| This 132 message thread spans 5 pages: < < 132 ( 1 2 3  5 ) > > || |
|Google Content-Targeted Advertising|
Google ads on blogs
| 4:51 am on Feb 27, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Google is giving free clicks until March 12 to their new content-targeted advertising.
Not only the ads will show on google and the search result of their partner, but now the ads can be show on other websites also, such as HowStuffWorks, Weather Underground, and Blogger.
Yes, now we, sort of, know why Google buy Blogger.
What do you think? And have anybody see the ads in other websites? One topic in Google Adwords forum mentioned about the ads showing on Sourceforge.
| 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.
| 10:26 am on Feb 28, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I wasnt meaning the ability to edit the adverts - just to be able to choose the table width, number of ads displayed, font and ad colour would be nice! :)
I must confess that I havent looked into banner ads much further the MS banner ad network, CJ and Amazon. I tested them all on one of my first sites - not a great income, but I havent put much work into.
Im sure with time and effort it would be possible to pick some ads that blend in with your site well - its just a lot of websites don't do that! :)
| 3:41 pm on Feb 28, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Reflecting on Chicago's earlier comments I find myself troubled by Google forking their business model. I have admired Google for its clarity of purpose and a determination to stick to its vision and now I find myself wondering if they may be making a fundamental mistake right now.
I had been told recently by someone who encountered a senior Google person at an event that he was evangelising the Google vision to 'index _all_ the world's information'. And I found myself excited by the fact that there will be gold in them thar hills and that this was a fabulous ambition. Right now I am wondering what selling advertising on other people's content has got to do with it. It is not as if Adwords content features as part of the gold Google indexes, it is self-selecting and of very poor quality as Chicago points out.
I don't want Google to compete with Overture and Doubleclick, I want Google to be the font of all knowledge. And, yes it will truly be a sad day if it turns out that they are playing, perhaps damagingly, with their brand in order to accelerate their revenue so that a floatation can happen sooner.
GoogleGuy's reluctance to address Chicago's strategic concerns was troubling too.
I hope I am wrong about this.
| 9:49 pm on Feb 28, 2003 (gmt 0)|
"GoogleGuy's reluctance to address Chicago's strategic concerns was troubling too."
SteveJohnston, I only stop by here on my free time, so don't misinterpret it if I don't reply point by point to any given person. Also, I find that if I stay quiet, most of the time other people will chime in with even better answers than I would provide. Still, if you look at my earlier post when Chicago had only done a couple posts, I tried to answer most of the issues they had raised at that point. For example, Chicago thought that it was a weakness that people could start advertising immediately using AdWords and see ads within a few minutes. I couldn't disagree more. Instead of relying on human approval, we use more powerful algorithms to optimize when we show ads and to monitor clickthrough. People who are willing to experiment can get fantastic clickthrough and ROI. Compare that this this thread ("I just can't take it anymore") where people are talking about how they never experiment on Overture because it's such a hassle:
Let me get back to your questions about how this fits into Google's vision. The quote you mentioned ("indexing all the world's information") sounds familiar, because it's a restatement of Google's mission statement: To organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful. That's been our mission statement from day one, and it remains at the heart of everything we do. Sometimes that information is an interesting segment of the web, such as Google News. Sometimes that information is commercial, such as Froogle or our advertising programs. In each case, we look for interesting situations where technology can make things more scalable or more robust. If some smart technology can give site owners a choice between a banner ad and a relevant ad keyed to that page, I think most site owners will be happy to have that choice. :)
| 11:13 pm on Feb 28, 2003 (gmt 0)|
First off, I think everyone (even Google detractors) appreciate the fact you come by and spend time talking to us here -- (but push the button will ya?).
I've been a supporter of Google for some time, but it doesn't mean I've always agreed with everything. (But, I'm in the thread you cited about Overture) I wonder if Froogle gets updated enough... (Hell the whole index for that matter) But I can understand the complexities involved.
I guess my whole concern over the AdWords Content 'thingie' is how bad it looks when it doesn't work.
Heck, slashdot and cvs.sourceforge.net have become my personal poster-children for AdWords content grone wrong. (Though occasionally cvs.sf.net isn't too bad, 1 drugstore ad out of 2)
I think it comes down to 'too new', 'too hidden' and not enough information to make everyone get that warm-n-fuzzy. (Though I do admit you can't please all the people all the time.)
AdWords (search) works so well, and I like it so much greatly due to the fact changes are instantenous -- You can immediately see what effect your bid / keyword / copy change is having on your stats. You can go search for terms and get a result...
... Right now AdWords Content is this nebulous cloud.
I just went 6 rounds with AdWords support trying to see if they are understanding what I'm saying but when you get back bits and pieces of ready-to-copy text (for the most part) it's hard to tell if they grocked what you're telling them.
GG - I think we just need more insight and control. CVS is not just a drugstore, and if I were advertising on that keyword I would want to disable that keyword for content pages (see cvs.sf.net). At the same time I would want to know which of my keywords is generating impressions on the content sites.
Ok, this has gone too long. I'll shut up now. :) I hope you understand what I'm trying to get across..
/me steps off soapbox...
| 12:00 am on Mar 1, 2003 (gmt 0)|
GoogleGuy, there is no one that is more important to this site than you (and Brett!). There is no need for you to justify the generous amount of time and insite that you are providing. I speak for us all in saying -we appreciate you and your insight. Very very much. We also appreciate all senior and preferred members who take the time to share their knowledge. There is too many of you to name. We are a very small (but very important)community that must confide in eachother.
GoogleGuy we all love Google because IT IS GOOGLE. Recent moves are beginning to suggest that the google we know and love has entered into a different mode. We are looking for you (and others) to comment on this.
Over my career, I have seen too many companies in the Internet Marketing arena lose focus. They begin to take advantage of ignorance in the marketplace while facing conflicts of interest in rep'ing the properties that they own. I know you know this. The question is can you really talk about this openly with us? That is the question that Steve is raising.
As far as being able to set up ads in 45 seconds. The issue GoogleGuy is about Quality Assurance. I LOVE THE 45 seconds. I wow clients with it all the time. For example, just yesterday I put up a clients site on Ad words that wasn't even live. I did it in 45 seconds, walked back into the conference room and said "look mr. client"- that's how easy it is. I realize that if the CTRs are low the ad will be pulled, but please dont suggest to me that this is Quality Control. Cause, I can tell you 100 ways to circumvent that. And don't get us wrong, we love AdWords, the issue is that you are now taking the Adwords system and distributing it across the Internet on third party content sites with the EXACT same levels of control and in this case the user/prospect is TOTALLY different (in quality) then the SERP page (and if you listen to Google- they would never make this suggestion (hence, conflict)). Many of us want to know whether you believe this signals a shift in the priorities of Google. And many of us want to know if you can really speak openly about it. Regardless and sincerely, thank you.
| 12:20 am on Mar 1, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Yup, I hear you, daroz. The answer for that is pretty solid--these ads are only going to get more relevant over time. CVS is a pretty degenerate case; it's like visiting the Sidney Writer's Festival and getting ads for Flash because the Festival talks about "SWF" all over the page, and SWF is the file format for Flash. I'm not saying that it can't happen, but that case shouldn't be common. I would expect improvements on edge cases like this going forward. Most pages have enough text to reduce that ambiguity. For example, when I clicked around macosxpost.blogspot.com, you see ads for Unix traing, but also Mac OS X Jaguar and Mac VPN solutions. Or if I check out jdupuis.blogspot.com (science librarian), I see ads for Info and Library Science at Drexel, and a platform for creating college portal sites. Much better than an offer to rend 4 DVD's for $0.99. :)
Let's see, what other technical things can I help with? From the tests we've seen with multiple advertisers, you should expect the clickthrough to be somewhat lower, but the conversion to be in the same range as search ads.
| 12:24 am on Mar 1, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Thanks GG -- Appreciate it -- and I'm glad to hear the 'issues' are being identified.
| 12:26 am on Mar 1, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I'm happy to comment on that Chicago. I definitely think that content-targeted ads is exciting (esp. if you saw all the technology we will be bringing to bear on it), but I wouldn't say that Google is losing its focus at all. I can stand in front of you--well, maybe not physically, but virtually--and tell you that I've never been more excited about all the things we're working on in search. Search is not even close to a solved problem, and we're still having a blast finding new ways to improve that. :)
| 2:31 am on Mar 1, 2003 (gmt 0)|
This is a promise: I will never directly speak to you again GoogleGuy, because it is not my privilege and I respect you too much. One more try: I KNOW that content targeted ads are exciting- it has been exciting for 7 years. What is not exciting is when our favorite search engine now rep's content targeted ads on a BID (this is new) basis, the advertiser has little to no control of where they show up, and when they do, GOOGLE HAS VESTED INTEREST in those properties. I have read you carefully, but you still will not acknowledge this. WHY? If I wanted to buy a content ad on a third party site, I would carefully select the site, pick up the phone and negotiate. NOT BID. NOT throw my hat into the ring blindly. Years ago I used to say, if you are a car site, and you call up DoubleClick, and say I need to place an effective ad in context. They would enthusiastically say, ok- your in the right place I have the contextual buy for you on kellybluebook. Little did people know that Kellybluebook was 1 of only 2 car sites that doubleclick rep'd (they owned their inventory). You now own the blog inventory- you will now rep it. Will you introduce great "smart" targeting technology- of course you will. That is not the issue- years ago, smart campaign technology was introduced that adjusted campaings on the fly based up CTRs. GoogleGuy will you acknowledge 1) this user/prospect is not as valuable as the SERP user/prospect and 2) will you acknowledge that what you are doing is in fact not that new, without using the banner vs. content text ad argument. Again, thank you. And a promise is a promise.
| 3:59 am on Mar 1, 2003 (gmt 0)|
"the advertiser has little to no control of where they show up.."
Uhm, all you have to do is click the opt-out checkmark. What am I missing?
| 4:42 am on Mar 1, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I think what Chicago is saying it's an all-or-nothing approach, and that there is little fine-grain control like there are in the SERP AdWords.
Unfortunately I think we're beating a dead horse (or just beating GG up -- not sure at this point ;). I think GG and the folks at the Googleplex understand our concerns and will try to implement fixes to alleviate some of them.
I'm sure it will get better -- it's been 'live' now for only a few weeks (I think) and was only announced earlier this week!
I'll see how it improves through the 12th and then vote with the opt-out selection.
| 7:54 am on Mar 1, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Chicago, naturally people have done work on targeting ads to the content of pages. But we're adding several new elements. That's why I differ with you on point #1. I think these ads can be just as valuable as one triggered by a search. Good talking to you so far, and I hope you stay around WebmasterWorld and keep adding to the conversations here.
| 2:51 pm on Mar 1, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|I think these ads can be just as valuable as one triggered by a search. |
Wow, someone has been dipping into their own stash. That is preposterous - even your buddy Jakob N. (unless he sold out) will tell you that search ads are the most effective medium because they cater to the user.
Now that Google has all these ad products maybe they should hire professional market researchers to go along with their math and computer science PhD's.
What is this study that their site and GG keep mentioning that shows content ads have roughly the same ROI as search ads. What sites served the ads? What products were sold? How long did it last? Who conducted it? I for one, do not believe it.
I am not disputing that content ads can be effective, but to keep claiming they are on a par with search ads and charging the same price is not right.
| 6:07 pm on Mar 1, 2003 (gmt 0)|
figment88, I was skeptical too. Rather than debate it now, let's try waiting several months for things to unfold and then meet back here and discuss it again. After all, AdWords Select has barely been out a year, and look how far it's come.
I agree that just doing the obvious things to target ads to a page wouldn't give great ROI. But very few other companies have such a large fraction of the web stored, lots of machines to do pre-processing on those pages, lots of smart people to try different cool approaches, and thousands of advertisers to match with different pages. Give it a little while, and then see what you think. :)
Sheesh. AdWords Select has only been out a year? I should start a "Happy Birthday" thread on that. :) Hard to believe that it already supports 9 non-English languages, for example. They grow up so fast, don't they? :)
| 6:24 pm on Mar 1, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I'm more than happy to re-address issues of effectiveness in a couple of months.
In the interim Google should stop making references on their website and in forums to some anonymous report that purposes to show that content ads have approx. equal ROI to search ads.
Even DoubleClick had the sense to get the IAB to tout the branding impact of banner ads and other creative formats.
If Google wants to make claims, they should make the report publicly available.
| 6:25 pm on Mar 1, 2003 (gmt 0)|
>think these ads can be just as valuable as one triggered by a search
I can't see that either however there is a case to made that the contextual advertising will be better than what we have now.
As an advertiser I would be very happy to increase the reach rate but the pay per click charging leaves some open doors that I would prefer closed.
One thing is for sure, the current ad networks do not offer a good service for site owners, it can be hard for webmasters who publish free information to even cover hosting costs, that is assuming they can get on a network at all.
If it were me, and assuming I was at least 100 times smarter than I am, I would look at a system that rewards site owners on a cpm basis but charges advertisers per click. It could work.
| 7:16 pm on Mar 1, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I think Google will have split content ads from search ads in the future.
I understand they do it for the moment to get to a critical mass.
Nevermind their ROI relative to search ads.
For every positive report a negative will surface.
Choice is king - always.
It just does not make sense to have the best quality site, and therefore first positions in the SERPS, but being forced to pay for search ads as well at increadible CPC rates, just to reach Google groups and Google content through ads.
Google can get away with it because they monopolise the market, but it does not make sense long term.
If Google content targeted advetising wants to be a revolutionary alternative to banners, it has to create its own market, its own pricing.
| 8:28 pm on Mar 1, 2003 (gmt 0)|
"If Google content targeted advetising wants to be a revolutionary alternative to banners, it has to create its own market, its own pricing. "
I couldn't agree more VitaPlease. This property does not have the same value. Period.
This thread is very very important. More than we are giving it credit for because this is not about this "new" service. This is about the future of Google. Any comment on this thread that just says you can just "opt-out" is short sighted.
If this "new" service works Guess what will happen next! If they get the technology down (and they will), the recent acquisition of blogs will be the tip of the iceberg. Google is testing right now (enough so that they are giving it away for free). The more properties that have, the more "contextual ads" they can serve and they will be hungry.
What Google is doing will fundementally impact the way the company operates. We as "experts" NEED to understand the ramifactions of this. Not for Google's sake - for ours. Because all of this inventory they will be buying up- is NOTHING like a SERP prospect. And the idea of being asked to bid on this under the guise that they are just as effective ads as a SERP, signals to me, that Googles first step in this direction lacks integrity. THe average user, will have no clue. If we don't bring this up, who will.
| 8:45 pm on Mar 1, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|This property does not have the same value. Period. |
Well, I feel like Chigago wrote it the clearest possible way. When we advertise on Google, we know we are buying a little spot on a great, possibly the best, site, with an image of integrity that will add something to our products. It is completely different when I think that my ad will be displayed on sites I don't even visited once, with matches that still have to be completely tested. I truly wish Google the best with the new technology, but right now this is a distant second choice compared with the original adwords.
| 9:07 pm on Mar 1, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|If it were me, and assuming I was at least 100 times smarter than I am, I would look at a system that rewards site owners on a cpm basis but charges advertisers per click. It could work. |
| 2:06 am on Mar 2, 2003 (gmt 0)|
"This property does not have the same value. Period."
Chicago, how can you be that positive on the second day you've been exposed to a new program?
Let me give you another example:
is a Google Groups posting about the new LovGate virus. Notice that it doesn't actually mention the word "virus" anywhere in the post. But the three ads that I see when I visit the page are "Norton AntiVirus 2003", "Stop Klez" (an email filter for viruses), and "Block All Email Viruses."
Now those ads weren't triggered by any query--I surfed to that page. But you can be pretty dang sure that if I'm reading about how LovGate spreads across the web, those ads are relevant to me. :)
I remember the initial prototype of AdWords, and it was pretty exciting. In all honesty, this is at least as exciting to me. I've seen the research and engineering that people are building into this, and it's pretty cool. I understand that you're skeptical, but give it a little time. I think people will be impressed by this in the same way that AdWords is impressive.
[edited by: GoogleGuy at 2:26 am (utc) on Mar. 2, 2003]
| 2:25 am on Mar 2, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Or to surf to another random page in groups:
Some fellow has toured around South America with his Garmin GPS unit, and now he wants to suck that data out and display it. The ads are "GPS III Plus-Low Price," "Garmin MapSource CDs," and "Team GPS-Free Shipping." Anybody reading this person's post would probably find the ads highly relevant. They've indicated their interest, but by finding the page--not by doing a keyword query.
Anyway, I can tell you have a strong background in advertising, Chicago. I guess I'm just asking everyone to keep an open mind that these ads can be useful. The technology is pretty cool already, but I think it will get even stronger over time.
| 2:59 am on Mar 2, 2003 (gmt 0)|
how can you be that positive:
1) the user is looking at a newsgroup NOT searches for antivirus software.
2) the ads look like they are part of the content mix and they disrupt the continuity of the users attention
3) users will click on the text ad by accident, thereby incurring costs
4) 95% of the users viewing this example are on the page to read about a virus -compare that to someone typing antivrus sofware in google
5)margin of error on click error alone dictate a reduction of cost relative to a SERP ad
6)publisher fraud, and blocking redundant IPs and cookies is not the answer
7)the overwhelming majority of commerce acitivity on the Internet takes place when someone goes to the web already having the intention of buying something
8) ONE SHOULD NOT have to BID a property -listing they can't see.
9)One has to opt-out of the program rather than opt in
10)90% of NEW product buys for a user/prospect that is looking for a NEW vendor (referred to as new customer acquisition) comes from an AOL, Yahoo, Google, or MSN SERP
11)reactive ads can not equal proactive ads (my physics teacher told me)
12) and most important----this is not about Google's new service in and of itself---it is about who Google is becoming, and what you will need to feed your appetite for new property in the future.
I am done- if my opinions are not the shared concern of others then this is futile and I must stop taking the time to speak with myself and the few others that share my perspective.
[edited by: Chicago at 3:19 am (utc) on Mar. 2, 2003]
| 3:06 am on Mar 2, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|I would look at a system that rewards site owners on a cpm basis but charges advertisers per click. |
NFFC, What's the advantage? Why not PPC all around?
| 3:28 am on Mar 2, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Somehow I don't have a reply on this page -- I guess I'm due... /sigh
I'm going to go point by point for a few of these then I'm not reply to another post on this thread. I think this horse is dead.
|1) the user is looking at a newsgroup NOT searches for antivirus software. |
Technically, yes -- but the topic of that thread is a virus/worm. (I'd hedge a bet the trigger word was 'worm' on that page -- or someone took out an keyword on the virus name) Those ads are very much on topic -- for that message.
|2) the ads look like they are part of the content mix and they disrupt the continuity of the users attention |
3) users will click on the text ad by accident, thereby incurring costs
I agree there could be more segmentation between the ad section and the content on the page. It's a bit fuzzy unless you look all the way to the right. The main search page does have a non-background-color gap in between premium placement and the content.
While I agree there is a chance of a mis-click, I don't think it's a real big deal.
|4) 95% of the users viewing this example are on the page to read about a virus -compare that to someone typing antivrus sofware in google |
I'm missing your point on this one... They both have similar AdWords content. They both are dealing with a virus or antivirus software. Topics are similiar.?
|5)margin of error on click error alone dictate a reduction of cost relative to a SERP ad |
Where do you get the basis for this statment from? What are you defining as a click error, and how are you detecting/reporting it?
|6)publisher fraud, and blocking redundant IPs and cookies is not the answer |
|7)99% of all commerce acitivity on the Internet takes place when someone goes to the web already having the intention of buying something |
Agree in concept, though my percentage is more concervitive, mabye 90%...
|8) ONE SHOULD NOT have to BID a property -listing they can't see. |
This I agree on, and GG in other posts has given indication that there is stuff going on in the Googleplex to better report/track/etc content stuff. I'm content to give them time. (At a minimum until the 12th. :) It's a semi-moot point tho.
|9)One has to opt-out of the program rather than opt in |
Opt out of something you are getting for free for two weeks, and have ample notification of. It sure as hell could have been alot worse!
12) and most important----this is not about Google's new service in and of itself---it is about who Google is becoming, and what you will need to feed your appetite for new property in the future.
While I ithink you mention some interesting things, I think it's still a bit early to make a blanket statment to say "Google has become a bunch of money-hungry... etc."
"Power Corrupts, Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely" - Lord Acton, 1887.
I just don't see the level of 'corrpution' in Google as I see in nearly every other internet marketing company I deal with on a day-to-day basis.
| 6:07 am on Mar 2, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Chicago, I'm hoping to win you over with time. It's in Google's interests to show the most relevant ads we can and to mark those ads clearly, because if users or advertisers have a bad experience then they won't use us in the future. Hopefully in a few months we'll agree that this is a good thing for advertisers and surfers.
| 6:12 am on Mar 2, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I think that the more knowledge you have the more problems you see. I'm glad I'm relatively ignorant compared to most of you guys. It means I have to devise my own unique ways of making money from Adwords and fortunately they're very successful.
I have faith in Google's methodology even if I don't always understand it completely. Google has the most ethical and fair business models that I have encountered and I'm more than willing to give them the benefit of doubt with this new service until it has some sort of track record.
Until we have some solid stats it's all just speculation. Heck, content ads might be better than spammy SE results for some advertisers.
| 8:19 am on Mar 2, 2003 (gmt 0)|
It looks like Google is getting into direct competition with some new very small text ad networks like Text Ads dot Biz.
BUT they do offer to network more efficiently. Certainly we would like to sell more ad spots. If google can offer as relevant ads as we can ourselves, increase the number of advertisers, and not take too much for management and promotion, we, for one, would certainly be interested. The difficulty in any automated scheme however is getting that relevance right. We review each advertisment and make sure it is on the right pages. It is HIGHLY targeted. If Google can do this, (and we DO know they are pretty smart on automated relevance algos!) it would be nice.
| 2:49 am on Mar 3, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Look around at the types of sites that Google is likely to add to its publisher network for content targeting. This will soon become clearer, but you can bet it will be tightly controlled.
Take a look at high quality known print magazines in their online versions. Look at what Primedia can do - show contextual Sprinks on dozens of its trade mags - and make a better profit than it might have with
Google's product is like this, but more powerful.
There are about 10,000 topical mags online right now (forget "web sites" - I mean existing offline publications with online versions that get a ton of traffic from targeted readerships) that are covered with low-yielding skyscraper crap. Replace a bunch of that with Google Contextual Advertising, and we actually have a more usable (for the user) and more profitable (for the publisher) online experience.
Does it suck for the advertiser? Easy enough to find out. And if it turns out to suck for some advertisers, they can OPT OUT! and only show ads on Google plus their search syndication partner's sites!
For now, I am willing to take Google's word that the conversion rates will be comparable if the right kinds of sites are included in the network. Certainly there are dangers, but the convenience of being able to reach all of those little sites without separately negotiating (or going through one of the dinosaur online ad rep firms) makes up for it, IMHO.
If conversion rates on clicks weren't about the same - if they were much worse - this would be very bad news indeed, because topical/niche/trade sites would be forced to admit that their ad space is worthless or that it only confers "branding" benefits. I am willing to accept that the right offer does convert about the same from clicks on a particularly targeted page.
| 3:35 pm on Mar 4, 2003 (gmt 0)|
can someone point me to an actual blog page where i can see google adwords displayed. i've been looking at some of the pyra weblogs and cant seem to find any
| This 132 message thread spans 5 pages: < < 132 ( 1 2 3  5 ) > > |