« links for 2006-11-08 | Main | links for 2006-11-09 »


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Hi Eric --

We focused on close Senate races, intentionally. The study clearly did not address the entire election 06 experience. Question: was Connell Donatelli involved in any senate campaigns in swing states -- namely(sorted alpha) Allen, Brown, Burns, Casey, Chafee, Corker, Dewine, Ford, Kyl, Pederson, Santorum, Talent, Tester, or Webb?

Last Thursday, political observers were commenting on how much television advertising would be poured into key races. We have our share of political junkies at our agency, and found this waning-hours-television-blitz interesting, and we wondered what would be happening online in the last 100 or so hours of the election in these key races.

So our study was limited to that scope.

Our conclusions apply to that scope: on key Senate races, we didn't find much advertising on candidate's names (only an average of 3 or 4 ads per Google SERP), not much on other phrases ("war in iraq"), and pretty much zip on Yahoo.

I enjoyed reading your response -- RKG is online agency focusing on e-commerce, not on politics. Most of our clients are major direct marketers and national store brands. I'd enjoy learning more (at least what you folks can share in public) about how you helped your clients with the election.

Best wishes --



Thanks for the very thoughtful comments back. Cost was a major driver of search campaigns and drove many of our decisions. I can't comment on the clients specifically, but I do wish they all allocated more dollars toward search. I did find your study interesting even if I didn't agree with some (not all) of your conclusions. I especially enjoyed your analysis of the creatives....


The comments to this entry are closed.


* indicates required


  • Eric Is AdWords Qualified