| 4:53 pm on Apr 7, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Can't come soon enough.
I've been thinking about dropping Yahoo in favour of Microsoft when it becomes available.
Overture just feels so clunky compared to AdWords.
This might just convince me to stay!
| 4:55 pm on Apr 7, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Well it's about time. They have lost hundreds of millions of dollars by completely dropping the ball on PPC. I just hope their editorial system gets a major overhaul as well as that is a nightmare too.
| 5:32 pm on Apr 7, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Yah, the editorial system sucks, but AdWords has been pretty bad lately too. The main problem with OV is that it is very slow and hard to work with, very very very frustrating!
| 5:49 pm on Apr 7, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|The main problem with OV is that it is very slow and hard to work with, very very very frustrating! |
I have been trying to clean out old ads this week. Dear God! 2 days straight of waiting for that system to deal and in Adwords, it would have taken me less than an hour to do the same.
But, back on topic. I am glad they are doing this. I will do much better with them when this goes into effect. ;)
| 6:02 pm on Apr 7, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I agree, the Overture change is much needed...it's slightly ironic, as G is supposed to be implementing changes that to make it similar to Overture. See [webmasterworld.com...]
MSN ppc is ok, but the adcenter ads run few and far between. Still in a beta and very rough around the edges. It started invite-only and now the original invitees get to invite others. Steve (or anyone), send me a message if you want an invite - I have a few left.
| 6:47 pm on Apr 7, 2006 (gmt 0)|
If only Google could get a patent on the notion of rewarding better performing ads!
| 6:56 pm on Apr 7, 2006 (gmt 0)|
This is big news. I wonder if the minimum CPC will be reduced?
| 7:06 pm on Apr 7, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I just have this feeling that if the algo. they use to determine "relevancy", is in any way, shape, or form of that used by the editorial team, then I can't forsee that it will even come close to being like google.
The value lies in the advertisers ability to determine relevancy. If I want to create an ad for "123456789-MANUFACTURER", and a very small number of people search on it, but convert at 100%, I should be able to do so. But currently, you cannot get approval for it because there "Aren't enough searches to warrant the inclusion of that keyword" "It would take resources to our already taxed DataBase".
Translated from Yahoo Speak, this means, we don't want to waste the time and energy to review your term for relevancy if it's not going to convert a larger clickthrough volume and make us $$$$.
| 7:27 pm on Apr 7, 2006 (gmt 0)|
p5gal5, they're actually up to 70% or so I think. MSN is showing mostly AdCenter ads. One of my contacts at MSN just today told me they will soon be up to 100%. :D
| 8:35 pm on Apr 7, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Look for the changes in June, not September.
| 8:41 pm on Apr 7, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Seems like all this did with google was make everyone pay the highest price for a click regardless of the ad position. I lost most of my google traffic when they changed over because I cant afford their minimum bids.
| 8:44 pm on Apr 7, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Everything I heard tells me that MSN search is still a mess internally.
Anyone having success with it?
As for Overture, you guys seem to like them being more like Google and copying Google. I am totally against this, Overutr being different from Google, not as flooded, and not putting as many restrictions on your AD is what makes me make 5x as much profit in Overture than Google. I'd love to understand why you want to take this away?
| 9:16 pm on Apr 7, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|I'd love to understand why you want to take this away? |
Basically, the sub-title of this thread explains it - "From Straight Auction to Rewarding Relevance".
If your ads are truly relevant, Yahoo's model penalizes you by pitting you against advertisers who's ads are not relevant, generate poor CTRs, yet still directly impact your cost.
Google's model, despite it's flaws, forces non-relevant advertisers to - in effect - pay a penalty for their non-relevance creating a barrier for irrelevant fly-by-nighters.
| 9:52 pm on Apr 7, 2006 (gmt 0)|
How will this effect YPN publishers?
| 10:19 pm on Apr 7, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Hey P5Gal5 - any of those MSN AdCenter invites left?
Would be very appreciated and I would owe you one.
| 12:33 am on Apr 8, 2006 (gmt 0)|
No Yahoo, don't do it! I like my ads irrelevant but paying well. The last thing I need are more low-paying but relevant ads...
At least give me two radio buttons:
_ relevant ads even if I make less money
_ well-paying ads even if they are not relevant
| 4:41 am on Apr 8, 2006 (gmt 0)|
This was probably one of the worst kept secrets of 2006. Expect major migration headaches when it's implemented.
| 1:03 pm on Apr 8, 2006 (gmt 0)|
First off, BE CAREFULL WHAT YOU WISH FOR.
Second, there is no way this will be launched in the US this year. Look for Feb 2007 at the earlist. You know overture programers, you know there are going to be more bugs than cockeroaches to squash.
Prediction: the 'cut over' to the new algorithm is going to be so horrific for about a month everyone is going to wish it never happened.
After this month, things should settle down, but it's going to be ugly.
| 2:29 pm on Apr 9, 2006 (gmt 0)|
We use adwords a lot but have given up with overture due to inconsistent editing policies and the fact that overture doesn't work properly.
One search term has a full set of advertisers on google paying 50-60p per click, yet no-one is advertising on that term in overture. we tried but for some reason it just doesn't let anyone bid on it...
The sooner they scrap it, the better!
| 7:59 am on Apr 10, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Personally I think that this will raise CPC prices - not good news for advertisers but should be good news for Yahoo! (unless lots of advertisers leave!)
It should help to reduce the amount of time taken to manage campaigns.
| 3:30 pm on Apr 11, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|No Yahoo, don't do it! I like my ads irrelevant but paying well. The last thing I need are more low-paying but relevant ads... |
Well said! In overture the non-relavant can make good money, and the relevant can make great money. In google the non-relevant can make no money and the relevant can make ok money. Don't change overture!
| 11:37 pm on Apr 11, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Well if it's going to happen, surely they've got to scrap their strict editorial? Or at least find some that can write grammatically correct English. The state some of my ads have come back in I don't fancy my chances the way it is now.
| 3:26 am on Apr 17, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Does this mean I'm screwed? I get horrible results with Google because people who use vague terms rank better than my precise terms. On overture, if I think of a term that no one's really bidding on, I win over those who have vague matching turned on. In otherwords, say I think of the term "new home appliances" and bid 14 cents. Now someone else comes along and doesn't think outside the box like I do (sorta), they enter "home appliances" and bid 2 bucks. If they've got broad matching on, in Google they'll override me. In Yahoo, I win! It's like that because precision wins out over broad terms like this. I hope this doesn't change. Google's ad program sucks because creativity in term usage doesn't override crappy/expensive terms/bids. Booo-gle!
| 3:02 pm on Apr 17, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Don't really care what Yahoo do anymore - they decided a long time ago that quality of distribution partners was not their primary focus.
| 9:33 pm on Apr 22, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Agree Overture changes been long time expected
| 8:18 pm on Apr 24, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Hello everyone. I'm new to this forum, but I thought this topic was interesting and wanted to chime in as well.
One of the most frustrating experiences with Yahoo editorial is inconsistencies as well. If you get editorial employee Bob, he might approve one one listing, but if you submit a similar listing and get editorial employee Jane, that listing would be declined for some unknown, and unexplained reasoning. Worst part is, they use some generic excuse and expect the advertisers to know what exactly that means, and are not quick to address double standards or inconsistencies between different editorial employees.
To add an additional layer of frustration, they don't allow the advertisers to call the editorial team to ask questions or even notify/debate what inconsistencies we find. That to me is pretty poor customer service and/or I think Yahoo often misses out on a good opportunity to become a better player in the market place.