| 6:10 pm on Feb 27, 2003 (gmt 0)|
OK, fair point - perhaps I should have said "less obtrusive"! :)
Yes some content sites sell their content, but most offer it for free - like here.
The subscription / optional subscription based model is good for certain sites but for a lot it isn't appropriate.
I know it's hard to believe, but some of us just want to be able to provide free information and cover our costs without blemishing our sites with banner ads and the like. We don't have anything we can sell.
Assuming targetted content ads can be implemented effectively (ie they are consistently relevant), then it will be great for us.
After all this scheme was developed with bloggers in mind - people who want to make information available to others for free.
In the same respect, there are many people who set up sites for the same purpose. Their choice is to cover the costs themselves or turn to affiliate advertising of some sort.
For the business website, hosting ads really isnt going to be too appropriate - it will show up your competition.
But, it will be a good advertising avenue for people to explore - most likely leading to a market that is relatively untapped (at best the market has been exposed to random banner ads, as GG says).
|Actually this is offering quality *paid* results, |
I dont see how they are paid results.
No new sponsored listings will be added to the SERPs. Its just highly targetted advertising.
| 6:14 pm on Feb 27, 2003 (gmt 0)|
BTW, isnt this just a revamp of Amazons content ad feeds - theyve been going around for ages - I think they top Sprinks too! ;)
Only differnce is that using Amazon we get to choose the target ads type - with Googles venture they will be doing that.
Googleguy, seeing your floating about just now, a few questions:
1. Can you give us more info on the criteria for sites to host the ads?
2. Will hosts be able to customise the ads, ala Amazon (colour, font, format)?
3. Will hosting just be publicly available to use, or will applicants be reviewed - basically is everyone gonna be doing this or just a select few?
[edited by: Marketing_Guy at 6:22 pm (utc) on Feb. 27, 2003]
| 6:21 pm on Feb 27, 2003 (gmt 0)|
You grok this pretty deeply, Scott. Mostly too early to say, but I believe answers to questions like this will become clear over the next few days/weeks/months. Pretty exciting though. :)
| 6:26 pm on Feb 27, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Hehe I wouldn't say im *excited*! ;)
But I wanted to do my Honours dissertation on this subject in 99, but there was noone qualified at my Uni to mark both the technical and marketing side, so I ended up dropping out to go and work! :(
Ive also just redesigned an information site that would lend itself well to this scheme (nice big empty columns down the side just waiting for ads!).
| 6:41 pm on Feb 27, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Main stream media smells the coffee:
| 7:46 pm on Feb 27, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Just a thought here......... the content provider gets a cut of the PPC revenue right? (Say 20%). He also knows how many clicks are being sent, because he will get $X/month. And finally, he knows who his advertisers are since they are sitting right there in black and white.
So can't the content provider contact the advertiser directly and say... "Listen, you are paying $200/month in clicks from Google PPC on my site, pay me $100/month instead, and I will keep your listing on the top above the other google adwards and in the same visual table format." ... and thus cutting out Google altogether?
| 7:57 pm on Feb 27, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I think that would be a valid concern if the 'topics' of the pages were somewhat static.
Look at the pages we now see AdWords on -- Slashdot (All of OSDN?), Blogger... etc...
For the most part these pages are fairly dynamic. The challenge to Google is to be VERY fresh with these pages so the keywords used to generate the ads are relivant. This way the advertisers will want to stay with AdWords because the impressions will 'almost always' be relivant.
| 8:10 pm on Feb 27, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Surprise [webmasterworld.com] ;-)
| 9:28 pm on Feb 27, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Not bad Allergic. Predicted on Feb 17, 2003.
| 9:40 pm on Feb 27, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Next moves :
- Google study the RSS and XML feeds of Blogger.
- Google WebQuotes (and maybe Google News), will be feed by Blogger and sites who use the new Target Ads.
- WebQuotes integrate in Froogle.
- Blogger expand rapidly and take a big bi(y)te in the free hosting pie.
My half cent (i'm canadian)
| 9:43 pm on Feb 27, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|Mentioned by [url=http://diveintomark.org/archives/2003/02/27/in_brief_27_feb_2003.html]Mark Pilgrim[/url], you can see the adds alone by adding a query or [b]any[/b] URL as q=|
sorry for the duplicate post; I'd seen Johnraphone's comment but hadn't properly understood it
[[b]edited by[/b]: mfagan at 10:42 pm (utc) on Feb. 27, 2003][/1]
| 9:46 pm on Feb 27, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Mentioned by Johnraphone [webmasterworld.com] many hours ago ;)
| 10:17 pm on Feb 27, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Seem to automatically detect the ; language, products on your site and may be the geolocation also! Wow
| 10:36 pm on Feb 27, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Having spent the major of my career in the "contextual marketing" space and having only moved to search engine marketing arena within the last two years, I must say that I disagree with googles motives.
Regardless of what one argues this new service is a reactionary mode of marketing, as opposed to a proactive one. Search engine marketing works extrodinarily well because people are seeking you out and are in the "decision making mode". Contextual marketing necessitates that someone do something that they did not otherwise intend (a least in the overwhelming majority of the cases). The CTRs of the new contextual program will be poor and so too will the quality of the user relative to a SERP listing.
In my opinion this is another example of Google now paying more attention to making money (and lots of it) . Build a critical mass, promote market domination by not bowing to the ad world, and once we receive that critical mass figure out all kinds of ways to make money. This is not a positive development for Google. This a corporate decision to increase revenues.
Google has a tremdous amount of opportunity to make a ton of money but you can tell they are afraid of the contradictions between highly relevant search results and making money. Google is now talking out of both sides of there mouth. "we have the best search" but at the same time "click on those little ads on the side" that are one of the marketplaces poorest examples of a Quality Controlled CPC program. The mere fact that I can set up an adwords program in 45 seconds and be live on the SERPs within minutes dictates the lack of control they have over the relevancy of CPC ads on the SERPs. This recent step will only propagate such problem, leading to further abuse and now NON-CONTEXTUAL content ads around other Internet properties because of lack of Quality assurances. I wish Google would stop trying to play both cards, and tell us they are now more interested in making money and listen to us as to how to do this as opposed to coming up with such services. Problem 1: a 2-3% CTR for adwords is POOR. Get rid of the right nav ads, and give us 5 sponsorship ads on the top of the regular listings. Put some QA in place relative to the adwords programs, and continue to strike agreements with the Yahoos and the AOLs of the world- because the search technology is superior. I go back to the thread that Brett started having to do with the diminishing quality of Google from a search standpoint. I am one of the biggest advocates of google that you will find, but this reeks of corporate profits, not better solutions for marketers. I am sorry of the length of this post.
| 12:41 am on Feb 28, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I think it's a good idea.. I just think there's going to be some issues... I personally always look for law firms and law research on slashdot, and cvs.sourgeforge.net is where I go for pharmacy information. Well.. according to AdWords.
I think the problem here is that the context of the keywords/site are being lost here.
I'm going to look at some more of the sites an AdWords rep sent me in an email earlier today and see how it looks on some other sites. I'm trying to keep an open mind, but of the 2 sites I visit frequently (I'm a dev for an sf project) I haven't seen an appropriate ad yet.
| 12:56 am on Feb 28, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I read two pages back or something that one person at least had received an email about this. I have not. Anyone else?
| 12:57 am on Feb 28, 2003 (gmt 0)|
understood...but a user can also OPT to put brackets [widget] around keywords so the Ad only shows up when a user types in the exact phrase. unfortunately it just doesn't happen. the average keyword buyer (not us) does not opt out of syndication. It is not the default setting, nor is opting out of this program. Why? To maximize revenue. My point in the post was not to diminish this service. Relative to the majority of the media buys out there, the new google service is good (in context). The point is, MARK THIS DAY- cause google is no longer some anti-mainstream, think-tank born, private company with clean and relavant searches. They ARE now a doubleclick of the world -the very thing I dislike most about our business- conflicts of interest. Is Google a search engine or is Google a Content player that uses self serving tactics to promote revenues on the properties they now own. Google did not get to where they are (75% market share -Wall Street Journal)by accident. They did it by turning their heads to common wisdom and working for the consumer. Hello Advertising.com, hello ValueClick.. meet the "new Google" -- Run of Category Buy on a CPC basis (that's all this is my friends)- the difference is we have to bid, and unfortunaley, we won't pick the sites that we appear on---- and those sites that we do appear on - Google has vested (money) interest in. I hate to be so cynical it is not my nature, I just wished Google made some other decisions to maximize their revenue. We will give you money Google. Don't syndicate me on something that I have no reference point for. Syndicate me on AOL and Yahoo SERPs. And let us pay you for higher CTRs (click thru rates) on your SERPs for CPCs. It is ok - really.
[edited by: Chicago at 2:40 am (utc) on Feb. 28, 2003]
| 1:31 am on Feb 28, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I understand your point of view Chicago, but like some others say, it is time NOW to make this other move.
I also prefer this avenue (more aggressive adword and market share) at the place of a IPO where LP and SB philosophy can loose the control of it, or even the entry of a real web speculator like OV.
When they choose Mr. Schmidt as CEO they knew they have to move up with a more "commercial" approach.
| 2:50 am on Feb 28, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I won't make a judgement yet - but I'm watching my adwords control centres for my clients closely today. Let the leads generated /converted decide!
However - I think its brilliant that Overture announced it - and Google delivered it - almost to the day!
That means one is focussed on 'proactive product development & delivery' - and the other is delivering reactive press releases ...........
I know who I'd rather be working with......
| 3:37 am on Feb 28, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|I wish Google would stop trying to play both cards, and tell us they are now more interested in making money and listen to us as to how to do this as opposed to coming up with such services. Problem 1: a 2-3% CTR for adwords is POOR. Get rid of the right nav ads, and give us 5 sponsorship ads on the top of the regular listings. Put some QA in place relative to the adwords programs, |
I'd have strongly disagree with 2-3% being a bad CTR for AdWords. When they are competing against the search results and the premium sposorships a 2-3% CTR is quite good. It's better than all but the most targeted banner campaigns regardless of site or page placement.
Relevancy? If the ads aren't relevant they come down. There is every incentive to make the ads relevant and f they aren't they can and will change quickly if the advertiser want to keep running a campaign. That just doesn't happen with banner ads, at least not after only 1000 impressions.
5 premium sponsorships on the top? Talk about sell out. If the full (or almost full) above the fold part of the page is going to have premium sponsorhsip, why bother with a search engine? Just go to MSN for that.
| 3:42 am on Feb 28, 2003 (gmt 0)|
i agree with skibum. 2 to 3 % is a brilliant CTR. Banner ads usually had an average of .05%. And on Google you are competing against high quality core SE results, Premium listings and internal links as well as other Adwords. There must be more than 100 links on each page, of at least 30 to 60% being "quality informational links" about the same thing you are selling.
| 4:07 am on Feb 28, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Chicago, we try to give maximum flexibility to our advertisers. They can choose between exact and more powerful matches. They can choose just to show ads on Google, to show them on Google + search partners, or to show them on Google + search partners + content partners. We let advertisers get their ads started quickly, and use clickthrough rates to disable ads that searchers don't find useful. Everything about our ads program is geared to make it easy to "set and forget," but flexible enough to allow power users to run experiments that maximize their return on investment. Lots of people find that they get better at using AdWords over time. This is the first day of a new type of program which aims to be the exact opposite of a "run of category" buy. I think that ads that are keyed to the core content of a page can be much more relevant than a typical banner ad. Anyway, welcome to WebmasterWorld, and I hope you'll stick around and keep contributing..
| 4:17 am on Feb 28, 2003 (gmt 0)|
2-3% CTR for a Google CPC is NOT good when the company is clearly interested in making more money- thats my point (SERPS listings are 100% free- NO MONEY). I love adwords, its great. Dont, however, for a second think that the quality of user that you are getting from Google's non-search related syndication is 1/10th as good as a user from a SERP page using ADwords or a Web Matches on Google. Also make no mistake about the fact that this decision is money driven, not what is in the best interest of their CPC users. I will stop my posting on this topic now, but bottom line is that what adwords clients are now paying for on a CPC basis is NOT the same user as we were getting before. Not even close. Google is caught in a pickle between relevancy/pro-active prospects and revenue/reactive prospects. accordingly, it has decided to spead its wings to third party content sits as a way out. I will remain loyal to google, and adwords i will just be opting-out of third party content syndication (i hope i can do that and still keep AOL). Thanks.
| 6:28 am on Feb 28, 2003 (gmt 0)|
How much will Google pay traffic generators (publishers)?
Overture, for example, says it's paying nearly 65 percent. AdWords may pay even more since AdWord's average cents per click would be lower than Overture's (so Google may compensate with a higher cut to the "publisher").
In their relationships with Yahoo and AOL, Google is in the weaker position, thus 65 percent (mas o menos) goes to Yahoo and AOL. With content-targeted AdWords, however, Google is in the more powerful position with many smaller publishers.
So, let's imagine Google keeps 65 percent and gives 35 percent to publishers.
With that kind of money going to publishers, the economic viability of online publishing could change dramatically.
Some publications would be developed just to maximize content-targeted AdWords revenue.
Some niche products could take-off by finally being able to reach their niche audiences.
All in all, it should be very good for many small and medium advertisers.
| 7:49 am on Feb 28, 2003 (gmt 0)|
One thing we just did was to finally go through and put in some negatives (-keyword) for some terms.
A lot of the content-targeted sites seem to be places like how things work, thus getting a lot of student traffic. Trying to eliminate some of the more general terms that will give us zero ROI.
| 7:52 am on Feb 28, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Chicago, of course this move is about money. But Google should be commended for trying the method that is the least of all evils. Would you rather see google destroy their main SERPs with PFI a la L$? (I hope I'm not speaking too soon.)
I see Google as bending over backwards to try to protect their SERPs. They are risking significant cash and effort in trying to create a new revenue stream. For the sake of the web, I hope they succeed, and I really wish them the best in this endeavour.
GG, I'm sure you guys have thought of this already, but I thought I would mention it anyway... I imagine that site owners serving your ads will be tempted to pump up the clicks for their own financial gain. But I'm sure you guys have probably developed a slick algorithm to identify any such behaviour.
Keep up the good work, Google. All the best!
| 9:22 am on Feb 28, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Gah I hate these long threads - too much reading in the morning! :)
I got an email back from Google regarding my enquiry for more information about being a publisher.
They asked me for more information (Sites / URLs, page views and advertising contact details).
From this I would assume that there is going to be a review process or minimum page views (per month? They didnt say) in order to be a publisher.
Personally I think this is got to be good in the long run - it will mean that *every* site out there wont be hosting Adwords (think -> Amazon content ads).
| 9:29 am on Feb 28, 2003 (gmt 0)|
It will be interesting to learn more about this as we go along, wonder whether it will be possible for the site to decide what types of ads they accept and not accept etc.
As many of mentioned you would not let your competitor on for any small amount per click!
| 9:32 am on Feb 28, 2003 (gmt 0)|
>t will mean that *every* site out there wont be hosting Adwords (think -> Amazon content ads)
Think so? And how to make sure it's that way? How large does you staff have to be to control quality of the sites? It's going to be thousands, possibly hundreds of thousands.
| 9:39 am on Feb 28, 2003 (gmt 0)|
>As many of mentioned you would not let your competitor on for any small amount per click!
I wouldnt participate in the scheme if I couldnt dictate what ads were shown.
The reason I dont have banner ads is because i think they detract from the site.
Ad words are slightly more subtle - if they are relevant too (and I can ensure this) then I will quite happily take them aboard.
>Think so? And how to make sure it's that way? How large does you staff have to be to control quality of the sites? It's going to be thousands, possibly hundreds of thousands.
Hehe good point! :)
OK, at the very least publishers may go through a brief hand check so we will see less custom built sites to host adwords, like people do with Amazon.
I also want to see some sort of customisation as well - if the adwords can blend in with the theme of your site, then so much the better.
I dont want a column of adwords that are 10 pixels wider than the column I want to put them in.
I dont want them in a different font from the rest of my site.
Surely it cant be to difficult to make them customisable? :)
| 10:16 am on Feb 28, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|Surely it cant be to difficult to make them customisable? :) |
That would be nice... This way I could make my competitor's ads look terrible (may I ask for the chance of adding spelling mistakes?)
If I had to pay for an ad, even a small one, I wouldn't accept that any webmaster could change the way it shows up.
On a different note, I do have banners on my site. But I get the chance to choice the advertiser, the format, even the text and the pages where the ads will appear; and the advertisers do the same, being able to select the proper web site, a position on the page and a format that blends with the site. I would like to have the same kind of control with the new Adwords: having this, I would be a fanatic supporter.
| This 132 message thread spans 5 pages: < < 132 ( 1 2  4 5 ) > > |