Now I know what it means to have something quoted ‘out-of-context.’ Last week I was quoted in the following article about the use of search marketing for the confirm/deny John Roberts debate. The quote attributed to me was:
“Eric Porres…says the anti-Roberts movement hasn’t gained much momentum because Roberts isn’t especially controversial. If Roberts was a more contentious nominee, we’d probably see more ‘Defeat John Roberts’ messages than ‘Support John Roberts’ messages.”
While it is true that I said this during an interview for the article, the writer excluded the finer points I made in our discussion, namely:
1) Anyone can buy keywords very cheaply and they are some of the only online advertising that you or I or anyone can see. Therefore, the earned media value of buying these keywords far outweighs the actual value of the click. These buys are so small that there’s probably an intern managing it.
2) If Roberts was a more contentious nominee, we’d probably see more ‘Defeat John Roberts’ messages than ‘Support John Roberts’ messages. What I don’t see from either side is a conscious effort to add a behavioral skew to their search marketing efforts. That is, if you look up ‘supreme court,’ ‘abortion law,’ ‘Roe Wade,’ or ‘death penalty,’ neither side has taken to buying keywords based on some of the defining issues of the Court.
3) The writer asked me about why we’re seeing this now and if we’ll see search contribute in the future. I commented that Republicans didn’t want to get caught in a ‘waffling’ moment as Kerry did last year.
So, it’s underwhelming that the article ran as it did, but thankfully I have this small outlet to set straight the issues that I had hoped to bring to bear on the topic.