Comments on: Yahoo-Google deal could raise ad costs by double digits

Marketers may see more than a 20 percent jump in keyword prices as a result of the Yahoo-Google agreement, according to a report by SearchIgnite.

[someguy999]

this new conformity only continues to show continued anti-competitive nature which we shoulc come to expect with the expected Yahoo-Google deal.

[JCPayne]

And how is the Microsoft-Yahoo! deal supposed to benefit advertisers????? Any alliance or merger between those three should be denied if Google-Yahoo is dangerous too.

[whas8020]

The analysis put forth in this post is shaky at best:

Advertisers pay whatever they individually can afford given the conversion % numbers that they can achieve. It so happens that paid search ads on Google convert better, and so advertisers can bid more per ad. And Google has simply built a more efficient market for the ad serves.

Yes, the prices for someone who previously had the ad served by YHOO might go up a bit, but so should the ad optimization and conversion rates. So it's a wash, and YHOO instantly monetizes their available search inventory better, to the tune of $250M the first year, and $400+M thereafter.

(BTW, some commenter on a Cooper's Corner post has rightly argued that prices on Google might actually be going down a bit by the laws of supply and demand: More search inventory to be served against, with the number of advertisers staying about the same... interesting perspective... ComScores in Q4 will tell the tale.)

In the meantime, they can use that money to improve their own ad serve monetization, because they'll still have a large portion of their inventory to experiment with, and more money to ramp up the technologies built into the algorithm. It's simple arbitrage.

Read more detailed analysis on the "scale myth" and related misunderstandings here:
http://businessmindhacks.com/post/microhoo-post-mortem-post-part-3-delusions-of-scale

[Sugiarto Setiabudi]

The deal between Yahoo and Google have merit.,due to in battling og illegal hostle take over.
There is no wrong of Yahoo corporate strategy ,but there is wrong in colloborating of proxy battle in the manner of unethical conduct. such as Carl Icahn and Steve Ballmer 's secret deal..
Carl Icahn has long position iof Yahoo's shares

[smoothstone]

Both Google and Yahoo currently feature sponsored ads for illegal drugs. Search "poppers". Sale and distribution in US banned by law ,effective 1991. The promotion of poppers is a public health challenge because poppers, an inhalant, is associated with risky sex and HIV transmission among gay men. The published research accumulates. MSN ceased the sponsored ads responding to complaints and education. Google originally responded to a complaint for the SF Dept. of Public Health, AIDS Office and stopped the sponsored ads. Months later the sponsored ads have resumed. Yahoo has never been responsive to complaints about the sponsored ads. Nov. 2007, Yahoo, Google, MSN were fined nearly $30 million by Dept. of Justice for listing illegal gambling sites in their search results. Apparently the lesson was not learned and another fine will be needed to get them to cease profiting off of promoting illegal drug selling sites. All three giants, Google, Yahoo, MSN currently list illegal drug selling sites in search of "poppers". The sites are on notice, documentation of complaints is in order and awaiting Dept. of Justice request. In the interest of public health and to stop violating the law,Google, Yahoo, and MSN should cease promoting poppers immediately. Hank Wilson, Committee to Monitor Poppers

[airpost09]

Smoothstone - Hank Wilson, why do you continue to spread false information? You've been told about this on numerous other sites because of your incessant rants there, too.

You know there are variations of nitrite and nitrate formulations, some of which have regulations or restrictions and others which do not. Your implication that the sale of all nitrite products is illegal is wrong.

It has long been known that your campaign against these products is based on faulty data and your refusal to accept the majority of studies which have long proven you wrong on this issue. You were recently described in the news as having a 'bit of an issue with poppers', and numerous occasions before that as being an ill-informed zealot. Your one-man committee needs to grow up.