homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.226.168.96
register, free tools, login, search, subscribe, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Accredited PayPal World Seller

Visit PubCon.com
Home / Forums Index / Google / Google AdWords
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: buckworks & eWhisper & skibum

Google AdWords Forum

This 41 message thread spans 2 pages: < < 41 ( 1 [2]     
Adwords to ban affiliates?
Shak




msg:1131912
 4:44 pm on Nov 17, 2004 (gmt 0)

strong rumours on the grapeine that Google is considering stopping the promotion of merchants by affiliates using adwords to send traffic direct to the merchants.

other theories are that only merchant and 1 affiliate will be allowed.

any word on the street people?

AWA, any comment you or your people may want to make or can possibly share?

Shak

 

sacX




msg:1131942
 12:00 pm on Nov 18, 2004 (gmt 0)

Multiman there are affiliate urls in the natural SERP's.
You either have not researched that properly or are not looking carefully enough.

richyrich




msg:1131943
 12:05 pm on Nov 18, 2004 (gmt 0)

I think this is a wind up, but just in case its not.

For starters, it is not fraud. It is up to the adwords advertiser how they bid. You keep stating that not all keywords are commerce keywords, but Adwords is a commerce system - so do not use it if you are running a non-commerce site.

Secondly - real domain sites are not accountable. You do not need to prove who you are to register a domain. If you ever try to contact the holders of domains, you will find that a large percentage use made up details.

The point you seem to be missing again and again, is that affiliates are not unaccountable. Both google, and the merchant or affiliate network, have the affilaites details. These details must be correct otherwise the affiliate will never be able to get paid.

MultiMan




msg:1131944
 12:15 pm on Nov 18, 2004 (gmt 0)

I understand that the self-interest of affiliates will make them fight against me.

No matter.

Affilates offer no real information of their own and are not committed to their keyword (hence their refusal to get their own domain for their keyword). They simply got an affiliate account and use it for profit.

Those of us who are real and really committed to our keyword and to serving that keyword information to the user are not in the same category as the ghosts.

So yes, I am now done talking with the supporters of ghosts.

PPCBidder




msg:1131945
 12:19 pm on Nov 18, 2004 (gmt 0)

Since no one knows who those anonymous affiliates are

No one? Just because you can't 'whois' an adword placed by an affiliate hardly makes it anonymous. Google has credit card info, name, address, phone. The company the ad is placed for has name, address, SSN, and other payee info. For anyone with a direct internet connection IP's get logged, etc.

A person could register a domain with false info and attempt to hide ownership just as easily, so what's your point?

Perhaps you send threatening messages to companies who outbid you? Sorry you can't harass everyone, multiman. Maybe you like to collude with them and are angry an affiliate ad is ruining your scheme? Something doesn't jive right, multiman. This issue of anonymity you throw around doesn't make any sense.

MultiMan




msg:1131946
 12:24 pm on Nov 18, 2004 (gmt 0)

Isn't it funny how ghosts are afraid to come into the light with their own domain to show they have made an effort to be committed to their keyword? They want to hide behind their anonymity to the user and other advertisers so that they can continue to dillute the value of real information locations for their own hoped-for profits.

PPCBidder




msg:1131947
 12:36 pm on Nov 18, 2004 (gmt 0)

Committal to a keyword is irrelevant. Ever hear of classified ads? Why should somebody with a one-time only, seasonal, or special offer be prevented from advertising on an as-needed basis?

to be committed to their keyword

That doesn't make any sense, multiman. That's why it's pay per click

graywolf




msg:1131948
 12:41 pm on Nov 18, 2004 (gmt 0)

I admit that it always amazes me at how quickly people forget that the original idea behind the development of the internet was a way for INFORMATION to be available to searchers -- not to be a mere avenue of cashflow for irrelevant non-comitted affiliate advertisers.

It is only one who is thoroughly acquainted with the evils of war that can thoroughly understand the profitable way of carrying it on.

Sun Tzu
The Art of War
circa 500 BC

MultiMan




msg:1131949
 2:06 pm on Nov 18, 2004 (gmt 0)

Isn't it funny how obvious it is? Classified ads in normal publications are not placed in the same adspace with regular real ads -- just like affiliate ads should not be placed alongside REAL domain site advertisers. In the same way, affiliate ads should only be positioned at the bottom footers of SERP pages, if at all.

ncw164x




msg:1131950
 2:18 pm on Nov 18, 2004 (gmt 0)

Yeah that is true but classified ads in a publication are normally free or at a cheaper rate, if you bid the highest bid then your affiliate link can be at the top because you have paid for it to be there...

MultiMan




msg:1131951
 2:36 pm on Nov 18, 2004 (gmt 0)

Fine. Affiliate ads can have their own PPC bid-values among each other at the bottom footers of the SERP pages -- but such non-real ghosts have no validity to be in the regular AdWords adspace alongside real domain advertisers.

The real and the ghosts do not belong alongside each other in the same adspace.

Shak




msg:1131952
 3:32 pm on Nov 18, 2004 (gmt 0)

Continued here: [webmasterworld.com...]

This 41 message thread spans 2 pages: < < 41 ( 1 [2]
Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Google / Google AdWords
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved