homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 50.17.27.205
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Pubcon Platinum Sponsor 2014
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

 

Sanenet




msg:1131913
 4:58 pm on Nov 17, 2004 (gmt 0)

Well, bang goes at least 30% of adwords traffic, a whole load of aff sites and at the informal marketing campaign of amazon. :)

keywordguru




msg:1131914
 5:22 pm on Nov 17, 2004 (gmt 0)

Their profits would drop tremendously!
Not a smart move for them. I am sure the if the stock holders understand what that means, they will vote against.

Yet it would clean up specific search areas. Not a huge issue, just create a landing page:)
KG

IntegraGsrBalla




msg:1131915
 5:35 pm on Nov 17, 2004 (gmt 0)

Look at it this way,

All affiliates that get around this and create landing pages like in overture....

All our AVG. postitions would be better!

Our competetors would vanish a bit.

Fischerle




msg:1131916
 5:44 pm on Nov 17, 2004 (gmt 0)

There are a lot of people holding Google's stock at 173/share who would not be happy with such a dramatic decision. If it is going to happen, it will be done in a more subtle way, through stricter guidelines on keyword and ad relevancy, maybe even eliminating the keyword variable feature. Ebay Affiliate ads are the only ones I see that are getting to be ridiculous, as has been discussed in a previous thread.

MultiMan




msg:1131917
 6:47 pm on Nov 17, 2004 (gmt 0)

Recently, someone opined on these forums that I was a one-man army (or something like that) fighting to get affiliates removed from the AdWords adspace.

If it is indeed true that G$ is really considering this, then it would be the first example lately of G$ actually listening to and applying the legitimate concerns and issues from those of us who are REAL-domain site AdWords advertisers.

If they still would like a way to let affiliates keep advertising, then as I have frequently suggested, let them move such affiliate ads to the bottom footers of the SERP pages.

But other than that, the unaccountable, unknown, uncommitted-to-their-keyword, non-REAL-domain Ads of affiliates who are nothing more than ghosts do not belong in the AdWords adspace among the rest of us who are REAL-domain site advertisers.

It would be good to see this as a possible first step of G$ starting to smarten up and to listen to us former G$ supporters.

Chndru




msg:1131918
 6:49 pm on Nov 17, 2004 (gmt 0)

Multiman,

What is G$?

MultiMan




msg:1131919
 7:08 pm on Nov 17, 2004 (gmt 0)

The "G$" is basically a derivation of M$, but applies to Google instead of MicroSoft.

As G$ has purposely destroyed the natural SERPs in order to force authority sites to pay the blackmail of AdWords, and in G$'s other similar money-only based decisions without any honest ethics, G$ has become only about money and no more honest SERPs. So, just like M$, Google currently can only be honestly thought of as G$.

[edited by: MultiMan at 7:11 pm (utc) on Nov. 17, 2004]

yanov




msg:1131920
 7:09 pm on Nov 17, 2004 (gmt 0)

I hate the e-bay or amazon ads cause they don't even have a landing page. Beacause of them PPC might get hurt. Why do they do that? They don't give a damn about these poor ads because they get so much revenue,is it right?
Asen Yanov

MultiMan




msg:1131921
 7:15 pm on Nov 17, 2004 (gmt 0)

yanov, yes, that's a serious problem indeed, and affiliate ads are destroying the useabilty and value of the AdWords adspace.

The following thread has been discussing it in more detail...
[webmasterworld.com...]

nerowolfe




msg:1131922
 7:26 pm on Nov 17, 2004 (gmt 0)

FYI, at the end of the "PPC Bid Spend and Maximization" session, Emily White (from Google) said she was aware of the affiliate issue but was unable to comment...

chrisk999




msg:1131923
 8:46 pm on Nov 17, 2004 (gmt 0)

MultiMan said:
affiliate ads are destroying the useabilty and value of the AdWords adspace

If affiliates can make a profit on adwords ads, then surely you ought to be able to as well.

Google did hold an adwords university purely for affiliates in London a couple of weeks ago, so it's bizarre use of marketing budget if they're about to ban affiliate ads...?

Richard Overvold




msg:1131924
 10:25 pm on Nov 17, 2004 (gmt 0)

If any of you run Overture. They have the same rules. Regardless, as keywordguru said, just create a landing page. No big deal.

keywordguru




msg:1131925
 1:08 am on Nov 18, 2004 (gmt 0)

I guess that solves it from the advertisers end. If they do change, it isn't the end of the world. Will just take a little more work. That makes the game that much more competitive.

Either way, they will make tons of cash!:) Enjoy it while it lasts IF they ever bother to change.
KeywordGuru

PPCBidder




msg:1131926
 1:41 am on Nov 18, 2004 (gmt 0)

All I have to say to google is this:

I've spent over a quarter million dollars on adwords as just one affiliate advertiser. Do you want to lose the revenue from across thousands of accounts?

Very simple business decision for google.

da_clicks




msg:1131927
 2:07 am on Nov 18, 2004 (gmt 0)

True Dat PPCBidder.

MultiMan




msg:1131928
 2:21 am on Nov 18, 2004 (gmt 0)

PPCBidder, If you've spent that much money, then you can surely afford to prove you are honestly committed to your keyword by creating a real-domain site to make your sales and let your users decide if they really want to make the purchases from there.

But affiliates have no place being alongside the real-domain site ads who have proven they ARE committed to their keyword.

I really recommend that fellow WebmasterWorld'ers here read the other thread via the link I posted previously.

shorebreak




msg:1131929
 2:43 am on Nov 18, 2004 (gmt 0)

Multiman,

I surmise from your posts that one or more of the following is true:

1)Your margins are worse than your competitors
2)You got slammed by Florida
3)Your affiliate program is non-existent or uninteresting
4)Your conversion rates are lower than they should be, hence your affiliate program uninteresting

Google doesn't *owe* anyone organic search traffic, and affiliates are performing a very valuable function in our economy, namely that of surpressing inflation and improving our lives. How? By efficiently promoting better/cheaper/cooler products, services, ways of buying, than what currently exists.

I work with a large number of big advertisers, and it always seems to be the case that the ones who are executing well *love* affiliates in PPC, and the ones who have marketing/merchandising challenges/shortcomings don't.

Either affiliate marketing is good, or capitalism isn't.

AdWordsAdvisor




msg:1131930
 3:01 am on Nov 18, 2004 (gmt 0)

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

Sorry for a really delayed response. I'm just now coming up for air after a long day. And since a lot has occurred in this thread since Shak's original post, my response almost feels like a part of a different thread by now.

In any case, I really answered this question as best I could in another thread on the same subject. Quoting that earlier post:

...as was mentioned in my intro to WebmasterWorld, I'm not really able to comment on AdWords business plans, or what the future may hold for AdWords.

Such things are not at all a part of my realm here at AdWords, and as a consequence I have no first-hand knowledge on the subject of affiliate advertising that you've inquired about.

What I can offer is this: I'll happily pass your concern on, verbatim, in the report that I send out to many folks here at Google each week. A pretty high percentage of the readers of this report are the decision makers to whom you'd want your concerns known....

With all of that said, and still holding true, I did go looking for more information, and was given this info to post:

Google’s affiliate policy has not been changed. This means that your approved affiliate AdWords ads will continue to run on Google.com. Please be assured that we have no current plans to completely block affiliates from AdWords. If we do make any changes to our affiliate policy, you’ll be notified.

I can certainly understand the strong feelings this topic engenders, and suggest that it probably best to not pay a great deal of attention to rumors, as they can easily get out of hand. And, as stated above, if the policy were to change, advertisers will be notified.

AWA

cline




msg:1131931
 3:17 am on Nov 18, 2004 (gmt 0)

AWA, I can entirely appreciate your position in representing Google Corporate. Been there. Done that.

Your (Google Corporate) attention should be directed to the fact that on some keywords the results are being dominated/manipulated/misranked (take your pick) by affiliate listings.

In theory, IMHO there's no problem with being an affiliate who is marketing. In practice, with multiple marketers working for the same affiliate who are dominating the SERPS, there is a problem, both for the user and the advertisers. One simple rule that could be imposed is that only one advertiser is allowed per keyword per domain name, or name of a mirror domain. This simple rule would dampen a lot of the problem. It's not perfect, but it is a step in the right direction. It's also implementable. Whoever gets to the term first, can have it.

MultiMan




msg:1131932
 3:21 am on Nov 18, 2004 (gmt 0)

Thank you AWA for letting us know -- even though it is disappointing to hear that irrelevant affiliates will still be allowed to destroy the AdWrords adspace.

Once again, only the buck rules for G$, not value or relevance.

But I do understand that you, AWA, can only voice what G$ authorizes you to say, of course.

da_clicks




msg:1131933
 3:24 am on Nov 18, 2004 (gmt 0)

AWA,

Thanks for your response.

MultiMan




msg:1131934
 3:28 am on Nov 18, 2004 (gmt 0)

shorebreak,

I would encourage you to read more before posting. Again, as I said before, please read through the thread at
[webmasterworld.com...]

As well, while I realize it might surprise some people, in fact, I would recommend that any such person now sit down as I share this "surprising" news for them. ... -- Not every keyword is a COMMERCE issue. Imagine that!

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.

And that is what G$ has allowed to happen in its SE in the AdWords adspace by allowing the useless non-information-providing affiliate advertisers.

migriffin




msg:1131935
 4:18 am on Nov 18, 2004 (gmt 0)

Hi AWA,

In case you get a chance to voice some concerns again to the powers that be at Google, here are my thoughts on the matter:

1. I agree that eight AdWords links along the right hand side of search results for EBay definitely limits the options for the web searcher, but the profit margins for affiliates advertising on Google AdWords is far less than the profit margins for a distributor. If you are upset about being diluted, you are not properly competing and you have failed to realize the true potential of AdWords. Up your CPC and compete rather than complain. The average CPC are definitely well worth the cost in terms of returns. If affiliates can afford the CPC, a independent distributor certainly can compete. I might postulate that you simply want cheaper CPCs to enhance your profits. Don’t we all.

2. I am not opposed to one ad per company, but where do we set the limit. Since Amazon and EBay sell for multiple vendors, aren’t these vendors being diluted with one ad? Amazon has hundreds of partners and can be thought of as its own shopping portal. EBay has millions of retailers. Should they all only get one advertisement spot? What about shopping comparison sites. Many link to the same sites. Should we only allow one shopping comparison site to be advertised?

3. Relevancy is an issue. If Google wants to maintain the most relevant results, it should limit the use of dynamic insertion in the headlines. Search results were far better before people started abusing this technique. If people actually have to make each individual ad, it is highly probably that the link URL will be highly relevant. This is the most abused aspect of Google Adwords and unfortunately Affiliates are heading up this abuse. Stopping this will improve relevancy and enhance the user experience.

4. Google should really listen to complaints or suggestions from there users and not from people who simply want to reduce their advertising costs. I guarantee you that online shoppers have no problem being linked directly to the product they want for the most competitive prices on the Internet. Google adwords is very profitable when ads are relevant, prices are good, ordering is easy, and shipping is quick and inexpensive. I cannot stress this point enough: if you are having problems competing as a distributor you need to optimize your business. The profit margins of affiliates are much lower than a distributor and in theory affiliates should not offer significant competition. I am both an Internet retailer and an affiliate advertiser. As an Internet retailer, affiliates have never posed a problem for me since they cannot possibly compete with my profit margins.

Shak




msg:1131936
 5:58 am on Nov 18, 2004 (gmt 0)

AWA

thank you for your comments.

Shak

PPCBidder




msg:1131937
 10:20 am on Nov 18, 2004 (gmt 0)

Google’s affiliate policy has not been changed. This means that your approved affiliate AdWords ads will continue to run on Google.com. Please be assured that we have no current plans to completely block affiliates from AdWords. If we do make any changes to our affiliate policy, you’ll be notified.

The word 'completely' is a bit worrisome. My opinion -- If a change to policy is made, please hold off until after christmas at minimum, or there will be HUGE uproar from a large segment of advertisers.

MultiMan




msg:1131938
 10:54 am on Nov 18, 2004 (gmt 0)

migriffin,

One should really read more before they make a post.

I would encourage you to read more before posting. Again, as I said before, please read through the thread at
[webmasterworld.com...]

As well, while I realize it might surprise some people, in fact, I would recommend that any such person now sit down as I share this "surprising" news for them. ... -- Not every keyword is a COMMERCE issue. Imagine that!

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.

The issue is not about "complaining just to lower costs" or "fearing competition."

"Drive by affiliate ad bid atacks" come in and eventually go, but then they are then followed by another and another, adding no value to adspace and only costing the long-term advertisers more than the keyword is worth. So the issue goes beyond a single unaccountable anonymous affiliate ad. In my keyword, their ads fail, but then the next one comes along until it fails too -- all destroying the motivation for the user to even bother looking at the AdWords adspace.

There are so many other issues too, but I will let you read the thread instead.

MultiMan




msg:1131939
 11:24 am on Nov 18, 2004 (gmt 0)

Now that it's official from AWA that G$ is going to still allow affiliates, it is possible (who knows?) that they could face some liability for doing that.

What I am about to say is indeed only a possibility and not something I am yet prepared to say is a sure thing. While I have wondered it based on events I have witnessed in AdWords, I readily admit that I am not prepared to say that the following is fact.

Since the affiliate ads are so anonymous and unaccountable, one could raise the legitimate suspicion or concern that G$ themselves are fraudulently raising the AdWords costs of existing advertisers by G$ creating affiliate ads themselves. Since no one knows who those anonymous affiliates are, their ads could very well be G$ committing fraud to bleed yet even more money out of advertisers.

Since we know that G$ was willing to destroy the natural SERPs in order to force authority sites into paying the blackmail of AdWords, there is nothing else to have reason to believe that such unethical principles at G$ would prevent G$ from taking this next step too into outright fraud.

Maybe someone in the legal departments at Y or M$ or OV can figure out a way to drop a dime to the FTC or SEC to seriously investigate G$ for such possible fraud in the context of G$'s allowing unaccountable affiliate ads.

It would not really matter if it was proved true or not.

Both the publicity of that investigation and the costs of defending against it could hit the unethical G$ in the only place they care about, their money.

Maybe then G$ will smarten up and return to honest business methods.

ncw164x




msg:1131940
 11:41 am on Nov 18, 2004 (gmt 0)

Yaaaawn...so basically what you are trying to say in a nut shell and only covering 2 lines of text.

If I was to start an affiliate site, or direct to merchant link, I should not be allowed to advertise on google adwords, is this what you are trying to say because these are the vibes I am picking up.

Why can I not advertise, its my money..

Please don't post the same text again saying read this, I just have and its repeated over and over again.

MultiMan




msg:1131941
 11:55 am on Nov 18, 2004 (gmt 0)

Affiliates are neither real sites nor real URLs. As their URLs would not be allowed in natural SERPs, neither should they be in AdWords.

If you really had read the other thread, you would have seen that. Plus, you would have seen that it had been said there that if affiliates must be allowed, they should be separated from the REAL domain sites -- let the affiliates be in the bottom footers of the pages. (You could then take "your money" to that footer adspace instead.)

The important issue here is about REAL sites of REAL information being where users need them visible and not cluttered, and then having the non-real advertisers (affiliates) positioned elsewhere or not at all.

The real should not be confused with the ghosts.

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.
Home ¦ Free Tools ¦ Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About ¦ Library ¦ Newsletter
WebmasterWorld is a Developer Shed Community owned by Jim Boykin.
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved