience in digital strategy and data analytics make him a valuable asset to Warschawski and its clients. With a commitment to excellence and a deep understanding of the ever-evolving digital landscape, Sam is poised to drive impactful results and lead the agency towards continued success.
Sam can be reached on Twitter @DigitalSamIAm or via LinkedIn.
Recent Shows with Sam Tomlinson
387 | The Impacts of Anti-Trust Lawsuits on Digital Marketing with Sam TomlinsonInterview / podcast
In the second part of an interview with was Sam Tomlinson, Executive Vice President at Warschawski, host Erin Sparks spoke with Sam about some of the specifics of emerging anti-trust actions against big-tech companies, and what the impacts might be for digital marketers. Here’s what we learned in episode 387 of the award-winning EDGE of the Web podcast:
00:03:30
Why the “Break “Em Up” Approach is Wrong
Sam notes that there doesn’t seem to be any point to simply breaking up a tech giant like Google. Just because you force YouTube to split off from Google to be its own standalone company doesn’t mean anyone is going to stop using YouTube, nor is it going to make it any easier for similar companies to gain a foothold in market share because the network effect has already taken place, nor would a standalone YouTube create its own search engine to compete against Google Search, once again because a standalone Google Search company has already experienced the network effect of everyone using it for search.
So, there doesn’t seem to be any point in just taking a hammer to these companies to break them up. It’s not clear that anything would be gained by it. But it is shocking when you look at the Big Four (Google, Apple, Amazon, and Facebook) to see how them in recent years they’ve outright purchased something like 800 other companies. And many of those companies had themselves previously acquired many companies, so in the total “food chain” of companies the Big Four have actually gobbled up thousands of other companies. But part of what’s happening in these acquisitions is that the bigger acquiring company has more capital to put into innovation and that constant innovation is what is good for users, at least a lot of the time.
00:08:38
Anti-Trust Action Against Facebook
But in the midst of all this there is still the primary concern of anti-trust laws which are meant to stay mindful of some moral principles in doing good business.
On December 9, 2020, the FTC (Federal Trade Commission) sued Facebook for illegal monopolization. According to the FTC’s complaint, Facebook is the world’s dominant personal social networking service and has monopoly power in that market. Facebook targeted potential competitive threats to its dominance such as Instagram. Facebook initially tried to compete with Instagram on the merits by improving its own offerings, but Facebook ultimately chose to buy Instagram rather than compete with it. Facebook’s acquisition of Instagram for $1 billion in April 2012 allegedly both neutralizes the direct threat posed by Instagram and makes it more difficult for another personal social networking competitor to gain scale. Same thing with WhatsApp when it emerged as the clear global “category leader” in mobile messaging. Again, according to the complaint, Facebook chose to buy an emerging threat rather than compete and announced an agreement in February 2014 to acquire WhatsApp for $19 billion.
Sam notes, however, that both of these deals were reviewed and signed off on by the Federal Trade Commission when they were happening. Why is it now suddenly a problem when they approved it to begin with? And every elementary school kid who trades a baseball card knows it’s final, there are no “take-backs,” so for the FTC to now be doing this feels like a kind of “take-back.”
Sam also pushes back against the idea that no other company can compete. Just look at TikTok, which amassed over a billion users in an unbelievably short amount of time. Look at Snapchat and how well it’s doing. It’s wrong to say no other company can compete. And that’s about user demographics, right? Facebook skews older. Today’s teens don’t use Facebook, and many don’t use Instagram—they use TikTok and Snapchat!
There’s also the issue around third-party apps where Facebook allegedly has made key APIs available to third-party applications only on the condition that they refrain from developing competing functionalities, and from connecting with or promoting other social networking services. When a dominant company does that, it feels like an anti-competition kind of move.
Sam thinks this predatory conduct around app developers is an issue, but it’s one that is easily solved with regulation in the same way other industries are regulated (the banking industry comes to mind), we just have to do it. And again, this gets back to what everyone is missing, which is be clear about what the problem is you think needs to be addressed. Everyone involved is upset, but there’s no clarity on what the real problems are.
00:18:43
Anti-Trust Action Against Google
The problem here is when a company controls every part of the digital advertising pipeline and gives priority to its own services, there’s a problem. As the New York Times put it, Google gets to be the “pitcher, batter and umpire, all at the same time,” and it just doesn’t feel right.
In October 2020, the US Department of Justice filed a landmark lawsuit alleging that Google unlawfully boxed out competitors by reaching deals with phone makers, including Apple and Samsung, to be the default search engine on their devices. The latest lawsuit, filed by nearly 40 attorneys general on Dec. 17, 2020, alleges that the tech giant’s search results favored its own services over those of more specialized rivals, a tactic that harmed competitors.
The complaint came after 10 other states led by Texas accused Google of engaging in “false, deceptive, or misleading acts” while operating its buy-and-sell auction system for digital ads. Google has been accused of hurting competitors by giving priority in its search results to its own products, like shopping ads or local business listings, over the listings of rivals.
Sam started with the Texas lawsuit that has to do with the whole ad-tech stack because it’s probably the strongest case of any of them because they’ve produced really solid documentation of how Google dominates the whole ad tech stack and operates its pieces in a way to exclude competitors and to self-preference. What’s good is to see regulators getting to really unpack the digital ad stack and understand it. Where it goes off the rails is when people try parallel it with the financial industry regulations. But simply put, those regulations do not apply to digital advertising and a choice was made early on not to regulate much of big-tech, so you can’t use that tack unless you make regulations specifically for this industry. But the self-preference issue is real and can be dealt with by regulation.
When it comes to Google Search, SEOs get all upset when Google makes changes to its core algorithm that affects their search rankings, as if Google somehow doesn’t have a right to do that. But they do! It’s their platform and if you don’t like it, there are in fact other ways to build and market your business. And everyone’s in the same boat when it comes to what Google does.
Another issue is Google outcompeting “various search” platforms. The hard truth is that most vertical search engines have sucked. No likes using TripAdvisor, no one likes going to Booking.com, and no one likes Yelp. If you’re going to cry about your ranking going down, build a better platform! Google is very clear about what it wants to see in user experience and quality content, and they provide a lot of tools to help you see and create what’s going to align their quality guidelines. If your site provides a bad user experience, it’s going to get downranked because it’s Google’s reputation and mission at stake to have top results be excellent, reliable, trustworthy, high-quality pages and sites.
Google comes along and just does the vertical search better. Google Reviews are way better than Yelp reviews. Google Flights is so much better than any flight vertical search. So this is what Google does—it gains an understanding of what best serves the user and then creates a better product to do that. It’s what Sears used to do. It’s what Walmart does. It’s just business. And when Google comes along and does something better, then it forces innovation for people to find something else, and that’s good. What Google does is aimed at being good for the consumer, but some of their tactics in getting there might be questionable. If they violate ethics in the process, then deal with that, but otherwise, let them run their business to serve consumers.
It’s always going to be complex, and there are trade-offs that have to be figured out. In the final analysis, the big-tech companies aren’t really doing anything businesses haven’t been doing for decades, they’re just doing it at such a massive scale that it’s making people nervous, and there are some real issues to address.
Connect with Sam Tomlinson and Warschawski
Twitter: @DigitalSamIAm (https://twitter.com/DigitalSamIAm)
Sam’s Website: https://samtomlinson.me
Warschawski Twitter: @thewagency (https://twitter.com/thewagency)
Warschawski Facebook: @thewagency (https://www.facebook.com/thewagency)
Warschawski LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/warschawski
Warschawski Website: https://www.warschawski.com
Connect with Erin Sparks, Host of EDGE of the Web and CEO of Site Strategics
Twitter: @ErinSparks (https://twitter.com/erinsparks)
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/erinsparks/
[...]
January 20, 2021- 385 | Anti-Trust Lawsuits Against Big-Tech: Defining the Problem with Sam TomlinsonInterview / podcast
Our special guest for episode 385 of the award-winning EDGE of the Web podcast was Sam Tomlinson, Executive Vice President at Warschawski. In the first part of this interview, host Erin Sparks spoke with Sam about what all this anti-trust talk is about, as well as the need to define what turns out to be a very complex set of issues involving trade-offs. Here’s what we learned:
00:03:30
Sam Tomlinson: His Background and Experience
Sam Tomlinson is Executive Vice President at Warschawski. Sam oversees client accounts and is responsible for both the strategic direction and execution of all integrated digital marketing and data analytics initiatives. Sam has more than seven years of experience in business and data analytics, digital marketing and strategy. He currently serves as Warschawski’s EVP and head of the Digital and Analytics teams. Since joining Warschawski in 2015, Sam has helped build and train the agency’s growing digital team, while leading digital programs, campaigns and analytics solutions for many of the agency’s largest clients. Sam is a member of the Digital Analytics Association and a frequent columnist for some of the industry’s leading publications, including Marketing Insider, Convince & Convert, and Duct Tape Marketing. He’s also active on the digital marketing speaking circuit, including events such as SMX, most of which are currently happening virtually due to the pandemic.
Warschawski is a full-service marketing communications agency with headquarters in Baltimore and offices in both New York and Washington, DC. They work with clients all over the globe from Series A startups to public companies to hone their marketing strategies and campaigns. On the digital side this includes paid search, paid social, programmatic display, video, conversion rate optimization, landing page development, web development. And all the traditional marketing channels as well (television, public relations, creative, and so on). It’s a fully integrated operation.
00:08:38
The Rise of Anti-Trust Lawsuits Against Big Tech
Federal regulators and state attorneys general have expressed growing unease about the unchecked power of the technology giants. But they also struggle with how to bring a case because of the complexity of the companies and the markets they competed in. For two decades, while the biggest technology companies amassed more power, branched into new businesses, and gobbled up competitors, US regulators have mostly exercised restraint in enforcing antitrust laws. Now the lawsuits are starting to come, and they argue these firms are harming consumers, but it’s not an easy argument to make given the complexities. But what exactly is anti-trust?
Back when antitrust became a topic of concern back in the 1800s, the word “trust” was just a synonym for “big business.” The anti-trust movement was a way to hold big companies accountable and regulate them in a way to promote competition for the benefit of consumers. Microsoft got hit with antitrust legal actions for going too far in bundling (i.e., forcing) its own apps such as its web browser with its hugely popular Windows operating system for PCs. Now today we have even bigger tech giants such as Amazon, Apple, Google, and Facebook. And the anti-trust actions are unfolding on global stage, such as the EU taking on Amazon. Here in the US 48 attorneys general and the Federal Trade Commission have gone after Facebook, and now there’s recent cases being brought against Google’s parent company, Alphabet, by the Justice Department. So what’s behind the rise of this new wave of anti-trust actions against big tech?
Sam notes that the way big tech has literally exploded in such a short amount of time is completely unprecedented in the history of capitalism. Anti-trust action is meant to ensure markets are free and functional. Back in the early 1990s tech companies were minor players at best, but by 2010 they had become the backbone of the economy. Think of all the other industries that are so heavily regulated. As they grew over the decades, regulations to keep them in line were developed.
But this has not happened with big tech, which grew to juggernaut status in a short period of time without much of anything in the way of regulatory frameworks being developed alongside it. In part this is because regulators don’t understand big tech, they don’t know what to do about it, they want to leverage it for their own ends, but they also don’t want to get screwed by it. As a result, nothing happened and suddenly big tech is absolutely huge. Now people are panicking about how much power those companies have and are trying to rush to do something about it.
Part of the problem is how whatever kinds of anti-trust laws are on the books are far too archaic to deal with the complexities of big tech today. The US has the Sherman Act of 1890, the Clayton Act of 1914, and the Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914. How can these laws possibly have any effective bearing on the big-tech companies of today? Interestingly enough, the EU takes a different approach. Instead of trying to figure out how to apply old laws to new situations, if they find something they don’t like, they make new laws to deal with it. And the European model arguably has gotten better results when it comes to anti-trust actions.
00:18:43
Getting Clear on the Complexity of the Problems
The range of concerns about big-tech companies revolves around lack of competition, user privacy, and dealing with misinformation. In the big picture, each company is an entire ecosystem that is in charge of selling advertising on the platform it controls and you have to play in their sandbox because they control so much of the market.
What Sam thinks people lose sight of is how complex this problem is, and how many trade-offs are involved. As H. L. Mencken once put it, “For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.” Just taking a hammer to these companies and breaking them up would be clear, simple, and wrong. Doing nothing would be clear, simple, and wrong. What we’re left with is having to deal with difficult trade-offs, such as the trade-off between security and privacy, the trade-off between scale and user affordability (a bigger scale is cheaper), and so on.
There’s also the issue of clarifying what are the actual problems that need to be solved, and the lawsuits so far aren’t especially clear on this. Is it about Big Tech being mean to other Big Tech companies? No. Is it about Big Tech being mean to other companies? Yes, that’s the competition problem. Is it Big Tech being mean to consumers? Yes, that’s the privacy problem. Are we talking about the ways bad people use tech? That’s the misinformation problem. Notice that not all these problems are about competition. Some are straight-up regulatory problems, and some are human problems (misinformation).
More and more people are thinking about Big Tech companies and the internet as a utility, just like electricity or how phone companies used to be because they’re both ubiquitous and essential to society. Think about how the internet and the big-tech companies that run it saved many a company and livelihood just because of having Zoom and other video conferencing apps available. This just adds another layer of complexity—how dependent we are on Big Tech.
Connect with Sam Tomlinson and Warschawski
Twitter: @DigitalSamIAm (https://twitter.com/DigitalSamIAm)
Sam’s Website: https://samtomlinson.me
Warschawski Twitter: @thewagency (https://twitter.com/thewagency)
Warschawski Facebook: @thewagency (https://www.facebook.com/thewagency)
Warschawski LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/warschawski
Warschawski Website: https://www.warschawski.com
Connect with Erin Sparks, Host of EDGE of the Web and CEO of Site Strategics
Twitter: @ErinSparks (https://twitter.com/erinsparks)
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/erinsparks/ [...]
January 16, 2021
- 385 & 387 | Google, Facebook, and Big Tech Antitrust with Sam TomlinsonInterview / podcastOur special guest for episode 385/387 of our podcast was Sam Tomlinson, Executive Vice President at Warschawski. In the first part of this interview, host Erin Sparks spoke with Sam about what all this anti-trust talk is about, as well as the need to define what turns out to be a very complex set of issues involving trade-offs. Here’s what we learned:
00:03:30
Sam Tomlinson: His Background and Experience
Sam Tomlinson is Executive Vice President at Warschawski. Sam oversees client accounts and is responsible for both the strategic direction and execution of all integrated digital marketing and data analytics initiatives. Sam has more than seven years of experience in business and data analytics, digital marketing and strategy. He currently serves as Warschawski’s EVP and head of the Digital and Analytics teams. Since joining Warschawski in 2015, Sam has helped build and train the agency’s growing digital team, while leading digital programs, campaigns and analytics solutions for many of the agency’s largest clients. Sam is a member of the Digital Analytics Association and a frequent columnist for some of the industry’s leading publications, including Marketing Insider, Convince & Convert, and Duct Tape Marketing. He’s also active on the digital marketing speaking circuit, including events such as SMX, most of which are currently happening virtually due to the pandemic.
Warschawski is a full-service marketing communications agency with headquarters in Baltimore and offices in both New York and Washington, DC. They work with clients all over the globe from Series A startups to public companies to hone their marketing strategies and campaigns. On the digital side this includes paid search, paid social, programmatic display, video, conversion rate optimization, landing page development, web development. And all the traditional marketing channels as well (television, public relations, creative, and so on). It’s a fully integrated operation.
00:08:38
The Rise of Anti-Trust Lawsuits Against Big Tech
Federal regulators and state attorneys general have expressed growing unease about the unchecked power of the technology giants. But they also struggle with how to bring a case because of the complexity of the companies and the markets they competed in. For two decades, while the biggest technology companies amassed more power, branched into new businesses, and gobbled up competitors, US regulators have mostly exercised restraint in enforcing antitrust laws. Now the lawsuits are starting to come, and they argue these firms are harming consumers, but it’s not an easy argument to make given the complexities. But what exactly is anti-trust?
Back when antitrust became a topic of concern back in the 1800s, the word “trust” was just a synonym for “big business.” The anti-trust movement was a way to hold big companies accountable and regulate them in a way to promote competition for the benefit of consumers. Microsoft got hit with antitrust legal actions for going too far in bundling (i.e., forcing) its own apps such as its web browser with its hugely popular Windows operating system for PCs. Now today we have even bigger tech giants such as Amazon, Apple, Google, and Facebook. And the anti-trust actions are unfolding on global stage, such as the EU taking on Amazon. Here in the US 48 attorneys general and the Federal Trade Commission have gone after Facebook, and now there’s recent cases being brought against Google’s parent company, Alphabet, by the Justice Department. So what’s behind the rise of this new wave of anti-trust actions against big tech?
Sam notes that the way big tech has literally exploded in such a short amount of time is completely unprecedented in the history of capitalism. Anti-trust action is meant to ensure markets are free and functional. Back in the early 1990s tech companies were minor players at best, but by 2010 they had become the backbone of the economy. Think of all the other industries that are so heavily regulated. As they grew over the decades, regulations to keep them in line were developed.
But this has not happened with big tech, which grew to juggernaut status in a short period of time without much of anything in the way of regulatory frameworks being developed alongside it. In part this is because regulators don’t understand big tech, they don’t know what to do about it, they want to leverage it for their own ends, but they also don’t want to get screwed by it. As a result, nothing happened and suddenly big tech is absolutely huge. Now people are panicking about how much power those companies have and are trying to rush to do something about it.
Part of the problem is how whatever kinds of anti-trust laws are on the books are far too archaic to deal with the complexities of big tech today. The US has the Sherman Act of 1890, the Clayton Act of 1914, and the Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914. How can these laws possibly have any effective bearing on the big-tech companies of today? Interestingly enough, the EU takes a different approach. Instead of trying to figure out how to apply old laws to new situations, if they find something they don’t like, they make new laws to deal with it. And the European model arguably has gotten better results when it comes to anti-trust actions.
00:18:43
Getting Clear on the Complexity of the Problems
The range of concerns about big-tech companies revolve around lack of competition, user privacy, and dealing with misinformation. In the big picture, each company is an entire ecosystem that is in charge of selling advertising on the platform it controls and you have to play in their sandbox because they control so much of the market.
What Sam thinks people lose site of is how complex this problem is, and how many trade-offs are involved. As H. L. Mencken once put it, “For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.” Just taking a hammer to these companies and breaking them up would be clear, simple, and wrong. Doing nothing would be clear, simple, and wrong. What we’re left with is having to deal with difficult trade-offs, such as the trade-off between security and privacy, the trade-off between scale and user affordability (bigger scale is cheaper), and so on.
There’s also the issue of clarifying what are the actual problems that need to be solved, and the lawsuits so far aren’t especially clear on this. Is about Big Tech being mean to other Big Tech companies? No. Is it about Big Tech being mean to other companies? Yes, that’s the competition problem. Is it Big Tech being mean to consumers? Yes, that’s the privacy problem. Are we talking about the ways bad people use tech? That’s the misinformation problem. Notice that not all these problems are about competition. Some are straight-up regulatory problems, and some are human problems (misinformation).
More and more people are thinking about Big Tech companies and the internet as a utility, just like electricity or how phone companies used to be because they’re both ubiquitous and essential to society. Think about how the internet and the big-tech companies that run it saved many a company and livelihood just because of having Zoom and other video conferencing apps available. This just adds another layer of complexity—how dependent we are on Big Tech.
Connect with Sam Tomlinson and Warschawski
Twitter: @DigitalSamIAm (https://twitter.com/DigitalSamIAm)
Sam’s Website: https://samtomlinson.me
Warschawski Twitter: @thewagency (https://twitter.com/thewagency)
Warschawski Facebook: @thewagency (https://www.facebook.com/thewagency)
Warschawski LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/warschawski
Warschawski Website: https://www.warschawski.com
Connect with Erin Sparks, Host of EDGE of the Web and CEO of Site Strategics
Twitter: @ErinSparks (https://twitter.com/erinsparks)
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/erinsparks/ [...]
January 16, 2021
- Digital Marketing News Roundup with Kirk Williams and Sam TomlinsonNewsThe latest digital marketing bonus news roundup was a special live event featuring host Erin Sparks and Creative Studio Producer Jacob Mann along with two industry expert guests: Kirk Williams, Owner of ZATO, and Sam Tomlinson, Vice President of Digital Strategy and Data Analytics at Warschawski. Here’s the news roundup from Episode 369 of the award-winning EDGE of the Web podcast:
00:10:15
Google’s Bombshell Announcement
It was September 2 when Google announced that it was making a change to the Google Ads Search Terms Report users would get. Specifically, it said search queries without significant data would no longer show in query reports. Google wants to include in the report only those terms that were searched by a significant number of users and noted people might see fewer terms in their reports moving forward.
Kirk Williams: I feel like everything Google does seems to have something do with them being terrified of getting sued. It also has to do with their business, and therefore is intertwined with them wanting to make money. Neither of those motivations are inherently bad. But on a deeper level what does a change like this mean in terms of how Google views the advertisers (brands and agencies) who are shelling out money for paid search? To me, just in terms of the change and its wording, it shows Google doesn’t really view its advertising “partners” as true partners. Instead of communicating well, it’s shutting off some of the insights users could get into their own spending on the platform. There’s a lack of respect there.
Sam Tomlinson: I think any data privacy concerns are very low on the list of Google’s priorities. Much higher on that list are things to do with profits and making money, which includes the constant push for more automation. Google is acting like the monarch or monopoly it has become. Instead of looking at each change in isolation, step back and look at the pattern you see in Google’s actions over the past couple years. Matching was changed so much (via closed variance) that intention was lost. Then there was the optimization scores and overlaying audiences. Then there was auto-applying campaign recommendations. All these things take away more and more manual control from advertisers. Google thinks advertisers are bad at these things (even if they’re not) and that Google is better at these things. (even though they often aren’t). Google wants you to just hand over your money and let them handle it, even if the results are disastrous. The money move here is that because paid search in the US is saturated, meaning they can’t get more advertisers and they can’t get more market share) they’re going to have either develop new channels of advertising to sell or push more advertisers into the same auction to drive up the price. And Google doesn’t care about making advertisers mad because Google doesn’t view advertisers as partners, it views them as wallets to be tapped.
Erin Sparks: Loss of control is important. How much data is going to be missing from these reports? What does “significant” mean? I saw one article where someone noted they were losing something like 28% of their visibility into what they are spending on keywords with the omitted data!
Sam Tomlinson: I’ve seen the loss of visibility range from 10% all the way up to 85% for a small business with low search volume. But you paid Google money for keywords and now you lose visibility? And you’re losing visibility as well into Google’s often terrible matching. A dentist paying for “teeth whitening” might end up with Google substituting in “tooth whitener” even though those aren’t the same things! The former is the process or service, the latter is the actual stuff that is applied to your teeth. You’re paying for one thing but getting served another. Where else is that allowable?
Kirk Williams: Yes, we’re seeing visibility loss of 25-30% with our clients. That’s a lot of your spend that is now just gone, hidden away, from your view. And so now the entity you’ve paid money to is now going say, sorry, I’m no longer going to let you know anything about the big chunk of your spend. That is crossing a line. It’s not that they’re evil, it’s that they don’t trust users to do it right.
The next big battle that will need to come out of all this is about data rights. What rights to our data that we’re paying for do we have when we buy into Google’s digital marketing platform?
Connect with Kirk Williams and ZATO Marketing
Twitter: @PPCKirk (https://twitter.com/PPCKirk)
Facebook: @PPCKirk (https://www.facebook.com/PPCKirk/)
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ppckirk/
Instagram: @ppckirk (https://www.instagram.com/ppckirk/)
ZATO Website: https://zatomarketing.com
Connect with Sam Tomlinson and Warschawski
Twitter: @DigitalSamIAm (https://twitter.com/DigitalSamIAm)
Warschawski Twitter: @thewagency (https://twitter.com/thewagency)
Warschawski Facebook: @tehwagency (https://www.facebook.com/thewagency)
Warschawski LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/warschawski
Warschawski Website: https://www.warschawski.com
Let the EDGE Keep You Up-to-Date!
Wouldn’t it be great to get your digital marketing news delivered right into your inbox? You can! All you have to do is go to EDGEofthewebradio.com and find the subscribe box at the very top of the page. It’s totally free-of-charge, and we will never use your email for anything except sending you the newsletter. You can also sign up by texting the word “EDGETalk” to 22828, but not while you’re driving! Enjoy these digital nuggets of gold from the EDGE – your source for digital marketing news. [...]
September 28, 2020
- EP 369: Google Ads Hiding Data with Kirk Williams and Sam TomlinsonpodcastThis week we called upon two of our friends, Kirk Williams and Sam Tomlinson, to join episode 369 of EDGE of the Web. Kirk is the owner of ZATO, his Paid Search PPC micro-agency of experts, and has been working in Digital Marketing since 2009. Sam is Vice President, Digital Strategist, and Data Analyst at Warschawski. Sam oversees client accounts and is responsible for both the strategic direction and execution of all integrated digital marketing and data analytics initiatives. With the news of Google ads hiding data, we called them in for an emergency episode to discuss what is going on.
Key topics discussed during the show:
Changes to Google ads search terms report
Cited data privacy
PPC experts reactions
Percentage of data hidden
Impact on SEOs [...]
September 28, 2020
- EDGE at SMX West with Sam RuchlewiczTranscripts
Announcer: EDGE of the Web, on the road at SMX.
Erin Sparks: We had a great time at SMX West this year, uh, and we were able to sit down with some thought leaders in our digital marketing space. Huge thanks to Third Door Media who opened the door for EDGE of the Web to be part of that conference. We had a chance to sit down and talk to Sam Ruchlewicz, uh, VP of Digital Strategy and Data Analytics at Warschawski. We covered the Google Partner program changes that had everyone fired up. Give it a watch and a listen.
Announcer: Your weekly digital marketing trends with industry trendsetting guests. You’re listening and watching EDGE of the Web. Winners of Best Podcast from the Content Marketing Institute for 2017. Hear and see more at EDGEofthewebradio.com. Now, here’s your host, Erin Sparks.
Erin Sparks: All right, we’re at SMX West 2020, and we’re talking to a number of thought leaders here. And as we wrap up the, uh, this, uh, second day, the final day of SMX, we wanted to grab a hold of Sam Ruchlewicz and talk to him a little bit about what’s going on in the Google Partners world. So, Sam, uh, first and foremost, who, where, where are you working, and what does your company do, first?
Sam Ruchlewicz: Sure. So, I’m Sam. I work for Warschawski, which is a lot of consonants put together. We are a boutique integrated marketing communications agency based in Baltimore, with offices in New York and D.C.
Erin Sparks: Mm-hmm .
Sam Ruchlewicz: I am Vice President of Strategy and Analytics at Warschawski, so I oversee our Digital Group. I oversee our Analytics Group. We do a number of integrated campaigns for clients all across the world. So, we’re small but mighty.
Erin Sparks: And also a Google Premier Partner.
Sam Ruchlewicz: We are a Google Partner, not Premier.
Erin Sparks: Partner. All righty. So, uh, we’ve been talking a lot, a little bit about a particular issue that arose last week. What-
Sam Ruchlewicz: Yes, a little bit.
Erin Sparks: Yeah, and, uh, there’s, uh, there’s also a, a good deal of, uh, social chatter about this. Google has actually changed some of the requirements to become and retain their Google Partner and Google Partner Pr-, Premier Partner status. And, uh, they actually announced this, I think, last week. We actually did the show about this last week, that, so, they’ve actually done a few things, and I want to get your take on each of these, in particular. All right?
Sam Ruchlewicz: Let’s do it.
Erin Sparks: So, they, they actually required that, uh, your spend threshold doubles every 90 day, uh, that your spend requirement is evaluated. And that’s going across all clients, right, that you manage, from 10 thousand dollars to 20 thousand dollars, per 90 days. It’s, um, literally making the, uh, well, uh, I’ll ask you to take, gimme a take on that.
Sam Ruchlewicz: Mm-hmm .
Erin Sparks: So, all of a sudd-, all agencies now have to have 20 thousand dollars spend, uh, over 90 days. What does that do to small agencies?
Sam Ruchlewicz: I mean, I think it doesn’t do much, right?
Erin Sparks: Mm-hmm .
Sam Ruchlewicz: It’s 20 grand over three months is 6700 bucks a month.
Erin Sparks: Sure.
Sam Ruchlewicz: An agency with just a c-, few even small clients is going to hit that, no problem.
Erin Sparks: Right.
Sam Ruchlewicz: Um, I do think it, in some ways, is good in that we’re maybe raising the floor a little bit, because there are a number of agencies that have like, two clients-
Erin Sparks: Mm-hmm .
Sam Ruchlewicz: -that are Google Partner agencies, and all of a sudden the distinction doesn’t mean anything.
Erin Sparks: Right.
Sam Ruchlewicz: So, at least this means you’re doing something.
Erin Sparks: Right.
Sam Ruchlewicz: I think it’s a step in the right direction.
Erin Sparks: Mm-hmm .
Sam Ruchlewicz: I mean, I would personally be in favor of raising it much higher, um.
Erin Sparks: Okay. Well, let me, let me-
Sam Ruchlewicz: But-
Erin Sparks: Let me ask you this. For, for, uh, on the, on the principle of insisting that you spend more money with the ad platform, right?
Sam Ruchlewicz: Mm-hmm .
Erin Sparks: The ad pl-, platform actually making sure that you’re actually spending more money with them. Isn’t that l-, uh, a little bit, um, a bit more of a, uh, a conflict of interest a-, for the agencies that are, are executing whatever their digital marketing tactics. They’re now, just to keep that badge, they’re actually required to spend more.
Sam Ruchlewicz: I mean, part of it, yes.
Erin Sparks: .
Sam Ruchlewicz: Part of it’s also, again, I just don’t think it’s-
Erin Sparks: It’s not much.
Sam Ruchlewicz: It’s so not, it’s not-
Erin Sparks: .
Sam Ruchlewicz: It’s not much money. Like, I realize, you know, to some people it is a lot of money.
Erin Sparks: Mm-hmm .
Sam Ruchlewicz: And, and for them, I can understand. But for me, I’m thinking, “Do I want to partner that actually knows the platform?”
Erin Sparks: Sure.
Sam Ruchlewicz: How do you get to know the platform? You get to know the platform by using the platform. You don’t get to know the platform by doing what Google tells you. You don’t get to do the platform by, or get to know the platform by blindly following orders.
Erin Sparks: Right.
Sam Ruchlewicz: You get to do, you know the platform by doing different things and trying different campaigns. And if you just look at the current CPC levels, I mean, you’re really not talking about a lot of clicks. You’re not even talking about a lot of campaigns necessary to get that.
Erin Sparks: All right.
Sam Ruchlewicz: So, my thought is, I want a partner that really understands the platform, and to understand the platform, you gotta be in that platform .
Erin Sparks: Yeah, .
Sam Ruchlewicz: You gotta be using that platform.
Erin Sparks: Absolutely.
Sam Ruchlewicz: And the only way you’re gonna get there, unfortunately or fortunately, is by spending a little bit of money.
Erin Sparks: Right. Now, okay. I, I, I’m with you. I’m with you there, but it gets, it gets a little bit more difficult then th-, these next steps.
Sam Ruchlewicz: Right.
Erin Sparks: So, let me ask you this.
Sam Ruchlewicz: We’re okay with one.
Erin Sparks: Okay with one. The second one is more users need to be certified. having one, at least one cer-, certified ads user will no longer cut it. Ad agencies need to have at least half of the users who have admin or standard access to the manager account to pass the relevant certification test, search display, video and shopping. What do you think about that?
Sam Ruchlewicz: All right, so this is one that I think is, I’m okay with in principle. I actually think this is decent.
Erin Sparks: Mm-hmm .
Sam Ruchlewicz: Um, I think the implementation is idiotic. So, that’s kind of where I’m at, and I think they’re going to probably work that out.
Erin Sparks: Okay.
Sam Ruchlewicz: So, right now, we’re seeing some clients that we have added the client to that are saying, “Oh, we have to get all these people certified.”
Erin Sparks: Right.
Sam Ruchlewicz: And it’s like, no, there aren’t even, their clients, see as the client accounts, see, this is ours account, this is our domain.
Erin Sparks: Mm-hmm .
Sam Ruchlewicz: And they’re not getting that right.
Erin Sparks: Right.
Sam Ruchlewicz: Okay. I mean, I, number one, I would take this more seriously if the Google tests were something to be taken seriously.
Erin Sparks:
Sam Ruchlewicz: But the answers are available online, so, I mean-
Erin Sparks: Yeah, there’s that, isn’t-
Sam Ruchlewicz: Really, this is like, a basic competence check at this point. Like, can you Google things? Like, I mean …
Erin Sparks: Okay.
Sam Ruchlewicz: It, it’s meaningless to me.
Erin Sparks: Right.
Sam Ruchlewicz: And the only part, uh, the part that I would w-, really want to say, and it, you know, what I really think they should be doing is saying, “You know what? For every client account that you manage-
Erin Sparks: Mm-hmm .
Sam Ruchlewicz: -one person from that client domain needs to be on the account.” Because really, what I’m seeing, and I’ve seen this for a number of clients, where an agency will not give them access to their account. And Google allegedly-
Erin Sparks: Right.
Sam Ruchlewicz: -is on the side of transparency. They want advertisers to have access to their account and to their data. They say that the agencies have to give it, and I have seen, at this point, dozens of agencies that refuse to give it to clients.
Erin Sparks: .
Sam Ruchlewicz: And it’s the clients’ data, so you know what, Google? If you’re really serious about transparency, and you’re really serious-
Erin Sparks: Right.
Sam Ruchlewicz: -about this, and you’re really serious about rewarding agencies who do the right thing and follow the guidelines that actually do benefit the client, then make that the requirement.
Erin Sparks: There you go. I mean, for the sheer fact, and we’ve hor-, heard horror stories before of not, a-, not so much extortion, but literally just, just not, not, just removing or destroying a client’s ad campaign because that was part of their initial onboarding agreement. This is clients’ IP. This is their information.
Sam Ruchlewicz: Yes.
Erin Sparks: They’re, they’re hiring somebody to maintain their garden, but it is their garden. What, uh, even, whether or not it was originated by them or the actually agency, so you’re absolutely right, is that there’s, there’s a huge factor of, of a broken trust, if there’s continue to be that, that, that agencies out there that are, are doing this. So, you’re absolutely right. That would be a great, uh, a great different tactic for Google to, to, to make. S-, but, so basically, they’re, they’re actually is, uh, saying that there’s going to be … You need to have at least half of your admin team r-, registered. I’m sure they’re going to be able to, to, uh, change that.
and for small, uh, on principle, it is actually also good to make sure that your team are certified, so .
Sam Ruchlewicz: Right, like the trained professionals thing.
Erin Sparks: Absolutely.
Sam Ruchlewicz: Like, your account’s being managed by trained professionals.
Erin Sparks: That’s not a bad thing.
Sam Ruchlewicz: Yeah, okay. It’s not.
Erin Sparks: However, it gets a little bit worse. This is the one that everybody’s just stewing on here. The last point, optima-, optimization score evaluations. So, agencies are now going to have to pay attention to the recommendation step.
Sam Ruchlewicz: Mm-hmm .
Erin Sparks: And to determ-, determine whether an agency is meeting the performance requirements, Google says it will start evaluating the optimization score in your manager account, that’s located in the recommendations tab. Google suggests agencies review recommendations to see the actions you take to improve your importance, now, your performance. So, note that in the Google Ads, uh, uh, UI, it say-, the, the company states, “Dismissing recommendations will not count toward the account optimization requirement.”
So, the recommendations tab kind of, kind of, uh, originated about two, two and a half years ago, when it really started to have some meat to it. Right? And we all know that the, you know, an, an advertising platform making rec-, recommendations to spend more money, it’s a bit self serving.
Sam Ruchlewicz: Just a tad.
Erin Sparks: So, uh, but at the same time, there are some good, uh, recommendations. And the Google Partner Network does have, uh, uh, you know, uh, consultants that actually reach out to their partners and evaluate on c-, you know, quarter after quarter, evaluate some of the, of the companies they’re working for. But actually insisting that you take their recommendations?
Sam Ruchlewicz: Yeah, that’s, uh, like, four ridges too far.
Erin Sparks: All right. Let, uh, let us ask , why, why, why is this such a critical ?
Sam Ruchlewicz: Yeah, well, I mean, let’s, let’s, let’s talk about this.
Erin Sparks: Yeah.
Sam Ruchlewicz: Like, number one, you know, you’re talking about some thing that’s allegedly supposed to be a meaningful point of difference, right?
Erin Sparks: Mm-hmm .
Sam Ruchlewicz: You’re taking this thing that is a Google Partner, and we’re saying, “This is the agencies that you should work with,” and Google’s allegedly saying, you know, “Not only does this come with a badge, this comes with access to betas. This comes with-
Erin Sparks: Right.
Sam Ruchlewicz: -additional support req-, resources. This comes with, you know, a number of other benefits and perks.” And we’re saying, “Hey, unless you do what we want-
Erin Sparks: Right.
Sam Ruchlewicz: -we’re taking that away.”
Erin Sparks: Right.
Sam Ruchlewicz: “So, we’re going to hurt your clients.”
Erin Sparks: Right.
Sam Ruchlewicz: And number two, we’re saying, “You know what? We don’t really care about your clients,” because if you actually look at the recommendations, a lot of them don’t make any sense.
Erin Sparks: Nope.
Sam Ruchlewicz: So, now you have, you’re put-, you’re putting an agency who is supposed to be an honest broker here, who is supposed to be as a client, telling me, “I understand this is your goal, Client.”
Erin Sparks: Right.
Sam Ruchlewicz: “Let, here’s how I think you need to allocate your spend, and here’s why,” and a client can make an informed decision. And now, Google’s putting their thumb on the scale and saying, “No, no, no, no, no, no, no.” I know that, you know, as you, Agency, might say, “Hey, I actually, this money might be better spent on Microsoft.”
Erin Sparks: Right.
Sam Ruchlewicz: But no, no, no, no, no, no, no. Not anymore. Or hey-
Erin Sparks: Right.
Sam Ruchlewicz: “Hey, Agency, I know that, uh, you know, you think that these keywords are really what works, but we don’t think so. We think you need to add some more broad match keywords up in here.”
Erin Sparks: Uh, yes.
Sam Ruchlewicz: And that’s-
Erin Sparks: Spend, spend more with us, because-
Sam Ruchlewicz: Yeah, spend more. You know, we think, “Oh, we know you’re having a lot of success with this bidding strategy, but w-, actually, we have this new shiny toy over here-
Erin Sparks: Mm-hmm .
Sam Ruchlewicz: -that we really need to get some data for. So, guess what your recommendation just became?”
Erin Sparks: Right.
Sam Ruchlewicz: “Give us more data.”
Erin Sparks: Right.
Sam Ruchlewicz: You know, you, it’s, it’s self serving. It’s, like, you know, Milton Friedman would be proud. This is corporate profiteering above all else.
Erin Sparks: It is, and there was a precursor to this about, about six months ago, or seven months ago. There was, uh, a, uh, bit of a, uh, debacle where Google was actually contacting the domain owners, the actual clients, circumventing the actual admins.
Sam Ruchlewicz: Yes.
Erin Sparks: And then actually communicating, “Hey, you’re not actually using our recommendations,” and pointing out that the, the, the MCC, the a-, agency of record on there, wasn’t actually applying some of these recommendations. And that got a lot of people in hot water. A lot of agencies that were ignoring it deliberately, because they weren’t, those weren’t meeting the guidelines of what they were executing on from a strategy level.
Sam Ruchlewicz: Yeah, correct. I mean, we had a few clients, I think, that also had gotten reached out to as well.
Erin Sparks: Yeah.
Sam Ruchlewicz: Um, I mean, I know some of them are in like, regulated spaces-
Erin Sparks: Mm-hmm .
Sam Ruchlewicz: -where we have some really strict legal approvals, or we have some, you know, terms that-
Erin Sparks: Right.
Sam Ruchlewicz: -we do very specific things, and there are very specific things that we don’t do. And some of the recommendations were to add things that we don’t do, or that we, the, the client, I’m sorry.
Erin Sparks: Right, right.
Sam Ruchlewicz: Don’t, doesn’t do.
Erin Sparks: Right.
Sam Ruchlewicz: And not a chance are we gonna add these keywords for a service that we don’t provide.
Erin Sparks: Right.
Sam Ruchlewicz: Or something even worse that could be construed as putting the client in jeopardy, if somebody were to search that term-
Erin Sparks: Yup.
Sam Ruchlewicz: -see the client ad, and then say, “Oh, well you, you’re, you’re claiming that you do this.”
Erin Sparks: Right.
Sam Ruchlewicz: No, we’re not. And we have very specific guidelines. We have very specific approvals, and it’s just …
Erin Sparks: So, what we’re talking about is an AI that got put, put in place to actually look at, look at the entire campaign and the breakout of di-, different campaigns and ad groups. Look at, at the spin and look at optimization, generic optimization opportunities.
Sam Ruchlewicz: Mm-hmm .
Erin Sparks: That’s what this entire recommendations section .
Sam Ruchlewicz: Right.
Erin Sparks: There’s no direct council or consult that’s actually knowing y-, your clients’ business. There’s no human on the other side of this thing.
Sam Ruchlewicz: Correct.
Erin Sparks: And it’s insisting now that you use these recommendations, wholly without context of your clients’ goals or strategy or legal requirements.
Sam Ruchlewicz: Yeah, more or less. You basically have Roombas running the show.
Erin Sparks:
Sam Ruchlewicz: Because really, I mean, Google says they’ve got a lot of AI tech, but really at this point, it’s machine learning. It’s a Roomba.
Erin Sparks: Yup.
Sam Ruchlewicz: It’s running around, running itself into tables left, right, and center. I mean, this is not, let’s not pretend like this is the supreme intelligence.
Erin Sparks: Right.
Sam Ruchlewicz: This is a fairly dumb robot.
Erin Sparks: And it’s learning off of our pain, and, and a-, a-, and the, uh, opportunities that it’s looking for. I mean, literally, if we’re seeing this behavior, this, and was a precursor, now this. We’re seeing Google sidestepping the agency, and on top of that, even removing the agency requirement, or removing the agency, uh, endorsements and tools and, and perks and benefits and training.
Sam Ruchlewicz: Yeah.
Erin Sparks: For its own-
Sam Ruchlewicz: Self serving purpose, yeah.
Erin Sparks: Okay. Well.
Sam Ruchlewicz: Yeah, it’s, it’s definitely unacceptable. I think it’s, it’s a precursor for what’s to come, right?
Erin Sparks: Right.
Sam Ruchlewicz: This is a, I think we had some dangerous precedence. I think this is the first one that I would say is like, “Okay, red flag alert.”
Erin Sparks: Right.
Sam Ruchlewicz: Like, this is, we’ve had some yellow lights. We’ve been, we’ve come real close, if you’re familiar with like, yellow lights analogies. I’m not sure how global the audience is, but sure. Uh, this is the first one where I’m like, “Okay, you guys are, we have firmly just crossed the line.”
Erin Sparks: Really, have. And there, and there, there has been a bit of a, uh, dichotomy, th-, th-, in . Google’s really trying to communicate, uh-
Sam Ruchlewicz: Mm-hmm .
Erin Sparks: -much more fre- … And, and now, you have PPC, that’s really just mandating-
Sam Ruchlewicz: Yeah.
Erin Sparks: -a higher level of spend and a higher level of, of attention to what they require.
Sam Ruchlewicz: Right. And I mean, I defended Google when the Wall Street Journal wrote what was a piece of hot trash, uh, about SEO-
Erin Sparks: Right.
Sam Ruchlewicz: -from four people that don’t know anything.
Erin Sparks: Right.
Sam Ruchlewicz: Um, and I was the first one to say, “Actually, in this particular case, there’s really nothing to blame Google on. Like, there is legitimate reasons for these things.”
Erin Sparks: Right.
Sam Ruchlewicz: In this case, sorry, friend.
Erin Sparks: Right.
Sam Ruchlewicz: Like, you done wrong. This is bad, and I think it leads to a world where today, it’s this.
Erin Sparks: Mm-hmm .
Sam Ruchlewicz: But what’s tomorrow? And I think one of the interesting, one of the things that I’m concerned about is, all of a sudden, Google has Google Analytics. They can see exactly who’s coming to your site, and they can see how they’re coming to your site.
Erin Sparks: Mm-hmm .
Sam Ruchlewicz: So, today recommendations are based only in Google Ads. But how long before they start pulling in some more analytics data and saying, “Hey, we noticed there’s a lot of LinkedIn CPC clicks coming to your site. We noticed there’s a lot of Facebook.”
Erin Sparks: Right.
Sam Ruchlewicz: “Your new recommendation isn’t just to change bid strategy. Your new recommendation is to shift that budget down, because Facebook isn’t as good for you, as we tell you that it’s good for you.”
Erin Sparks: Yeah.
Sam Ruchlewicz: “Because we’re your source of truth on your website.” It’s not that far to go from where you’re at today, telling you how to run your account and how to run your business, how to set keywords.
Erin Sparks: And marginalize the agency.
Sam Ruchlewicz: Correct.
Erin Sparks: Right.
Sam Ruchlewicz: To saying, “You know what? Actually, you don’t need Facebook ever, at all. You don’t need LinkedIn. No, no, no, and you really don’t need Microsoft.”
Erin Sparks: Or potentially, we just won’t give you the data anymore.
Sam Ruchlewicz: Correct. You could also do that.
Erin Sparks: And just, and just drop the, uh, drop the-
Sam Ruchlewicz: Drop the UTMs into direct it goes, and where it comes out, nobody knows.
Erin Sparks: All right, so, uh, there’s our, uh, prophecy of doom there.
Sam Ruchlewicz: Yeah.
Erin Sparks: Um, so what can an agency do? What can, what can, uh, what can a, uh, domain owner, owner do, a brand do with, with this type of information? Um …
Sam Ruchlewicz: I mean, if you’re an agency, I think it comes, it puts a choice front and center.
Erin Sparks: Right.
Sam Ruchlewicz: And in some ways, I’m actually grateful for it, because you know what? Before, it’s really difficult to explain to clients, like, insidious ways platforms try to take your money.
Erin Sparks: Right.
Sam Ruchlewicz: Or try to do you wrong.
Erin Sparks: Right.
Sam Ruchlewicz: It’s difficult, because a lot of them aren’t marketer. They’re not digital marketers, they’re not in the weeds. And that’s not their fault. It’s just, that’s what they pay you for, an agency.
Erin Sparks: Right.
Sam Ruchlewicz: And it’s difficult to explain some of the nuance, right?
Erin Sparks: Right.
Sam Ruchlewicz: But now, you get to a where this is just blatant, and it’s easy to explain to a client, “Hey, Google wants to run your account to make as much money as possible. Here’s what they’re going to tell you to do, and here’s why it’s bad.” Both business owners can completely understand, this is self serving, and it’s bad.
Erin Sparks: It really is.
Sam Ruchlewicz: So, at that c-, at that rate, I think it allows us to make a meaningful point of difference and say, “No, no, no, no, no.” It’s not just this complicated thing where we’re, we’re still right, technically. But it’s hard to explain.
Erin Sparks: Mm-hmm .
Sam Ruchlewicz: Here, it’s very easy to make the case to a client, “This is why they’re calling you. This is the problem-
Erin Sparks: Mm-hmm .
Sam Ruchlewicz: -with what they’re telling you, and this is why, as an a-, as your agency, we’ve been looking out for you and not doing it.”
Erin Sparks: Hm.
Sam Ruchlewicz: I think it puts agencies really to make a choice. Uh, you know, do you care more about Google, or do you care about your clients? And if you care about the clients, then let the badge go.
Erin Sparks: .
Sam Ruchlewicz: It’s not that big of a deal.
Erin Sparks: But that’s not only the badge, it’s also, like we talk , talked about. These are precursors to other potent-, , potentialities and, I mean, we gotta look at, is Google the marketplace in which we want to compete? And, and, I mean, h-, h-, you know, it, it’s very difficult to see how, how heavy handed this is. And it could very well be a canary in the coalmine mentality.
Sam Ruchlewicz: Right.
Erin Sparks: Hopefully, it’s something of a, of a, an overstep, an overreach, and hopefully, uh, uh, ad words realizes that there’s other ways to actually go about helping agencies with, with better strategy and spend.
Sam Ruchlewicz: Right. You would think. Um, you know, uh, agencies, I think Google has had this weird relationship where ag-, with agencies where they, they don’t realize that agencies are usually their best salespeople.
Erin Sparks: Right.
Sam Ruchlewicz: ‘Cause Google is really bad at selling their stuff. Like, they’re, they’re not very good at it, but they have a great, uh, uh, ad, you know, Google Ads is, is a powerful platform.
Erin Sparks: Mm-hmm .
Sam Ruchlewicz: It is a very powerful product, and used well, it can generate tremendous returns. Um, but you need the agency to make that case. Those are the people that have the relationship, and it’s not just about ads. It’s not just about social. It’s not just about creative.
Erin Sparks: Right.
Sam Ruchlewicz: It’s, you know, you need somebody that can actually help the client understand how all these different platforms work and how to get them to work for them. And Google’s not very good at that, and Google’s support team or business team is not very good at that.
Erin Sparks: And you have to a-, have the agency advocacy.
Sam Ruchlewicz: Correct.
Erin Sparks: And if you’re actually going to burn these bi-, these bridges, just for a money grab, and if this is th-, actually the case-
Sam Ruchlewicz: It’s really bad short term .
Erin Sparks: Yeah, .
Sam Ruchlewicz: Because it’s, it’s, it’s not very smart, and it’s, I mean, I’m really hoping this was just somebody being dumb.
Erin Sparks: We hope so, too. Sam, thank you very much for your, your, your insight there. And we’ll certainly, uh, see how everything fares over the course of, uh, months. Hopefully there’s a r-, a reversion on this particular challenge. But, um, recommendations if, uh, you’re deciding not, if you’re an agency deciding to, to pull back on the Google Badge and go a different direction, what are the alternatives?
Sam Ruchlewicz: So, I know Greg Finn-
Erin Sparks: Mm-hmm .
Sam Ruchlewicz: -uh, has put up a thing called Client.Partners. It’s a quick little badge. It looks very similar, and it says, you know, “We’re never going to sell out our clients for another, uh, for a badge any platform.” That’s an option.
Erin Sparks: Yeah, he lit on social .
Sam Ruchlewicz: Yeah, he did. Yeah, uh, I did a show with Greg on SEJ about this same thing.
Erin Sparks: That’s right.
Sam Ruchlewicz: Yeah.
Erin Sparks: right.
Sam Ruchlewicz: So, I think that’s an option. And, uh, the other option is, you know what? Y-, you make a choice and just be honest with your clients because, you know, your job is to be what I think is an honest broker.
Erin Sparks: Right.
Sam Ruchlewicz: Your job is to give them the best possible advice, and yeah, you know what? You might lose access to a couple betas. Oh, well.
Erin Sparks: Hm.
Sam Ruchlewicz: We can still read about them on SEJ.
Erin Sparks: Mm-hmm .
Sam Ruchlewicz: You can still check them out on EDGE of the Web Radio, and you can still get some information.
Erin Sparks: Yeah.
Sam Ruchlewicz: But at the end of the day, you have to decide what’s more important to you. Is it a badge? Or is it your integrity, and is it your clients’ profitability, and is it what’s best for your clients? And I think every good agency is going to pick their clients every time.
And you know what? If you’re the kind of company that’s evaluating an agency that has, uh, still has that badge, I hope you look at them with a little bit more, uh, side eye, and say, “You know what? Hm. Hm.”
Erin Sparks: Hm. So, you’re saying that the, uh, the, the Google Badge could actually turn into be a scarlet letter, so to speak.
Sam Ruchlewicz: Yeah.
Erin Sparks: Wow.
Sam Ruchlewicz: I think, uh, I think we’re-
Erin Sparks: Scarlet G.
Sam Ruchlewicz: If you keep going, yeah, scarlet G. And it’s, yeah, it’s, that’s where it’s going to go, if-
Erin Sparks: Wow.
Sam Ruchlewicz: ‘Cause if that’s what’s required eventually, it’s, today it’s this, but what happens when it’s-
Erin Sparks: Yup.
Sam Ruchlewicz: -you have to automate every single account. Okay, well, then, what do I even need you for? You know what I mean? Like, it’s, okay. Then it becomes that, and that’s fine. Then we can easily pick out the bad apples. Great.
Erin Sparks: All right, so, that’s it. Um, watch those badges, and ask, ask your agency.
Sam Ruchlewicz: Right.
Erin Sparks: Or the agency that you’re actually even considering, w-, about this particular issue, because it’s not going to go away.
Sam Ruchlewicz: Right. It’s not.
Erin Sparks: And something else very well could happen.
Sam Ruchlewicz: And actually, there’s one more thing I just wanted to touch on.
Erin Sparks: Yeah.
Sam Ruchlewicz: I know Google has mentioned, and they put it in their, the one email they had sent out to the agencies.
Erin Sparks: Mm-hmm . Mm-hmm .
Sam Ruchlewicz: About increasing your optimization score by 10 points.
Erin Sparks: Right, right.
Sam Ruchlewicz: Increases your conversions by 10%. And they cited their own study on this.
Erin Sparks: Hm.
Sam Ruchlewicz: Um, but what they don’t cite, the fun things, are, number one, which 10%? Is it the first 10% of my , those optimization score, like, adding a conversion goal? They don’t tell you.
Erin Sparks: Okay.
Sam Ruchlewicz: Or is it the last 90 perc-, from 90 to 100-
Erin Sparks: Right.
Sam Ruchlewicz: -and taking, you know, an already high performing account toward the really next level?
Erin Sparks: .
Sam Ruchlewicz: Which is what most performance agencies are trying to do.
Erin Sparks: Right, .
Sam Ruchlewicz: They don’t tell you that.
Erin Sparks:
Sam Ruchlewicz: And the other fun thing is, they don’t tell you about how they did it. Is it increasing your budget 50%?
Erin Sparks: Yes.
Sam Ruchlewicz: An incremental 10%?
Erin Sparks: Right.
Sam Ruchlewicz: Because if so, that’s like, the dumbest money ever. Like, you could have just, you know, light the money on fire. At least it’ll keep you warm, um.
Erin Sparks: All they’re saying is just, uh, all they’re saying is just 10 points.
Sam Ruchlewicz: It’s just 10 perc-, it’s 10 points for 10%.
Erin Sparks: Unbelievable.
Sam Ruchlewicz: But it’s not which 10, it’s not how, it’s nothing there. It’s, it’s statistical manipulation at its worst.
Erin Sparks: Hm.
Sam Ruchlewicz: In order to serve their own ends and to justify what is a gross overreach in power. And you know, an exploitation of what is, it’s rent-seeking behavior.
Erin Sparks: Right.
Sam Ruchlewicz: If you’re an economics fan, it’s rent-seeking behavior. It’s bad.
Erin Sparks: Hm.
Sam Ruchlewicz: Don’t do it.
Erin Sparks: Well, I’m, I’m s-, I’m, I’m hoping that Google and the, the annals of Google actually understand and hear from agencies that this space, this space is just the wrong space to be in. And there are ethical lines, and as much as we try to describe that to Google and they, they profess these things, that, that that it needs, it needs to be recalibrated there.
Sam Ruchlewicz: Yeah, it’s time. It’s put up or shut up time.
Erin Sparks: Yeah. I do like the, the, the client advocacy badge. I think that’s a, a great opportunity. Uh, it’s a long time coming, actually. It should be part of the consumer awareness of agencies.
Sam Ruchlewicz: And I think it opens up a lane for-
Erin Sparks: Yeah.
Sam Ruchlewicz: -maybe, uh, a trade-in organization or an industry organization to really come out with a robust certification.
Erin Sparks: Right, right, right.
Sam Ruchlewicz: Something that really does say, “You know what? If you got this badge, then you’re good.”
Erin Sparks: Right.
Sam Ruchlewicz: I mean, I’m, I’m hoping that-
Erin Sparks: Hm.
Sam Ruchlewicz: -you know, Greg’s thing is on. I’m hoping that maybe paid search association does something. I’m hoping DAA .
Erin Sparks: or something like that.
Sam Ruchlewicz: Yeah, somebody does something that says, “You know what? Here’s actually a certification program. Here’s actually something that, that you, we can stand behind and say, ‘You know what? If you have this, that means that you’re-
Erin Sparks: So, it’s not just knowing the platform. It’s also ethical behavior.
Sam Ruchlewicz: Correct.
Erin Sparks: of execution for their clients. All right.
Sam Ruchlewicz: Yeah, and it’s, it’s committing to be an honest broker. I think that’s, like, what I really like in the financial world is that we have fiduciaries.
Erin Sparks: Right.
Sam Ruchlewicz: Right? And the fiduciary says that, you know what? And we had the same issue with the banks in 15, 10, 15 years ago.
Erin Sparks: Mm-hmm .
Sam Ruchlewicz: Where, you know, your financial advisor was selling you funds that he was getting a commission off of on the backend.
Erin Sparks: Right, right, right.
Sam Ruchlewicz: Right? Um, and the response to that was the fiduciary model, in some ways p-, you know, making that much more prominent and saying, “You know what? No, no, no, no, no, no, no.” If your, if you have this designation, then you are looking out for your clients’ best interest, even if-
Erin Sparks: Mm-hmm . Even if loss to you.
Sam Ruchlewicz: especially if-
Erin Sparks: Yeah.
Sam Ruchlewicz: Even if it’s a loss to you.
Erin Sparks: Right.
Sam Ruchlewicz: Because that’s really what, that’s what agencies should be, at their best.
Erin Sparks: Absolutely.
Sam Ruchlewicz: And the great agencies are this, 100%. It’s, you’re an advocate for your client. You are there to support their business. You’re there to help them be better.
Erin Sparks: Hm.
Sam Ruchlewicz: Come a mean platform, come Google being a jerk, come Facebook being a jerk, come LinkedIn being a jerk.
Erin Sparks: Mm-hmm .
Sam Ruchlewicz: You’re there for your client. That’s who’s paying you. That’s whose side you need to be on, and if you’re going to compromise your ethics for-
Erin Sparks: Mm-hmm .
Sam Ruchlewicz: -a badge, you’re going to compromise them for a lot of other things, too.
Erin Sparks: And this is much better , it would be much better than a BBB or consumer awareness platform-
Sam Ruchlewicz: Yeah.
Erin Sparks: -because you’re going to h-, be vetted by other colleagues.
Sam Ruchlewicz: Specialists. Correct. People that actually understand the platform.
Erin Sparks: Absolutely.
Sam Ruchlewicz: I mean, I think it’s, it’s important that we make this transition. And maybe the industry starts to, uh, stop relying on platform-specific certifications.
Erin Sparks: There you go.
Sam Ruchlewicz: Because that’s, again, it’s, it’s the same skewed incentive. It’s just at a different level.
Erin Sparks: Hm.
Sam Ruchlewicz: Right? If Google’s teaching you how to use their platform, they’re going to teach you how to use it the way that y-, they want you to use it, not the way that you actually should use it.
Erin Sparks: All right. So, we don’t want to be , assimilated by the Borg. That’s, that’s for darn sure, but it, uh, does, does w-, very well seem like the Borg’s coming after us. So, uh, let, let’s see what they can do to clean up their act but at the same time, we as agencies, we do need to bond together and be able to, to lift each other up. And, and recognize agencies that step away from that, right?
Sam Ruchlewicz: Yeah. And I think it’s, yeah, it’s fine.
Erin Sparks: Or just advertise on Bing.
Sam Ruchlewicz: Or just advertise on Bing.
Erin Sparks: All right, Sam, thank you so much. I appreciate it.
Sam Ruchlewicz: Great to be, great to see, be here.
Erin Sparks: Absolutely.
Sam Ruchlewicz: And thank you.
Erin Sparks: Absolutely. You’re more than welcome. [...]
June 25, 2020
