Microsoft To Pay People To Search

kolicha writes "After the failed Yahoo bid, Microsoft is going to try a new approach to gain market share on their rivals Google. Sponsored links will be pay per purchase rather than pay per click, and search users will be offered 'cash back' on their purchases."

Comments

Soooo--- they are copying Fat Wallet?

[way2trivial]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FatWallet

"FatWallet also features a Cash Back rebate shopping section, where users can receive a percentage of purchases back from purchases made through referral links to hundreds of online retailers. Originally known as FatCash, this feature is where FatWallet got its start."

Re:Soooo--- they are copying Fat Wallet?

[Osty]

Rather, Microsoft is finally bringing Jellyfish.com under the Windows Live branding, after having purchased them last fall.

Re:I want to be paid for posting this

[ejecta]

Marketing in general has standards, one could make a case that their materials are far more misleading the the industry median.

An example would be the "Switch" Campaign, which was awhile ago involving a fabricated story presented as fact about a Mac user that switched to a Windows PC, which also included blantant falsehoods about software availability on Macs. (It was even covered here: http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02%2F10%2F14%2F1232229&mode=nested&tid=109)

An more recent example one could use would be the whole Vista Ready/Capable disaster.

Re:microsoft's real solution to its search blues:

[maxume]

Only ~$90 billion in market cap to go. Of course, Microsoft has just over 3x Google's $18 billion in revenue, so buying Microsoft would destroy the current price multiple on shares of Google.

Re:I'm reminded of something Amazon did...

[Petrushka]

Yes, but it wasn't a partner search engine. They were using their online store to leverage their own search engine, a9.com.

Re:I want to be paid for posting this

[ozmanjusri]

I'll start.

• SCO
• "Vista Capable"
• Get the Facts.
• Windows Genuine "Advantage"
• Fake ROI/TCO models
• Misleading security stats (multiple)
• 235 Patents
• Zune astroturf sites
• XBox sales figures
• XBox failure rates
• OOOXML and ISO corruption
• Subverting OLPC (multiple lies)

There's plenty more. Feel free to add some yourselves - this could be fun.

Re:Most of you aren't really getting the point.

[R3d M3rcury]

Not a bad idea, until you see how it works.

You're not getting a discount. You're getting a rebate. So you're still paying the full price, it's just that you'll get some money back at some point in the future--60 days, to be precise.

Re:Nope, sorry.

[DrEldarion]

Google does offer cost-per-action: http://adwords.google.com/support/bin/topic.py?topic=11635

Re:I want to be paid for posting this

[Macgrrl]

"Plays For Sure"

Re:I want to be paid for posting this

[JohnBailey]

An industry who's sole purpose is to trick people into buying things they don't need or want has standards? You're funny. It's true though. There is even an advertising standards authority here in the UK. An ad can not be deliberately misleading, so saying "Coke is a cure for baldness" is not allowed. Or implying that a computer with wireless capabilities is all you need to get on the net, as PC World found out to their cost, is also not acceptable. It is even possible to complain about a specific ad, and have it removed if it is misleading, offensive etc. And it has been done many times. The advertising industry certainly does have standards, but they are the standards that are imposed on them, not the standards they try to live up to.