Google Checkout is an online payment processing service provided by Google aimed at simplifying the process of paying for online purchases. Users store their credit card and shipping information in their Google Account, so that they can purchase at participating stores at the click of a button. Google Checkout also offers fraud protection, as well a unified page for tracking purchases and their status.
The service charges merchants 2.0% plus $0.20 per transaction. However, Google has decided to charge $0 for processing until December 31, 2007
Prior to launch there had been early speculation that Google was building a product to compete with PayPal. However, the scope of Google Checkout is very limited compared to the PayPal offering. Google Checkout processes payments without storing value, and cannot be used to make payments from person to person.
eBay (which owns PayPal) raised some controversy when it added Google Checkout to its banned payment methods list, thus preventing eBay users from using Google Checkout.
Google Checkout service was first made available in the United States. The service later became available in the UK on April 13th, 2007.
Welcome to the Google Checkout blog for sellers! Here you will see updates and news about this new checkout option that makes online shopping faster, more convenient and more secure. If you have an online store, customers who visit your site can use Checkout to buy from you with a single username and password. And once they do, you can use Google Checkout to charge their credit cards, process their orders, and deposit funds in your bank account.
One of the things that sets Google Checkout apart is that it’s integrated with Google AdWords to make it easy for you to attract new customers, increase sales, and process sales for free when you advertise with Google. And if you don’t advertise with us, no worries: you can still offer your customers a fast checkout option and take advantage of our flat 2 percent and $0.20 per transaction processing fee.
To learn more, visit checkout.google.com/sell or watch this video about selling with Google Checkout (which you can also watch below). We hope you'll put Checkout to work for you and join merchants like Jockey, Timberland, Starbucks Store, Dick's Sporting Goods, Zales, GNC, Tweeter, Dockers, and many more. Happy selling.
https://checkout.google.com
Thursday, April 26, 2007
Google DoubleClick merger: Who wins, who loses
by Donna Bogatin
What does it take to “make the Internet more efficient for end users, advertisers, and publishers,” all in one fell swoop?
A single Google check for $3.1 billion made out to DoubleClick!
Google’s world wide mastery of SPIN continues, big time, in its determined takeover of the World Wide Web: Google: $3.1 billion cash for Web monopoly!
Google portrays its multi-billion dollar absorption of DoubleClick’s “billions of digital (advertising) communications” daily as a win for all who want to “make the most of the digital medium.”
The Google “grand slam” though is not a slam dunk for all the Web’s constituencies, despite the Google and DoubleClick repeated assertions.
In pitching the acquisition to investors in the conference call, and in putting forth a “Next step in Google advertising” FAQ, Google extols emotionally powerful, but cunningly vague, visions for how a $3.1 billion cash buyout of DoubleClick shareholders will serve to “accelerate” the Google mission to “constantly” support:
New, innovative ways to make the information you want more accessible and more relevant—and to deliver it as fast as possible.
Google masterfully deflects legitimate concerns of all of the Web’s constituencies.
Google on “How will this acquisition benefit end users?”
When done properly, advertising can be useful and provide relevant information at the precise moment when a user is interested in acquiring a service or product.
Is Google really all knowing? It will be, thanks to DoubleClick behavioral targeting: Google to tag users across Web: Privacy Boomerang?
Google on “Did Microsoft’s involvement prompt Google’s interest in DoubleClick?, Do you believe this acquisition will stifle competiion?”
No. Our interest in DoubleClick stemmed from out commitment to provide more useful digital solutions for advertisers and publishers, and offer users a better online experience. We do not believe this acquisition is anti-competitive, as it promotes a vibrant, healthy market for online advertising.
Is Google really disinterested in competitive dominance? No: Microsoft vs. Google: Will MSN, Windows Live compete? ~ Google hurts Yahoo with DoubleClick deal
WHO REALLY WINS?
Google corporate management wins, and wins big, plus DoubleClick shareholders win, and win big.
Eric Schmidt and company get to play in an even bigger Internet advertising playground, while playing with a stacked deck!
DoubleClick shareholders succeeded in being the first to pry open the cash acquisition purse strings of Google, netting billions in capital gains.
What about Google shareholders, though? CEO Schmidt may have actually mislead his own investors last month about Google’s intentions vis a vis the likelihood of just such a high-ticket all cash buyout.
Schmidt told Wall Street–via Mary Meeker at the Morgan Stanley Technology Conference last month–that no worry, Google would not be seeking big mergers or making other dramatic changes in how the company uses its cash.
Schmidt was asked whether Google would consider changing course on how it uses cash. "It is highly unlikely," Schmidt said. "One of the problems in high-tech industries is that successful companies tend to generate cash pretty liberally (but) they don't have good places to put it."
He added that, while Google itself is generating a mounting pile of cash, "it is not obvious to me where it would go.”
Just weeks later, Schmidt did an about face on two fronts: 1) He did announce a big merger for a pile of cash and 2) It apparently was not so unobvious where it would go.
Schmidt told investors yesterday during the acquisition conference call that Google thought about buying DoubleClick for a "very long time," underscoring a long standing partnership between the companies and a friendly, neighborly relationship, given both share the same NYC office complex address.
In responding to questions about the economic rationale of a $3.1 billion cash deal, Schmidt made an unwitting slip of the tongue, initially saying “we can afford it,” but quickly reverting to Google Speak: It’s a great value.
Google insists its $3.1 billion is being committed for one simple motivation: To “make advertising on the Internet work better,” for everyone.
Together, Google and DoubleClick will empower agencies, advertisers, and publishers to collaborate more efficiently and effectively, which will, in turn, provide a better experience for our users.
WHO WOULD RESIST SUCH GOOGLEY DO-GOODNESS?
Users who proactively protect their privacy by opting out of the DoubleClick DART cookie ID, perhaps?
Or, maybe publishers and marketers not wishing to put all their advertising eggs in one big, transparent only to Google, banner, search, video…online basket: Google DoubleClick marriage (can be) risky business.
What does it take to “make the Internet more efficient for end users, advertisers, and publishers,” all in one fell swoop?
A single Google check for $3.1 billion made out to DoubleClick!
Google’s world wide mastery of SPIN continues, big time, in its determined takeover of the World Wide Web: Google: $3.1 billion cash for Web monopoly!
Google portrays its multi-billion dollar absorption of DoubleClick’s “billions of digital (advertising) communications” daily as a win for all who want to “make the most of the digital medium.”
The Google “grand slam” though is not a slam dunk for all the Web’s constituencies, despite the Google and DoubleClick repeated assertions.
In pitching the acquisition to investors in the conference call, and in putting forth a “Next step in Google advertising” FAQ, Google extols emotionally powerful, but cunningly vague, visions for how a $3.1 billion cash buyout of DoubleClick shareholders will serve to “accelerate” the Google mission to “constantly” support:
New, innovative ways to make the information you want more accessible and more relevant—and to deliver it as fast as possible.
Google masterfully deflects legitimate concerns of all of the Web’s constituencies.
Google on “How will this acquisition benefit end users?”
When done properly, advertising can be useful and provide relevant information at the precise moment when a user is interested in acquiring a service or product.
Is Google really all knowing? It will be, thanks to DoubleClick behavioral targeting: Google to tag users across Web: Privacy Boomerang?
Google on “Did Microsoft’s involvement prompt Google’s interest in DoubleClick?, Do you believe this acquisition will stifle competiion?”
No. Our interest in DoubleClick stemmed from out commitment to provide more useful digital solutions for advertisers and publishers, and offer users a better online experience. We do not believe this acquisition is anti-competitive, as it promotes a vibrant, healthy market for online advertising.
Is Google really disinterested in competitive dominance? No: Microsoft vs. Google: Will MSN, Windows Live compete? ~ Google hurts Yahoo with DoubleClick deal
WHO REALLY WINS?
Google corporate management wins, and wins big, plus DoubleClick shareholders win, and win big.
Eric Schmidt and company get to play in an even bigger Internet advertising playground, while playing with a stacked deck!
DoubleClick shareholders succeeded in being the first to pry open the cash acquisition purse strings of Google, netting billions in capital gains.
What about Google shareholders, though? CEO Schmidt may have actually mislead his own investors last month about Google’s intentions vis a vis the likelihood of just such a high-ticket all cash buyout.
Schmidt told Wall Street–via Mary Meeker at the Morgan Stanley Technology Conference last month–that no worry, Google would not be seeking big mergers or making other dramatic changes in how the company uses its cash.
Schmidt was asked whether Google would consider changing course on how it uses cash. "It is highly unlikely," Schmidt said. "One of the problems in high-tech industries is that successful companies tend to generate cash pretty liberally (but) they don't have good places to put it."
He added that, while Google itself is generating a mounting pile of cash, "it is not obvious to me where it would go.”
Just weeks later, Schmidt did an about face on two fronts: 1) He did announce a big merger for a pile of cash and 2) It apparently was not so unobvious where it would go.
Schmidt told investors yesterday during the acquisition conference call that Google thought about buying DoubleClick for a "very long time," underscoring a long standing partnership between the companies and a friendly, neighborly relationship, given both share the same NYC office complex address.
In responding to questions about the economic rationale of a $3.1 billion cash deal, Schmidt made an unwitting slip of the tongue, initially saying “we can afford it,” but quickly reverting to Google Speak: It’s a great value.
Google insists its $3.1 billion is being committed for one simple motivation: To “make advertising on the Internet work better,” for everyone.
Together, Google and DoubleClick will empower agencies, advertisers, and publishers to collaborate more efficiently and effectively, which will, in turn, provide a better experience for our users.
WHO WOULD RESIST SUCH GOOGLEY DO-GOODNESS?
Users who proactively protect their privacy by opting out of the DoubleClick DART cookie ID, perhaps?
Or, maybe publishers and marketers not wishing to put all their advertising eggs in one big, transparent only to Google, banner, search, video…online basket: Google DoubleClick marriage (can be) risky business.
Beware Of Google AdWords Account Hacks via Computer Exploit
GregOne posted a thread at WebmasterWorld and HighRankings Forums about how his Google AdWords account was hacked into. By reviewing both threads and all the posts, I was able to piece together some of the story.
It appears that some external program gained access to his computer. The program then logged into his AdWords account, set up several ads that redirected to "places like orbitz.com and business.com" and also tried to install "activex remote desktop program" on those computers through the redirects (to infect other computers). Then it blocked access for that computer to login into AdWords by setting the local host files to 127.0.0.1 adwords.google.com (which means if someone on that computer tries accessing adwords.google.com, they get a not found). This prevents this computer from logging into AdWords to see if changed have been made to the account.
In addition, the password for the account was not changed so he was able to login with a different computer to see these changes. Also, he noticed that the credit card information in the account was not his. Possibly a stolen credit card from someone else, which is weird to me.
Pretty nasty and potentially costly computer exploit. So beware.
AdWordsAdvisor at WebmasterWorld told GregOne that a private message was sent his way.
Forum discussion at WebmasterWorld and HighRankings Forums.
It appears that some external program gained access to his computer. The program then logged into his AdWords account, set up several ads that redirected to "places like orbitz.com and business.com" and also tried to install "activex remote desktop program" on those computers through the redirects (to infect other computers). Then it blocked access for that computer to login into AdWords by setting the local host files to 127.0.0.1 adwords.google.com (which means if someone on that computer tries accessing adwords.google.com, they get a not found). This prevents this computer from logging into AdWords to see if changed have been made to the account.
In addition, the password for the account was not changed so he was able to login with a different computer to see these changes. Also, he noticed that the credit card information in the account was not his. Possibly a stolen credit card from someone else, which is weird to me.
Pretty nasty and potentially costly computer exploit. So beware.
AdWordsAdvisor at WebmasterWorld told GregOne that a private message was sent his way.
Forum discussion at WebmasterWorld and HighRankings Forums.
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
Google to begin sharing URLs where AdWords advertiser's ads are being run
The New York Times ran an article about Quigo, a contextual advertising company that targets premium sized publishers. In the story, comments from both Yahoo & Google were included. But one quote by Kim Malone, director of online sales and operations for Google AdSense, jumped out... the fact that Google will begin listing all publisher websites where AdWords advertiser's ads are being run.
In response to further questions about Quigo, though, Google said it was prepared to make changes to its AdSense service that mimicked Quigo’s approach, an unusual step for a company accustomed to mapping the terrain in every aspect of its business.
In the next few months, Google’s advertiser reports will begin listing the sites where each ad runs, Ms. Malone said. She added that advertisers on the Google networks would soon be able to bid on contextual ads on particular Web sites rather than simply buying keywords that appeared across Google’s entire network.
Still, Ms. Malone said she did not see much of consequence coming from the changes. “We don’t expect a lot of demand for that placement targeting,” she said. “It’s the brand, the display advertisers who care where they run.”
This is something I have pushed for for quite some time, although not from the point of view of seeking out specific sites. Rather, this tool could be extremely useful for advertisers wanting to opt-in to the content network, but not having the time to go log hunting to see what URLs their ads are running on in the content network... URLs which are always disguised in nasty long URLs.
There was a comment Kim made that didn't make sense to me. She stated that advertisers will soon be able to bid on contextual ad placements on specific sites, however this has been available with a CPM pricing model for quite some time, and as a CPC model more recently.
So from an advertiser perspective, what does this mean? This means that opting into the content network while having the transparency of knowing where your ads of being displayed just got easier. You will now be able to easily filter any URLs you don't want your ads showing up on (such as for competitive or quality reasons) without having to opt-out of the entire network.
From a publisher perspective, if you have good quality sites in the content network, you have nothing to worry about and a lot to gain. If you have sites that are less-than-stellar, the kinds of sites that advertisers wouldn't be so happy that their ads are appearing on, you might want to worry, or improve the quality of those sites ;)
by Jennifer Slegg
In response to further questions about Quigo, though, Google said it was prepared to make changes to its AdSense service that mimicked Quigo’s approach, an unusual step for a company accustomed to mapping the terrain in every aspect of its business.
In the next few months, Google’s advertiser reports will begin listing the sites where each ad runs, Ms. Malone said. She added that advertisers on the Google networks would soon be able to bid on contextual ads on particular Web sites rather than simply buying keywords that appeared across Google’s entire network.
Still, Ms. Malone said she did not see much of consequence coming from the changes. “We don’t expect a lot of demand for that placement targeting,” she said. “It’s the brand, the display advertisers who care where they run.”
This is something I have pushed for for quite some time, although not from the point of view of seeking out specific sites. Rather, this tool could be extremely useful for advertisers wanting to opt-in to the content network, but not having the time to go log hunting to see what URLs their ads are running on in the content network... URLs which are always disguised in nasty long URLs.
There was a comment Kim made that didn't make sense to me. She stated that advertisers will soon be able to bid on contextual ad placements on specific sites, however this has been available with a CPM pricing model for quite some time, and as a CPC model more recently.
So from an advertiser perspective, what does this mean? This means that opting into the content network while having the transparency of knowing where your ads of being displayed just got easier. You will now be able to easily filter any URLs you don't want your ads showing up on (such as for competitive or quality reasons) without having to opt-out of the entire network.
From a publisher perspective, if you have good quality sites in the content network, you have nothing to worry about and a lot to gain. If you have sites that are less-than-stellar, the kinds of sites that advertisers wouldn't be so happy that their ads are appearing on, you might want to worry, or improve the quality of those sites ;)
by Jennifer Slegg
Saturday, April 7, 2007
Google Launches Free 411 Service
Google threw a new product called Goog-411 into Google Labs today - a free telephone based information service that could replace toll 411 calls. About 2.6 billion 411 calls are made in the U.S. each year, and it is a $7 billion/year market.
Goog-411 can be accessed by dialing 1-800-GOOG-411. The product is completely automated and there is no way to talk to a human for additional or clarifying information. You tell it your city and state, and then ask for a specific business or business category. In my tests the product was excellent. Although the voice recognition was only working at about 70% efficiency, I just said “back” and retried when it didn’t understand what I said. Results are spoken back or text messaged back to you, and you are automatically put through to the phone number requested.
GOOG-411 is using Google’s normal local business information available on Google Maps and elsewhere. Businesses that want to add or correct data can do so here.
The product competes head on with Jingle Networks, which has taken 6% market share in the U.S. 411 business over the last year. AT&T is also experimenting with free 411 calls. None of these products come anywhere close to as good as TellMe’s rich client business information tool for mobile phones, but few phones support TellMe at this time (TellMe was recently acquired by Microsoft).
The paid 411 market is so dead. I’m betting these free alternatives take at least 50% market share within a couple of years.
Update: This is actually a product that Google’s been testing in various formats for some time. Steve Poland (a regular contributor here) is pointing me to some posts (and here) by Greg Sterling from last year that discuss this. The earliest reports on this are from October 2006, and the service may be from an acquisition of 1-877-520-FIND. More information here.
by http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/04/06/google-launches-free-411-business/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
