Google recently anounced that they are finally pulling back the curtains on their Search Query Performance report. For those who are not familiar, the Search Query report allows you to see the actual user queries that triggered your ads. It’s very helpful for identifying new keywords to add to your campaigns, as well as irrelevant queries that need to be filtered out with negative keywords. Useful as it was, up until this week the report always held something back. Groups of queries were rolled up under labels like “150 Other Unique Queries”. Not very helpful.

Google has now anounced that all queries that recieve at least 1 click will be shown in the report. Technically, that’s still not everything, but at least Google is matching what many of us could already see in our analytics packages. In fact, we suspect that the increasing availablity of this data from outside sources is part of the reason for Google’s update. That and the fact that a request to your Yahoo rep can score you a very thorough list of user queries that triggered your ads (as well as which keyword was mapped to which query). It wouldn’t due to fall behind the competition, now would it?

An interesting article on TechCrunch highlights the recent decline in pay-per-click ad coverage. They cite numbers from Comscore which show that paid search click volume is growing much more slowly than overall search volume.

Comscore reasons that the difference may have something to do with the growing use of longer search queries. They suggest that advertisers may not be appearing for many queries because they are using exact matching and negative keywords to restrict the scope of their campaigns. While that explanation makes sense, TechCrunch has another idea: Many major advertisers have dropped out of the game. To prove the point, they provide a laundry list of retailers that have gone under or drastically scaled back in the last six months.

TechCrunch also cites numbers from Efficient Frontier, a marketing agency. Their numbers show that CPCs (cost per click) are down 19% year over year (and 13% quarter over quarter). While that must be disappointing for the search engines, it looks like opportunity to us.

The Interactive Advertising Bureau (IAB) released a set of click measurement guidelines [pdf] yesterday. The guidelines were drafted in partnership with Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, and large number of other major stakeholders in the online advertising space (noticeably absent from the list of participants was Ask.com and its parent company IAC).

According to the IAB, the purpose of the guidelines is as follows:

• Define the technical life-cycle of a “click” and outline standard methodologies by which clicks should be measured and counted, including provisions for identifying invalid and/or fraudulent clicks.
• Establish standard terms that will help streamline the buying and selling of click-based media.
• Increase transparency and consistency in click measurements for media companies, ad-serving organizations, advertisers, and third-party click auditors.

After reviewing the document, we found a few highlights to share with you. A note in the Click Measurement Definitions section helps answer the common question of how a search engine’s reported clicks might be different than the number of clicks/visits measured by the advertiser on their own site. The reasons listed include latency, user aborts, and 404 errors.

The document states that, “in general, pre-filtration Measured Clicks [clicks on the ad] should always be equal to or higher than Received Clicks [clicks subsequently tracked on the advertiser's site]“. This brings in the issue of filtration. Reported clicks from the search engines generally do not include invalid clicks that were removed by their filtering systems which creates another potential difference in clicks. Finally, the use of javascript and/or pixel tracking on the advertiser’s site may also play into the difference since some visitors may not load the code correctly or might have javascript or images disabled.

On that note, we thought it was good that the guidelines call for disclosure of the methods used by javascript and pixel tracking systems to count clicks and the limitations associated with those methods. This underscores the fact that while online advertising is much more measurable than offline ads tend to be, it is still not 100% accurate.

The section outlining proper counting methods was interesting as well. The guidelines provide for 2 methods: One-click-per-impression, which is self-explanatory, and Multiple-click-per-impression. The second method allows publishers to count more than one click on any given ad impression, provided that they establish a period of time during which a second click would not be counted (to prevent advertisers from being charged for navigational errors like double-clicks). We would like to see disclosure by ad serving organizations of which method they employ (some, like Google, already do - they use the multi-click method).

Importantly, the guidelines also state that invalid click filtration methods, as outlined in the document, must be employed by the ad serving organization in order for their clicks to be counted. While the major advertising platforms have strong track records in this area, our assumption is that many of the smaller players have some catching-up to do. That said, our experience has shown that the threat of click-fraud is generally overstated.

In any case, these guidelines seem to be a step in the right direction. We hope that publishers, media companies, and other ad-serving organizations will take note and take action to meet these guidelines and earn the trust of advertisers.

There has been some buzz recently around Google Profiles which, we are told, exist to help you better control the information that people find when they search for your name. In light of the recent speculation about Google’s true plans for the product, we thought it would be worth mentioning something we found this afternoon. While searching for a person (who shall not be named) we can across something rather interesting: A “Google Promotion” link across the top of the page.

Unlike most other Google-run PPC ads that we’ve seen over the years, this one did not follow standard ad formats. The background was blue, instead of the now-standard pinkish-orange. Rather than the usual ‘Sponsored Links’ the ad was labeled ‘Google Promotion’. Finally, and this is the part that makes us really jealous, the ad had 53 characters in the headline.

While this isn’t exactly earth-shattering news, it is interesting to see Google getting a bit more flexible with their ad format (if only for themselves), as well as the direct promotion of the Profiles product.

Reports continue to surface on the potential Yahoo/Microsoft deal. The latest came yesterday from Kara Swisher at Boomtown who has been following this drama for some time. Her latest report suggests that the current proposal would have Yahoo taking over search and display advertising sales with Microsoft running the backend tech.

While it’s too early to say whether or not this thing will actually go through, it’s an interesting possibility to consider. A deal between these companies would have significant implications for the search marketing business.

The current situation, three major search engines, each with its independent advertising system, is cumbersome. Logging into each system individually to make updates, changes, additions, and pull reporting adds significant time to the management process. As if the inefficiency of having three separate systems wasn’t enough, two of them are idiosyncratic and limited when compared with the gold standard (ahem, Google AdWords).

If a deal goes through, that situation could, theoretically, be improved. Consolidation of ad systems, if implemented well, would likely be welcomed by most in the industry. It would also be likely to have a favorable effect on both Yahoo and Microsoft’s bottom line. Currently, many advertisers don’t bother with one or both of those engines because they feel the time it takes to manage another system isn’t worth the incremental bump in traffic they would get (among other reasons). A unified system would provide more bang for the buck and less hassle overall.

We have to wonder though, if a deal went through, which system would they use? Microsoft’s AdCenter, Yahoo’s Sponsored Search, or something new? Historical precedent says that a new system would be probably be a poor choice. As we mentioned, neither company has built a truly great search ad system and there’s no reason to think the two combined would produce something better. If that’s the case, then Microsoft’s platform seems to be the most likely choice (based mainly on the above report that Microsoft would handle the tech side). Feelings are mixed on that selection in our office. Perhaps when the time comes to decide, they could make like Facebook and poll their users.