homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 50.17.162.174
register, free tools, login, search, subscribe, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Subscribe to WebmasterWorld
Home / Forums Index / Google / Google AdWords
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: buckworks & eWhisper & skibum

Google AdWords Forum

This 262 message thread spans 9 pages: < < 262 ( 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 > >     
Google - Affiliates - Update
latest news coming through
Shak




msg:1154965
 9:43 am on Nov 25, 2004 (gmt 0)

following on from this:
[webmasterworld.com...]

Google are going to be making serious serious changes to the whole affiliate > merchant via ppc stuff.

early reports indicate an "auction" based system where advertisers fight it out on who can bid, and only 1 advertiser per site as such.

obviously I do NOT have correct details as I do NOT work for Google. so can not explain exactly whats gonna take place.

but be ready, it soon cometh.

Shak

 

HitProf




msg:1155025
 3:55 pm on Nov 26, 2004 (gmt 0)

Blaze, patient2all: I'm reading "per site" in Shak's post, not "per keyword".

Shak, or anyone else, could answer my earlier question (msg#57) please?

wrgvt




msg:1155026
 4:31 pm on Nov 26, 2004 (gmt 0)

This conversation is both interesting and scary, since I made some nice change as an affiliate.

Amazon's affiliate network is one of the largest, if not the largest. It's an important revenue stream for them. Now if Google limits amazon affilate AdWords ads and cuts into amazon's profitability, does amazon start pushing their A9 search engine over Google's?

instinct




msg:1155027
 6:38 pm on Nov 26, 2004 (gmt 0)

Multiman,

I don't think it was the point you were trying to make that offended people (at least not me). It was your 'holier than though' attitude, condescending name calling and over-the-top google-bashing that did it.

AdWords purpose is *not* about providing information, it is about providing *advertising*. The organic serps are for providing information, and just because you have a silly, unproven and irrational theory that you were dropped from the serps on purpose in order to intentionally force you to use adwords doesn't mean that the rules of Adwords should change to accommodate you.

Your assertion that you are a “true capitalist” is contradicting your previous thread in which you plainly state that independent e-book publishers have "no business" competing against you because their product is “inferior”, “destructive” , “false” and besides they “never succeed anyways”.

[webmasterworld.com ]

Sounds to me like you'll complain about anyone that gets in the way of your plans - first Google, then competing publishers and now affiliates. Who’s next?

Jebus




msg:1155028
 6:48 pm on Nov 26, 2004 (gmt 0)

what about affiliates with private label sites? Seeing as you can't tell which merchant the site is promoting, would the same 1 advertiser per site apply? Im not sure how google would determine which merchant the site is associated with.

Shak




msg:1155029
 7:15 pm on Nov 26, 2004 (gmt 0)

1 thing I can say, Google will be loving this thread :)

gives em more feedback and a few loopholes to close. I am sure it crossed your mind folks that $50 billion company knows how to run a business.

thats the problem with forums, within seconds the tricks are revealed to the masses.

Shak

PeteM




msg:1155030
 7:31 pm on Nov 26, 2004 (gmt 0)

I think you're flattering yourself (and us) if you think that the same $50 bil company hasn't already thought of all the stuff that's been suggested here!

jim2003




msg:1155031
 7:39 pm on Nov 26, 2004 (gmt 0)

Shak,

Previously AWA (on Nov. 18) advised affiliates not to pay much attention to rumours and that google had no plans to dissallow affilate ads. You have a lot of credibilty as the moderator of this forum and AWA has a lot of credibility as a google employee. How do you reconcile your information with that post. Do you think AWA is wrong or misinformed? Is thier a chance that your source of information is mistaken?

I have noticeced in the past on this forum that changes that are rumored to be earthshaking end up really being modest changes in google policies designed mainly to improve relevence to the end user. So far Google seems pretty committed to the idea of letting users define relevancy by CTR's. Others such as Overture try to use human review as the primary indicator of relevancy. If Google eliminates affiliate ad's that users have determined are relevent (even duplicate ads) Google is conceding that relevancy needs significant human intervention and can't really be determined by its users actual activity. To me that is a fairly stunning rebuke of by Google of its own logic. This doesn't mean Google isn't planning to make changes. But the logic Google would need to apply to make this change certainly may have broad ramifications about how it may determine relevency of all ads in the future.

Best regards,

Shak




msg:1155032
 7:43 pm on Nov 26, 2004 (gmt 0)

jim

u raise a very valid point, and I have the HIGHEST respect for AWA and every other Google employee out there.

sometimes things happen in large organisation which everyone is not a party to. so I am NOT saying AWA is worng or I am wrong, just that things happen.

also there are times I wish that I didn't get information like this, however when it comes from credible sources, then it's my duty (imo) to report it out there.

there have been times when I have specifically been asked by my source NOT to go public with the story, and I have remained true to that promise.

I hope its not as drastic as we are making it out, but untill we get clarification, we can only make our own ideas up, and give Google some ideas along the way.

Shak

instinct




msg:1155033
 7:55 pm on Nov 26, 2004 (gmt 0)

<jedi mind trick>

"Google, these aren't the policy changes you are looking for...."

"You can go about your business..."

"Move along..."

</jedi mind trick>

;-)

patient2all




msg:1155034
 8:00 pm on Nov 26, 2004 (gmt 0)

Blaze, patient2all: I'm reading "per site" in Shak's post, not "per keyword".
Shak, or anyone else, could answer my earlier question (msg#57) please?

Hit,

Yes, Shak does say per site there. Then I am really confused because we bid on keywords. What sort of bid would we make to get the rights to be the sole representatives of a major merchant? Like $10,000,000.00 for a one year exclusive contract to promote Amazon? Is that what it means? That would be the end of virtually all affiliates except for multi-million corporate entities. Is that possible? Are they crazy?

If all the "secondary trough feeders" dispappear in one day, then all that will be left are "real domain sites" that provide life sustaining services and tremendous benefit to mankind like Multimans :)

Now if I keep saving my money and buy a domain, does the "one affiliate per site" rule not apply? Can I then promote whoever I want under my domain name (like I already do on over 1/2 the sites that I own)?

I think vital pieces of information are missing here and all we're engaged in is baseless speculation, except for Multiman who always gives the impression he's gloating like a comic book super-villian!

Actually, from what I hear in other private forums, some of the smaller PPCs give a better ROI to individual bottom feeders. I'm going to check out a few.

patient2all -walking ghost, soon to be tertiary trough feeder.

HitProf




msg:1155035
 10:05 pm on Nov 26, 2004 (gmt 0)

If Shak's info is correct I can see several scenario's.

- only one advertiser allowed for each website

- only one advertiser per site per keyword - different affiliates can bid on different terms

Question remains: how is Google going to distiguish affiliates from merchants?

Example: if Microsoft where going to advertise with AdWords, worldwide, and wanted their local offices to pay their own bills, they would need different accounts for billing but all ads would still lead to microsoft.com/country .

How is that different from affiliates redirecting an ad to the merchant?

FromRocky




msg:1155036
 10:58 pm on Nov 26, 2004 (gmt 0)

Under the current allowable AdWords:

Only one ad can be shown for each account for each keyword at any given time.

If the speculation is correct, the following condition will be taken place as I see.

Only one ad can be shown for each site for each keyword at any given time.

I just replaced "each account" to "each site". To combine the above conditions, the new allowable condition will be.

Only one ad per site and per account for each keyword at any given time.

Based on this new condition:

1. One company can show multi-ads provided it has multi-accounts and multi-sites. For example, Ebay can produce multi-ads for ebay.com, eBay.ca, eBay.uk, eBay.au, etc. These ads can be shown at the same time for some keywords or phrases.

2. More than one ad for any site can be approved for each keyword or term. However, these ads can not be shown at the same time. Depending on the ranking position, the ads can be alternatively showed, one at a time.

3. There will be no distinction between site's owner, merchant and affiliates. All advertisers will be treated equally. The ad ranking is the one that is based to select the ad.

Just my imagination.

Qui Gon Jinn




msg:1155037
 3:46 am on Nov 27, 2004 (gmt 0)

There seems to be a lot of talk here by a few that an affiliate should only have quality sites or suitable landing pages with good pre sell & suitable copy presenting the goods, services or products in a favourable hue. This results in a high % or leakage of the flow of traffic no matter how good they maybe, when the consumer experience should be about getting from A to B by the quickest / seamless route necessary as long as there isn't mis-information enroute.

Hasn't the role of the affiliate changed over the years, they are no longer just publishers of websites but also ad agencies / media buying companies or marketing companies who are an extension of the merchants online sales team all rolled into one. Affiliates have a mulitude of hats & Worzel Gummidge heads.

What is the difference between a merchant employing their agency or two to conduct their online marketing / ad buying campaign or out sourcing this to affiliates? Can't they be one of the same entity.

It just seems that affiliates are being referred to as a dirty word. Today's modern affiliate encumbers many various roles and activity is a much broader envelope. No doubt the companies who complain the most are the "above the line" agencies who have generally never seen where they fit into a space apart from frivolously spending their clients budget getting 15% of the ad spend PLUS a 15% kick back from the ppc search engine - with little respect for low CPA & high ROI. Others who complain are probably those without affiliate programs and poor seo rankings.

If Google wants diversity of ads then perhaps those who's ads do not appear should have better product offerings?

btw was referring affiliates as "secondary trough-feeders" a clever deliberate mis-spelling on the word "through" - bottom of the trough as in pond life - lol

Shak - you know I luv ya - "I am sure it crossed your mind folks that $50 billion company knows how to run a business."

All I can say is the bigger they are the harder they fall, I like adwords & their product offering, their revenue may not fall in the short term but it will be to the gain of their competitors in the long term. A better solution for ad relevancy revolves their "1000 impression ruling" by inverting the ctr x bid factor formula dependent on ad postion page etc, which weeds out the repeats gradually, but this is another discussion.

Speculation, but who is actually influencing Googles speculated changes, those with the $$$ or with the promise of $$$.

Who would Google rather deal with affiliates or ad agencies - no brainer really. Even though I am not implying this with Google at all, but it seems another ppc would prefer affiliates not to be in this ad space only agencies or the brands (and this doesn''t include the merchant)

"thats the problem with forums, within seconds the tricks are revealed to the masses"

I totally agree, but there are so many ways to get around the problem "legitimately", but it would be impossible to enforce and create a larger work load for Google. As i hyperthetically create 7 ltd marketing agencies companies with different addresses, directors, login ip address, credit cards, url's & redirect url's each with permission from the merchant to act either as an affiliate or marketing agency and all above board and legitimate. Google stopping this would actually be a restriction of trade. But who says we are not throwing around a few red-herrings with mis-information to throw them of the scent affiliates can be shrewd when need to be.

"So far Google seems pretty committed to the idea of letting users define relevancy by CTR's. Others such as Overture try to use human review as the primary indicator of relevancy."

Interesting and valid point, who's is the authority of validaity, the mass consumer as in Google's case or an individually opinionated editor, I will go with the former. If it ain't broken don't fix it.

So the point to reiterate is.

Affiliates are no longer just publishers of websites but also ad agencies / media buying companies or marketing companies who are an extension of the merchants online sales team all rolled into one. All it takes is a merchant to say we are an out-sourced marketing company using an affiliate networks tracking capabilities or whack it through a redirect to hide the affiliate link. There is still something out there which think "affiliate" is a dirty word from ppc search engine to ad agency to purists.

Right that's enough waffle I'am going to rummage in the pigs swill at the bottom of the "affiliate trough"

[edited by: Qui_Gon_Jinn at 4:44 am (utc) on Nov. 27, 2004]

PPCBidder




msg:1155038
 3:58 am on Nov 27, 2004 (gmt 0)

Google stopping this would actually be a restriction of trade.

Strong point.

MultiMan




msg:1155039
 4:03 am on Nov 27, 2004 (gmt 0)

Same as saying, Google stopping porn ads would actually be a restriction of trade.

davewray




msg:1155040
 4:28 am on Nov 27, 2004 (gmt 0)

Qui_Gon_jin....Mind if I join you in rummaging at the bottom of the trough? I hear there's a pile of gold down there. Oh, and maybe while we are down there we could learn how to build some legitimate, Godly keyword stuffed sites with oodles of affiliate links on those instead ;)

Dave.

p.s. I don't care if I "stand" out, I'm not here to hide my identity, because I don't feel there is anything wrong with affiliates using Adwords as an advertising medium to send traffic and make sales direct at merchants sites. Afterall, it is a free marketplace, and if you can't handle the heat perhaps you should stop playing with matches...

patient2all




msg:1155041
 4:30 am on Nov 27, 2004 (gmt 0)

Well put, Qui.

Putting artificial limitations on one deemed an affiliate would just lead to extra overhead as we continued to try to make our coin. A landing page thrown in simply to satisfy a requirement would just lead to potentially less sales as it took a searcher longer to get where they want to go and would use additional unneeded bandwidth for no good reason.

Under this proposed, though still perhaps imaginary scenario we're discussing tonight, I can already see the Ebays and Amazons offering their affiliates free or low cost websites with unique domains rather than lose that valuable revenue.

Also, if Amazon and Google were to have a fight, who would win? I think Amazon would perfect its search engine and add exciting bells and whistles and whup Google's rump something serious. And as one of the early innovators of the concept of affiliate advertising, Amazon would help to create an affiliate heaven on earth, much to the consternation of certain Googlist snobs who claim our self sacrifice is required in order to preserve the optimum user experience.

Sadly, I don't know if anyone is really at the top attempting to ensure that some purist standards are being adhered to in order to make the Google experience unique. I've reported a few particularly egregious if not illegal schemes that continually turn up in ads for all sorts of unrelated keywords and no action has ever been taken. And I'm not in the habit of snitching except when certain lines are crossed, I'm talking real bad stuff here.

No matter, some of my adgroups are non-pornographic but adult themed and I've always had the very real sense that I am hassled about dotted i's, the way a beat cop might repeatedly roust a street bum thinking it's in the best interest of society. So enforcement of any existing standards, if indeed they exist, is haphazard at best. Those who malign the well intentioned affiliate as somehow diluting the otherwise perfect Google experience are motivated by self-interest rather than any reverence for the Google "user experience".

I will, however, readily concede that the wildcard dynamic insertion serves no useful purpose and has to go. It's a waste of page real estate; just an untargeted search emanating from what presumably was a targeted search. Tonight, I'm seeing people for sale on Ebay!

patient2all

Fryman




msg:1155042
 5:10 am on Nov 27, 2004 (gmt 0)

Thanks for bumping up a thread that is 2 years old...

Geez...

PPCBidder




msg:1155043
 5:31 am on Nov 27, 2004 (gmt 0)

I will, however, readily concede that the wildcard dynamic insertion serves no useful purpose and has to go.

Whoa there patient2all. Dynamic wildcard insertion is one of the most useful features adwords has, when used properly. It allows you to consolidate ads and keep your account nicely organized and clean. e.g. you can create an ad like this:

{Keyword:Fresh Fruit} Store
Fruit from name brand suppliers.
Pesticide free products.
www.myfruitstore.com

With a keyword list:
Apples
Oranges
Bananas
Guava
Kiwi
Grapes
Plums

or even better:
Apples ** 0.10 ** [myfruitstore.com...]
Oranges ** 0.12 ** [myfruitstore.com...]
Bananas ** 0.18 ** [myfruitstore.com...]
Guava ** 0.15 ** [myfruitstore.com...]
Kiwi ** 0.25 ** [myfruitstore.com...]
Grapes ** 0.10 ** [myfruitstore.com...]
Plums ** 0.20 ** [myfruitstore.com...]

Extremely useful!

patient2all




msg:1155044
 9:16 am on Nov 27, 2004 (gmt 0)

Ok PPC,

I see your point. So how about a reasonable limit on how many words one can claim for dynamic insertion?

There are clearly a finite # of fruits and vegtables out there, but I get the sense that these Ebay folks populate lists with what, maybe 10,000 words? I'd say the words in the group should be somewhat related too, what do you think?

BTW, I tried the dynamic insertion once. I found this foriegn language immersion program, so I got the idea to bid on all the languages they taught and had a headline of "Learn? quickly". Guess what, that ad exhausted its 1,000 impressions in about 6 minutes. Know how many search queries contain "French" or "Spanish"? But that was my problem.

So you've taught me it has its legitimate use. We just need some kind of rules for it to play by because you have to admit that those Ebay "guessers" are especially annoying. I can't see how they even make a profit.

So how about a limit of perhaps 200 words and they must all reasonably relate to the phrase they are being inserted into? If indeed, there is some legitimacy to the argument that irrevelant ads detract from the Google "experience", we have to concede a few points. Even though I question whether all this talk about severely restricting affiliates is just part of a scheme to give the goodies to large corporate entities instead of mom and pops.

Under the alleged circumstances, we've got to fight the battles that we can win and relinquish the untenable. That's assuming all parties play fair. I've got this haunting feeling that since Google went public, the biggest corporate entities are promising Google suits that they can bring in greater revenue for Google if the smaller competition is eliminated. The talk of relevancy is really a cloak to ensure that any profits to be had go toward the rich with their sense of entitlement and that any "ghost" slick enough to be turning a profit by themselves sitting in front of their computer in their bedroom must be doing something wrong.

It's analogous to the complaints by wealthy 5th Avenue merchants in NYC who resent the laid off single mother working as a street vendor with a string of costume jewelry wrapped around her forearm trying to eke out a living. The rich see that small profit she's turning to feed her children and say this is wrong, that money belongs to us because we can afford to pay enhorbitant rents to other rich people. She has no overhead to pay like us; she doesn't belong here or deserve that $250.00 a week.

We have no "real domain site", we don't belong here.

It's the same with the one person affiliate operation. We haven't paid for a domain, we don't belong among the rich, we "secondary trough feeders" taking what the rich and established failed to scoop up due to their own lack of foresight.

The small wealthy class, especially those who have enjoyed wealth for generations are so blinded by greed that the thought of someone else being able to carve a profitable niche for themselves is taking money that the rich could have had and they aim to get it one way or another.

I didn't always feel that way. I was once a rabid capitalist, but over the last few years, with few exceptions, we see corporations remaining profitable not by creating innovative products and enhancing their services, but by outsourcing their workforces to giant prisons like Communist China. That in turn causes the remaining workforce to take any abuse thrown at them lest they join the huge ranks of unemployed and underemployed.

How many affiliates got here that way? We're the apple cart sellers of the 21th. century. BTW, I recognize that I'm lucky enough that I'll never starve. I've got several good things going for me so beyond this general entreaty on behalf of all affiliates, I'm fortunate to have plenty to move on to.

The wealthy class would rather quickly destroy the lives of 2,000 families by closing a plant to reap the benefits of slave labor than to try to create innovations that would keep that plant profitable. In the eyes of the rich, it's a greater injustice to have to forego renovations on their third yacht than to see the children of the newly unemployed learn to suddenly have to learn the ways of a food pantry run by charity.

Forgive the way OT rant, but it's getting to be a sadder and sadder world all around and it's clear the strivers who once had a fair chance to improve their lot just by working hard are having opportunities stolen from them bit by bit as the line between poor and middle class continues to blur.

As Mark Twain said (roughly), far more money is stolen with the tip of a pen than the barrel of a gun.

patient2all

instinct




msg:1155045
 10:02 am on Nov 27, 2004 (gmt 0)

Thanks for bumping up a thread that is 2 years old...

Hey Fryman -

You're looking at the "joined" date for the user who posted, the thread date is above and to the right.

;-)

olvio




msg:1155046
 11:16 am on Nov 27, 2004 (gmt 0)

Hi Multiman. I just wanted to know are you selling something on the web? If so, you are an affiliate too. This is rather phylosophical question. If you are merchant with site, merchant account and shopping cart it doesn't neccessarily mean difference from an affiliate. As a merchant you actually do the same resselling of brands, goods and collect some percentage of it. So the solution should to allow only manufacturers be advertised. And even not manufacturers but those who have invented particular product.
Limiting is not the solution. Top affiliates will become merchants, it's easy for experienced people. Weak ones will flood free search listings.
Other billion companies and affiliate networks will loose money (including befree, linkshare etc).
Affiliates is a big part of web bussiness and I would't even be surpised if overture will come to the point when affiliates are allowed without landing pages. If adwords limits this, affiliates will get for yahoo (overtur) or msn in future. No one is going to loose money and chance. Because there still are affiliate listings and they only loose money. I think that ads with "affiliate" or "aff" word are much better than poor doorway page with one banner. I momentarily can see that this particular ad is an affiliate ad and make decision whether to click on it.

Relevancy and irrelevancy question is another issue and it shouldn't be confused with affiliates.

MultiMan




msg:1155047
 2:12 pm on Nov 27, 2004 (gmt 0)

Wow. Listen to all the whines. And they attack me?

These scaredy-cat ghosts are whining now at the top of their lungs because the real truth is that they know that having their own domain name in an ad will not be as "well-known" to users as the (more-often-than-not) "big corporation" for whom they are currently an army of affiliates.

1) Having their own domain means they have less credibility in the users' eyes who have not seen the domain before -- because the sites have no credibility themselves. (Operating on that fear speaks volumes as to why they should not be there then.)

2) These affiliates are not able to convert on their own web-site compared to their redirect URL, because the user does not know who the affiliate really is and if they can trust them.

So the affiliates want to remain ghosts and hide behind their "big corporation's" name.
(How ironic that one Marxist here actually thinks that their being an army makes them the "little guy?" lol AS IF!)

They want to be able to keep hiding because they themselves clearly have no value to offer to the users on their own.

They do not want to be visible because the dark always fears the light.

MultiMan




msg:1155048
 2:17 pm on Nov 27, 2004 (gmt 0)

I will add that I am not saying that ALL affiliates are that way ("dark fearing light", etc.) -- it's only those who are whining and refusing to understand that anonymous redirect URL affiliates are not the same as real domain sites and that, as such, affiliates have no place being in the same adspace together with real sites.

olvio




msg:1155049
 5:57 pm on Nov 27, 2004 (gmt 0)

Multiman:

"So the affiliates want to remain ghosts and hide behind their "big corporation's" name.....
They want to be able to keep hiding because they themselves clearly have no value to offer to the users on their own...."

That's not so. And they are no way hiding behind "big corporation's" name. Both merchants and affiliates (succesful ones) regard each other as a team. This relationshipis the base for succesful affiliate program. Affiliates are not hiding. They work for merchants.

"They want to be able to keep hiding because they themselves clearly have no value to offer to the users on their own...."

Not so either. They offer value both to users and merchants. They take one product of thousands from merchant site and sell it. Let it be a specific book, CD or whatever. If merchant wanted to put all thusands and millions of products with their keywords, promotions, offers etc., it would have to hire hundreds full time workers at his own risk. Now affiliates take the risk of not converting. That's invaluable for merchants. And it's a value to get info in what store the "big red 60-widget" is for sale".

The direct linking is more honest and attractive because it converts better. I dare to say that "real domain" names are hiding much more. I can buy a domain for $8 put a datafeed and I am real trader selling products from amazon or whatever. Is that the value you care about? There are millions of such "real domains"... I am not whining. My opinion is that ad with name "aff" or "affiliate" and relevant merchant name is more honest than weak selling text and graphic landing page uploaded on a domain for $8 predenting to bring value of users.

wayne




msg:1155050
 7:34 pm on Nov 27, 2004 (gmt 0)

I agree with Multi Man on this. This wouldn't be the
end to affiliates, they would just have to have their
own domain and recommend the merchant's site from
their own site. I have always felt that merchants with
affiliate programs should require their affiliates to
send the visitors to their own site first. I can bid
on some keywords on Google, and there will be 4 or 5
ads on the same page going to the same merchant, just
a different affiliate. How does this benefit the user?
If all the affiliate is doing is sending the visitor
direct to the merchant's site, all they are really is
an advertising agency. I think all affiliates should
be required to have their own website. If they're not
able to make sales this way, then maybe they should
rethink about being an affiliate and start up an
advertising agency. I am an affiliate myself and use
adwords, so this is not a bashing affiliates post.

PPCBidder




msg:1155051
 10:58 pm on Nov 27, 2004 (gmt 0)

Alright, here is another question. Take amazon for example. There are hundreds of these 'zshops' and marketplace sellers some of which i have seen advertise on google adwords under www.amazon.com/store/zzzz, same goes for possibly store.yahoo.com/zzzz as an example. A lot of people use services of that type (web sophisticates may frown upon them but they aren't going anywhere any time soon).

Some people use these as their main storefront, but by rumor they may be restricted from advertising them despite having unique enough content. A link to store.yahoo.com/mywoodplace can be a completely separate entity from store.yahoo.com/woodgagdets for example so how fair is it to make them share ad space?

(Yea sure i'm sure they could get their own domain name to hide under, but that isn't really the point here)

If google implements change, they might want to consider changing the rule to duplicate page rather than duplicate domain. When an ad with the domain already in the system gets placed, Google can fetch the page and compare content/URI for duplicity. If the new ad has the same landing page or very similar, then they fight for ad slots, otherwise not.

MultiMan




msg:1155052
 11:10 pm on Nov 27, 2004 (gmt 0)

Quoting in reverse order of your paragraphs...

If google implements change, they might want to consider changing the rule to duplicate page rather than duplicate domain. When an ad with the domain already in the system gets placed, Google can fetch the page and compare for duplicity. If the new ad has the same landing page or very similar, then they fight for ad slots, otherwise not.

It is good that you are at least starting to offer ideas. However, having one's own domain still is one of the largest items which need to be required.

(Yea sure i'm sure they could get their own domain name to hide under, but that isn't really the point here)

You have it backwards. One does not hide behind their domain. It is the affiliates who are hiding behind their anonymity of affiliate redirecting URLs.

PPCBidder




msg:1155053
 11:20 pm on Nov 27, 2004 (gmt 0)

I have been offering ideas from day 1. And i used the phrase 'hide under' on purpose since you like to accuse affiliates of that multiman...

People without programming skills or capital to hire help often hide their cheaper pre-packaged service(s) under a domain bought solely for the purpose.

A yahoo store or equivalent may not be the best business model, but at least a few must be successful with it (huge portion of which do not have a unique domain name) and if they want to spend on adwords why prevent them from doing so?

Furthermore, if they do go and buy a domain - how does that distinguish them anyway? The store will be the same regardless, so how can google claim the right to discriminate between ads with/without unique domain?

MultiMan




msg:1155054
 12:01 am on Nov 28, 2004 (gmt 0)

By having their own domain, they stand on their own. They show they have taken the step of actually committing to their keyword. And the user can see who the real person making the sale is (in sales sites). (Any site set up with false WHOIS information could backfire on the domain as savvy customers could see it as a reason to distrust the site and not order -- so smart site owners would avoid making that foolish mistake.)

kingfish




msg:1155055
 2:27 am on Nov 28, 2004 (gmt 0)

It seems to me in reading the posts the simple way for google to do this is to simply scan a proposed ad to see if the destination URL is already being advertised for the key words purposed. If so does the new ad have a higher bid? If yes the new ad shows, and the old one disappears. (That is essentially an auction) That way it is still automated, still based on relevancy (a more relevant ad means it costs less for a top bid) and there would be no favoritism shown to a merchant, agency or affiliate. Not a bad system, and one I could live with if it comes down this way. For those of you purposing to create simple doorway pages it won’t work. You will get slaughtered because of your dramatic decrease in conversions. Take my advice if it happens take you best ads, buy a domain for each ad, and work on creating a value added experience for the end user on your site and you might be surprised that you end making even more money by creating added value. It also gives you more leverage over your merchants if you advertise more than one merchant.

This 262 message thread spans 9 pages: < < 262 ( 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 > >
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