meaning that only one affiliate can bid Merchant for Adwords... that correct?
What about simply changing the rule to prevent the cloaking of affiliate links to make them look like the real McCoy... much simpler.
Of course if I have interpreted that completely wrong - then I look a fool... but hey it is early morning! :)
The question I would have is:
One advertiser only or the domain owner + 1 affiliate ad? If one ad only does the domain owner automatically trump the affiliate?
ppc, Shak's rumour as stated seems to indicate that only one - either the affiliate or the advertiser. I guess that leaves the affiliates looking to advertise on lesser known keywords that the site owners aren't using. I don't see how that does anything other than completely kill affiliate advertising.
I'm startled that Google would do this. Other than the little tempest in a teapot over this issue here, I don't think most advertisers or consumers have any problems with the current system. But I can see Google taking a huge drop in revenue. Personally it's good for me (less competition for the campaigns I manage), but really, what the heck does Google get out of this that is worth the untold millions in lost revenue?
What's the difference if an affiliate places an ad to the merchants site or if the merchant places the ad? Why would the search engine care, it all goes to the same place. It's a fantastic deal for the merchant, they don't have to pay for an ad that doesn't result in a sale. They get a salesman who works on commission only and the if the affiliate has no real site, there are no other products or merchants to compete with.
I rarely use ppc ads because there are always many more clicks than sales. People shopping online seldom go to one site and make a purchase. It's too easy to shop around and compare so that is what they will do.
If I use a ppc ad you can be sure I want people to go to my web site first. If they don't make a buy at least they have seen my web site and will hopefully find it useful enough that they will come back.
If you do a search for blue widgets and all ads are affiliate links going to the same merchant and people click all the ads. Sure they are going to get aggrivated when they keep winding up in the same place, but you can bet there will be a lot of affiliates also losing money. Seems the practice would eventually kill itself.
If this is true, I can only say that I am very positively amazed.
Maybe being one voice here CAN make a difference, presenting a logical argument which G$ will finally listen to.
I know many affiliates have been angry at my "one man war" on this matter, but this is the only thing that makes sense for legitimate AdWords ads.
Of course, we still need to await confirmation of this, though.
(Now... if only G$ will return to honest natural SERPs...) :)
I would imagine that most affiliate pro's don't send traffic direct to the merchant anyway & will be unaffected by any new rules. And if "typical" affiliate ads are booted out, I won't mind at all (obviously your average affiliate will have a different opinion).
=> Short term revenue drop for G, but greater credibility for adwords in the long term.
IMO, the problem is only when a specific domain gets up to 5,6,7,8 ads. If there are 2 or 3, it just shows that the merchant is successful and likely relevant - which the surfer can take into consideration.
I associate it to the yellow pages as an example. Total dominance would be unfair, but the larger institutions should have the right to larger ads and more space. Limiting to 1 ad per domain is like restricting everyone to 8pt text in the yellow pages.
In my opinion, the model of domain owner + 2 more 'open' slots would make the most sense, from almost all angles of the equation. User satisfaction, revenues, and also fairness.
If I had to flesh it out further I would do this:
1-2 total ads (limit 1 per domain)
3-6 total ads (limit 2 per domain)
7+ total ads (limit 3 per domain)
[edited by: PPCBidder at 3:35 pm (utc) on Nov. 25, 2004]
Thats potentially a big hit to a lot of people.
So shak they now allow you to make photocopies as well as make the tea at the plex :)
|So shak they now allow you to make photocopies as well as make the tea at the plex :) |
I am sticking at it dude 12 hours a day, 7 days a week, rumour has it that they are gonna IPO soon, and then I'll have made it big time, or so they keep saying.
|early reports indicate an "auction" based system where advertisers fight it out on who can bid, and only 1 advertiser per site as such. |
As I read that one sentence over and over again, I am becoming increasingly intrigued.
It causes me to wonder, does this mean that we will be able to have some form of a "bidding vote" in order to oust or "vote off" an irrelevant ad that shows up in our keyword? The possibility is fascinating, although potentially problematic. Either way, very interesting.
think $$$ instead of :) :) :)
I doubt it means that.
More like they have say 5 affs put in a bid for that key word top one wins.
However.... That is now the bid forever for them on that key word. They may bid $1.10 when all they pay currently is 75c, I see it as a way for google to up bids on words and cut out the downward cycle.
Very clever if its true. I wonder if those two blokes that run G are related to Bill Gates? I think we should be told......
What I have noticed in the last week is the new NORMAL. I used to try for a certain kw but sooner or later I would get "at risk" and then it was discontinued. Now the same kw stays normal no matter what. I think from now on as long as your willing to pay for space your ad will show. It will be more like Overture. Highest bidder wins.
Nah, can't be.
What about sites that affiliate with 50 different companies and also have their own content? How will google know? And is the ad for the self generated content or for the affiliate?
With some of our sites it is not even possible to tell who we are affiliated with.
This will never work.
As I understood, Google now limits to a single ad per site (based on the domain in landing page) for any given keyword or term.
Since most of merchants forbid the affiliates overbidding them, the merchant will likely win the bid for any highly conversion keyword. Affiliates will look for the hidden keywords which the merchants have not thought of to win the bid. Once, the merchants have found out these hidden keywords based on their trackings, the keywords will be taken over again. Is this a fair game?
>>As I understood, Google now limits to a single ad per site (based on the domain in landing page) for any given keyword or term.
Why would an affilate use the merchant's domain for a landing page?
Uh, because it's more profitable that way?
Interesting to see how it plays out. Could do a number of things:
Lower tier merchants may get a big boost from affiliates looking for new merchants to promote
More affiliates get into building sites and the SERPs have tons more affiliate sites in them
Merchants start to lose the SEO game as a result
More keywords start to attract bids
Super Mega corps - Google & the merchants have more control
Merchants with affiliate programs still have to pay big bucks for their TMs
Many more private label sites
If this plays out, it could save Google from having to go back through all the current ads to pull them out
This must be Google's next route to more $$$'s.
Short term loss. But:
1. No chance of being sued for people bidding against brands
2. Bidding system for the ad in question - will favour the big spenders that can take a hit to start with to get rid of the competition. So instead of lots of $0.10's they'll have a $0.8 getting all the clickthroughs (kerching)
3. Credibility = increase advertiser base
4. Steal a march on Overture = steal advertisers?
So all in all a long term gain I would have thought especially when you think about:
Less server work, smaller ad accounts, more cash!
Just a thought or two!
This thread is making fascinating reading. I believe that the 'auction' will be no different than the bidding that already goes on as part of PPC. The only difference is that they will only allow one ad through for a particular merchant. This may be the merchant himself or an affilifate.
Somebody mentioned above that merchants do not allow affiliates to outbid them. I've never seen this and surely this would be impossible to enforce (how would an aff. know what the merchant is bidding)?
As ever, only the fittest will survive! Bring it on that's what I say!
Couldn't an affiliate just register a domain and redirect it to the merchant account and bypass the 1 advertiser per URL idea?
Yes but the Adwords team proof read (and test) all ads and would reject an ad with a redirect.
|Couldn't an affiliate just register a domain and redirect it to the merchant account and bypass the 1 advertiser per URL idea? |
Yep - but then he would have to bid against himself to be allowed the 1 slot alongside the Merchant for that keyword term.
It's one available position for a keyword term:
"widget a" would allow Widget A Ltd + One other site to advertise against this term.
Another thought about all this that seems liek it could be quite cunning:
If you take away a range of possible keyword terms to bid on then the scenarios will be:
1. Affiliates simply reduce number of avenues for them to make money
2. Affiliates bid up on the term in order to be the 'chosen one'
3. Affiliates choose similar keyword terms without the branding - all of which will be of a higher value in order for them to get a better placement due to other affiliates in the same boat doing the same thing
Therefore, as you can see Google probably doesn't lose too much revenue - in fact reducing the choice actually pushes other terms higher in value probably offsetting the loss.
Plus making the one affiliate slot one of only two ads, ensures a higher bid value for the clickthrough that presumably from less choice will be clicked through on more times.
Finally, Google also gains valuable PR from the fact it's reducing blatant brand bidding.
Kind of clever one thinks.
|Yes but the Adwords team proof read (and test) all ads and would reject an ad with a redirect. |
What about registering a domain that goes to redirects to merchant.com (no affiliate link). Once approved, you could 'theoretically' change the redirect to then include the affiliate data.
ya but any if someone did that for a high traffic term, you can bet the other bidders will report the guy doing it.
I have several thoughts on the matter.
The "average" affiliate pro does make big money just using Adwords and other PPC's. So, if you've heard otherwise, you've heard wrong.
This move not only affects Adwords advertisers, it also affects those of us who publish Adsense. Without allowing a whole torrent of affiliates to bid on keywords, the adsense "pool" of advertisers will shrink (for certain industries)....and what type of effect will this have on average EPC paid out? Depending on how crazy these "auctions" become for certain keywords, it could mean more earnings per click for publishers, or less.
With regards to the auction style. I'm curious as to how often they will run an auction for the keywords. Will it be a continual auction? Once per week, once per month? I could see those with big egos who REALLY want a keyword bidding absurd amounts just to secure a keyword and keep the "peons" out of contention.
Just my thoughts, feel free to comment.
In addition, I could see several disgruntled affiliates getting together and clicking the hell out of the winning advertisers ad, so that their advertising budget is exhausted in a matter of days...then what? No ad for that term the rest of the month? I'm not saying I would condone this, but I could see it happening...And, as a result, this would just lead to more fraudulent clicking activity.
Be careful what you call whining.
Who's whining now, eh?
| This 262 message thread spans 9 pages: 262 (  2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ) > > |