Comments on: Google ads are 768% more effective than print ads…uh oh http://eatsleeppublish.com/google-ads-are-768-more-effective-than-print-adsuh-oh/ Thoughts on the future of publishing Thu, 26 May 2011 22:44:01 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Statistici in cautare si promovare: Google, Facebook si Twitter | Alex Bleau http://eatsleeppublish.com/google-ads-are-768-more-effective-than-print-adsuh-oh/comment-page-1/#comment-1923 Statistici in cautare si promovare: Google, Facebook si Twitter | Alex Bleau Sat, 14 Mar 2009 13:36:25 +0000 http://eatsleeppublish.com/?p=1595#comment-1923 [...] In acest moment reclamele google sunt de 768% mai eficiente decat reclamele printate! Sursa aici. [...] [...] In acest moment reclamele google sunt de 768% mai eficiente decat reclamele printate! Sursa aici. [...]

]]> By: jardenberg kommenterar - 2009-03-13 — jardenberg unedited http://eatsleeppublish.com/google-ads-are-768-more-effective-than-print-adsuh-oh/comment-page-1/#comment-1917 jardenberg kommenterar - 2009-03-13 — jardenberg unedited Fri, 13 Mar 2009 05:00:39 +0000 http://eatsleeppublish.com/?p=1595#comment-1917 [...] Google ads are 768% more effective than print ads…uh oh — Eat Sleep Publish [...] [...] Google ads are 768% more effective than print ads…uh oh — Eat Sleep Publish [...]

]]> By: Why online ads won’t support a newsroom — Eat Sleep Publish http://eatsleeppublish.com/google-ads-are-768-more-effective-than-print-adsuh-oh/comment-page-1/#comment-1914 Why online ads won’t support a newsroom — Eat Sleep Publish Thu, 12 Mar 2009 16:32:25 +0000 http://eatsleeppublish.com/?p=1595#comment-1914 [...] the worst part? Their ads work better than the old [...] [...] the worst part? Their ads work better than the old [...]

]]> By: Jason Preston http://eatsleeppublish.com/google-ads-are-768-more-effective-than-print-adsuh-oh/comment-page-1/#comment-1909 Jason Preston Wed, 11 Mar 2009 16:17:20 +0000 http://eatsleeppublish.com/?p=1595#comment-1909 <strong>Matt</strong> - You're right! I could have been more sensational! Drat! Matt – You’re right! I could have been more sensational! Drat!

]]> By: Seth Long http://eatsleeppublish.com/google-ads-are-768-more-effective-than-print-adsuh-oh/comment-page-1/#comment-1908 Seth Long Wed, 11 Mar 2009 03:20:11 +0000 http://eatsleeppublish.com/?p=1595#comment-1908 <strong>Michael</strong> - Our markets tend to be in the 5,000-15,000 pop. and then 50,000-150,000 pop. ranges. Michael – Our markets tend to be in the 5,000-15,000 pop. and then 50,000-150,000 pop. ranges.

]]> By: Matt Andrews http://eatsleeppublish.com/google-ads-are-768-more-effective-than-print-adsuh-oh/comment-page-1/#comment-1907 Matt Andrews Wed, 11 Mar 2009 03:05:34 +0000 http://eatsleeppublish.com/?p=1595#comment-1907 Interesting figures, but I have to say I disagree with the choice of the headline stat. That's a comparison of the total cost of each campaign, without regard to the cost per applicant - which is the real statistic that matters. On that count, Google is 18,750% more effective than print! Interesting figures, but I have to say I disagree with the choice of the headline stat. That’s a comparison of the total cost of each campaign, without regard to the cost per applicant – which is the real statistic that matters. On that count, Google is 18,750% more effective than print!

]]> By: Jason Preston http://eatsleeppublish.com/google-ads-are-768-more-effective-than-print-adsuh-oh/comment-page-1/#comment-1906 Jason Preston Wed, 11 Mar 2009 00:31:43 +0000 http://eatsleeppublish.com/?p=1595#comment-1906 <strong>The Truth, John Doe</strong> - both good questions. I've e-mailed Sarah Needleman (author of the WSJ article) to see if she has any more information on the topic. My guess is: no response, but we'll see... The Truth, John Doe – both good questions. I’ve e-mailed Sarah Needleman (author of the WSJ article) to see if she has any more information on the topic. My guess is: no response, but we’ll see…

]]> By: John Doe http://eatsleeppublish.com/google-ads-are-768-more-effective-than-print-adsuh-oh/comment-page-1/#comment-1905 John Doe Tue, 10 Mar 2009 21:24:39 +0000 http://eatsleeppublish.com/?p=1595#comment-1905 I get the idea search ads maybe more efficient especially down the road, but I would like to see the conversion rates of those applicants though. Also, what if you had a value of 0.1 on the search applicants and a value of 100 on the print applicants. Then the ends do justify the means. I get the idea search ads maybe more efficient especially down the road, but I would like to see the conversion rates of those applicants though.

Also, what if you had a value of 0.1 on the search applicants and a value of 100 on the print applicants. Then the ends do justify the means.

]]> By: Michael Shearer http://eatsleeppublish.com/google-ads-are-768-more-effective-than-print-adsuh-oh/comment-page-1/#comment-1904 Michael Shearer Tue, 10 Mar 2009 19:20:08 +0000 http://eatsleeppublish.com/?p=1595#comment-1904 How small of a market, Seth? I'd bet a yoga studio in a local city would see comparable results (% wise) as this. Doesn't get much smaller than that. How small of a market, Seth?

I’d bet a yoga studio in a local city would see comparable results (% wise) as this. Doesn’t get much smaller than that.

]]> By: The Truth http://eatsleeppublish.com/google-ads-are-768-more-effective-than-print-adsuh-oh/comment-page-1/#comment-1903 The Truth Tue, 10 Mar 2009 18:49:00 +0000 http://eatsleeppublish.com/?p=1595#comment-1903 I'd like to here more about the quality of the respondents. Were the search applicants just as qualified as the newspaper respondents? I’d like to here more about the quality of the respondents. Were the search applicants just as qualified as the newspaper respondents?

]]>