Google positioned Google Base as an alternative to eBay and other classified listing choices. We conducted a limited test of the service to find out if it would work for a content publishing company like ours. After publishing for over 9 months and approximately 400 articles, I thought that I can share some of our conclusions so that other content publishers can develop their strategy.
There is no advantage to publishing something on Google.com – it is not indexed faster or ranked higher.
It will bring no additional traffic to you than a page on your own domain would. Indeed, some pages do graduate from the Google base to the main index but so can a page on your own domain.
The only advantage we found was that when people were specifically searching on Google Base (a feature that was not very popular – and was eventually taken off; Google now says that results might appear on Froogle and Google Maps), your articles are more likely to pop up than if the pages were hosted on your domain. Therefore, if you have a small website, you might find it beneficial, but for us (with over a million visitors a month), the number was too small to make a difference.
Why does this happen?
The popularity of a web page on the web is about linking and if your page on Google Base is not well linked, it will never move to the main index. Then why would you publish it there and not on your own domain?
While we may continue to list some of our articles in the future on Google Base, but I would not recommend that you use it (remember that I am only talking about news and articles category there and I have not evaluated other categories). The only time it makes sense is when you do not have your own domain – in that case, you shouldn’t be doing business on the web.
Every morning when I workout, I listen to WSRS that has great music (it is hard to follow NPR with the background noise of the treadmill). There is something else that happens when I am listening. Jackie Brush, the host, talks to a woman (Melissa) and they have a nice little chat about losing weight – as if they were just two women talking about diets and weight loss. Most people won’t realize it but it is an excellent case study of embedded advertising because Melissa sells a weight loss pill Calotren. Forget the fact that she makes all kinds of outrageous claims and never points out that there can be risks and the claims have not been proven to the FDA. I have nothing against Calotren manufacturers – there are tens of thousands of companies that sell all kinds of products with no guarantee that they work.
I am willing to forgive such manufacturers but when a company like Coca-Cola does that – well, that is not forgivable. Their launch of Enviga makes me extremely uncomfortable. “Enviga increases calorie burning. It represents the perfect partnership of science and nature,” said Dr. Rhona Applebaum, chief scientist, The Coca-Cola Company. “Enviga contains the optimum blend of green tea extracts (EGCG), caffeine and naturally active plant micronutrients designed to work with your body to increase calorie burning, thus creating a negative calorie effect. It makes this product stand out as unique. Enviga brings the benefits of green tea to the forefront in a convenient and accessible, great tasting beverage.”
Despite the enormous BS surrounding green tea (which by the way is an excellent beverage if you like it for its taste – and I do), the advantages of green tea are not scientifically proven. The FDA, which tends to be generally friendly to the industry, is not convinced that green tea does much. The FDA has concluded that existing evidence does not support qualified health claims for green tea consumption, according to its ruling last year.
Even a drug like Meridia does little for weight loss, so drinking a negative-calorie drink is unlikely to do anything at all.
Caffeine (which we already consume more than we should) is not something we should be adding to our diets.
Indeed, helping people lose weight seems like such an exciting growth opportunity but guys let us do it ethically.