homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.227.67.210
register, free tools, login, search, subscribe, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Subscribe to WebmasterWorld

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

Google AdWords Forum

This 34 message thread spans 2 pages: 34 ( [1] 2 > >     
An all-win proposal for SE advertising
Relevant, Related, Affiliates, Other -- Segmented for "truth in relevence"
MultiMan




msg:1114874
 12:44 am on Dec 20, 2004 (gmt 0)

I would like to unfold here what I see as a possible solution for everyone in the AdWords market. I also believe it would best serve the user in the end.

It has become clear to me that, in essence, there are four categories of possible advertisers for AdWords.


1. On-topic keyword-RELEVANT providers
2. Off-topic keyword-RELATED websites
3. Affiliates
4. Off-topic websites

When arguing in self-defense for being allowed to still be in AdWords, some have sought to define their ads as being "relevant" when their ads do not actually fall into the first category.

It is, of course, very understandable, that anyone will want to defend their self-interest.

I think I have a way to clear up the confusion and a proposal that could solve the problem. Not only would it best serve the user with clarity, but it could also help people in any of the four aforementioned categories. (Yes, I really am trying to help everyone here.)

First, I need to clear up the issue of RELEVANCE.

It is important not to confuse RELEVANCE with RELATED.

For example, some have argued that when a user searches for a keyword, it is supposedly "relevant" to also display sites which have nothing about the keyword in their sites whatsoever, but which might share some commonality. That is not truly an example of RELEVANCE. It is an example of RELATED. If we were talking about such off-topic sites as appearing in top SERPs, it would be virtually unanimous by all webmasters here that such sites were NOT relevant for SERPs. We might agree that they could be RELATED, but no one would say they were RELEVANT for top SERPs.

For another example, others have also argued that when a user searches for a keyword, it is supposedly "relevant" to also display redirect URLs of affiliates to merchants (or even affiliate-only "sites"). That is not an example of RELEVANCE. It is an example of REDIRECTION -- whether by redirecting URLs or by redirect-link-filled sites. If we were talking about such URLs as appearing in top SERPs, it would be virtually unanimous by all webmasters here that such sites were NOT relevant for SERPs, instead even saying that such URLs are "spam," especially when numerous affiliate URLs would appear next to each other. (I am talking about how we would describe the natural SERPs if we saw affiliate URL after affiliate URL in the SERPs.) We might agree that they could be possibly on-topic, but no one would say they were RELEVANT for top SERPs.

After that, of course, it is wholly unanimous that none of us would say that completely off-topic sites are RELEVANT either.

Now, of course, I understand that we are not talking about SERPs, but Ads. But my point is in showing the true definition of RELEVANCE, and the issue of natural SERPs does inform us of what true RELEVANCE is supposed to mean.

WHY IS ALL THIS IMPORTANT?

It is because the issue of RELEVANCE does matter.

Just like financing sources and banks were eventually required by law to offer "truth in advertising," the day could very well come that laws are created by governments requiring any SE's claim of "RELEVANCE" in its advertising to be backed up by certain standards. For example, like "truth in labeling" laws on food packages, a SE could be required to declare whether it meets a legally-defined standard of real RELEVANCE, or not. Such a new law could then say that any result which does not offer real-domain full-blown dedication to the keyword is not to be called or even implied as being RELEVANT, and the SE must tell the user so. At that situation, then any SE which allowed ads in the other three categories would have to openly say that its ads are "NOT RELEVANT."

Myself, I would like to avoid all of that. But if the issue of RELEVANCE is not solved, then we may very likely see the day when what I would call "truth in RELEVANCE" laws could be forced upon the SEs. I'd like to see that not have to happen.

But the issue of real RELEVANCE is important enough in the growing matter of the internet that it is not far-fetched to see governments taking such kinds of actions.

It must also be said that, while something might be currently legal, that does not necessarily mean that is not shady (even if not intended). Ultimately, it is actually a matter of context. What might be shady in a wrong context would not necessarily be shady in a right context.

For example, most of us would agree that a SE putting paid advertising sites first in listings, but not telling the user that those first listings were "Sponsored Results," would be shady. That would then make paid advertising in a SE appear shady -- in that context.

But in the more accurate context of letting the user know such listings are "Sponsored Results," there is nothing shady whatsoever about such advertising.

Context determines the truthfulness.

Herein lies the problem when a SE allows the other three categories to be advertising in the same adspace with the on-topic keyword-RELEVANT provider sites.

In such a case, the context is not being clarified for the user. They are innocently being confused into thinking it all is supposedly "RELEVANT."

Accordingly, the three not-relevant categories end up diluting the market to the point of uselessness. Doing so makes it unnecessarily harder for the actual keyword-committed on-topic keyword-RELEVANT providers to be "findable" by the users.

This is not to say that a way could not be provided to allow the others to compete as well. (That is the purpose of my post there.)

The thing to remember is that a SE is supposed to be the BRIDGE by which searchers can find the providers. Other capitalistic means are fine for a SE to employ, but any credible SE needs to keep its foremost objective as being that of helping the searcher find those on-topic keyword-RELEVANT providers.

When the natural SERPs prevent the established on-topic keyword-RELEVANT providers from being "findable," an unnatural barrier to serving the user is already created. The BRIDGE has fallen down.

So, when those on-topic keyword-RELEVANT providers are willing to pay for AdWords instead, they should be able to do so and only compete against other on-topic keyword-RELEVANT providers. Making them also compete against anything else only adds yet another unnecessary barrier between the on-topic keyword-RELEVANT providers being "findable" for the users.

It is one thing to compete against one's on-topic competitors. But it is absurd to require "competition" with non-competitors who simply have deeper pockets.

Yet, an argument can indeed be made that the other three categories should have some form of advertising opportunities as well. And the SE could certainly offer a way to capitalize on that too.

So, I propose a solution, and open it for further discussion.

Turn the AdWords column into four segments sequentially. The first group of ads would be On-topic keyword-RELEVANT providers, called "RELEVANT." Under that, in the same column, the second group would be the "RELATED" sites. The third would be labeled "AFFILIATES". And the fourth would be "OTHER" -- for the completely off-topic and unrelated sites that still want to advertise.

In all AdWords advertiser accounts, in each keyword row of their own account, an advertiser would select one of the four categories in which their site qualifies. Then they bid according to sites appearing in that segment. And their ads appear in bidded-position in that segment.

Picture it. Each of the four segments could be backgrounded with a subtle but noticeably different color. They would be placed in the following order, and at the top of each segment would be the following titles by which the user is informed as to what kind of ad it is.


RELEVANT
RELATED
AFFILIATE
OTHER

This could be self-policed by the ongoing advertisers in the keyword reporting abuse when another advertiser is in the wrong category. For example, a site appearing in the RELEVANT segment that offers nothing at all about the keyword, although it does offer some related concepts, could be reported. Then the SE could take corrective action and move the wrongly-placed ad to the appropriate segment. In this case, the ad would be removed to the RELATED segment of advertisers. Etc. The only way a site could be in the top segment would be if it is a real-domain site, with genuine (not just affiliate-linking) on-topic content specifically about the keyword. If not, then they would have to compete with others in one of the other three segments further down the AdWords column.

By having these four segments this way, the truly RELEVANT sites would appear first. And they would only have to compete with other on-topic sites. Indeed, all competitors would only be competing with their own kind.

And the user, seeing the four categories labeled (and perhaps color-coordinated), gets the best benefit of all in thereby having a totally HONEST presentation of all the advertisers from which to make a truly informed choice.

Providing this good context for SE advertising, there would be nothing even appearing near shady or questionable for any advertiser whatsoever. As such, governments would therefore not have a reason to get involved in lawmaking about "truth in RELEVANCE" laws in these matters.

And the SE could make money from all four types of categories instead of banning any of them.

I see it as a true win for everyone all around.

Any thoughts?

 

skibum




msg:1114875
 3:36 am on Dec 20, 2004 (gmt 0)

Relevance is determined by the end user. If they find what they want after clicking on an ad or natural listing, they have clicked on a relevant ad. By the above standards, it could be relevant, related, affiliate or off-topic (by whose standards?)

If anyone runs irrelevant advertising campaigns (which don't generate a profit) for on-going periods of time, then they have mistaken Google for a charity, which it certainly is not.

By the above definition of relevancy, even Google probably doesn't know what relevancy is in most cases because the majority of the ads that are running in AdWords probably don't have the Google ROI tracker thing in place so how can anyone else other than the company looking at their own conversion data know what is relevant and what is not?

Relevancy of ads and search results is determined by the post click actions taken by people who click on ads, nothing more, nothing less.

suzyvirtual




msg:1114876
 3:37 am on Dec 20, 2004 (gmt 0)

multi,
i don't think this is a bad idea. however, there is a fundimental difference between natural listings and ppc listings. natural listings are by far better for finding information, and ppc listings are by far better (if this system is working correctly) for finding things to buy.
before adwords existed, i frequently made searches on google for something i wanted to buy, lets say little blue widgets, and i rarely found a little blue widget outlet. then a lightbulb would go off, and i would go search on oveture, and low and behold, the first (and second and third) listings were for places selling little blue widgets. hooray!
"relevant" ppc listings are not necessarily better than "affiliate" ppc listings. Often, an affiliates ad is more "relevant" to what i am looking for than a non affiliate ad.
just some thoughts...

brightspark




msg:1114877
 9:55 am on Dec 20, 2004 (gmt 0)

Multiman, an interesting idea.

However, my choice is to sub out my adwords marketing to intelligent, hardworking, low cost affiliates. They are not some underclass that needs sectioning off from the 'proper' advertisers, I treat them as a part of my company. Are you suggesting that 'my' advert should be moved to the 3rd section just because it wasn't me who physically placed it? It is 'my' advert, as I end up paying for it if my affiliate department does a good job.

No doubt someone will complain if the ads get put in section 1, and I will complain that they should be back in section 1 - and so the cycle goes. Sounds like an admin nightmare.

I do agree that results swamped by affiliate ads needs to be resolved, just don't think we've found a decent solution that is fair to all.

MultiMan




msg:1114878
 10:45 am on Dec 20, 2004 (gmt 0)

natural listings are by far better for finding information, and ppc listings are by far better (if this system is working correctly) for finding things to buy.

I understand, suzivirtual, but that's not wholly accurate. Froogle is for buying products. AdWords may be the only way for non-spam on-topic sites to be found by the user.

By ruining the SERPs, G$ has forced non-monetized on-topic keyword-RELEVANT authority sites into AdWords just to be found. (The BRIDGE to the user is down.)

But even so, anything that helps the user have clarity about what they're clicking has got to be good for the user.

And more on-topic sites' webmasters (et al) who see that they don't have to be clouded with non-relevant ads next to them could be motivated to advertise too.

Also... yes, I do appreciate your thoughts. :)

MultiMan




msg:1114879
 11:08 am on Dec 20, 2004 (gmt 0)

Thanks for your input, brightspark.

If that's the choice you make for your marketing, that is certainly fine. You choose what you choose to do. I do not have a problem with that at all.

The user should be blatantly informed that those are affiliates when they are affiliates and they should know if the ad is "you" if it is not. The segmentation achieves that with great clarity, and the user is thus more informed in their own choicemaking.

If your affilates are the only ones advertising in their AFFILIATE segment in a keyword, then this proposal could actually be good for them, as it would make them stand out alone (in their segment).

It really isn't and shouldn't be a problem for affiliates to have their own segment, really. And the on-topic committed-to-the-keyword RELEVANT sites should only have to compete against other similar sites in their own RELEVANT segment.

It's good for everyone -- especially the user.

Thanks for your thoughts, brightspark!

wayne




msg:1114880
 3:28 pm on Dec 20, 2004 (gmt 0)

Affiliates currently have to put 'affiliate' in the ad, so the user should already know that it is an affiliate. This solution sounds like it would be a nightmare for Google.

suzyvirtual




msg:1114881
 4:17 pm on Dec 20, 2004 (gmt 0)

"I understand, suzivirtual, but that's not wholly accurate. Froogle is for buying products. AdWords may be the only way for non-spam on-topic sites to be found by the user."

position in ppc is determined by bid (and relevancy as determined by ctr in adwords), this means that the more valuable a companies users are, the more they can afford to bid and the higher their placement. I realise that there are lots of ways to monetize visitors on an informational site, but there is no particular correlation between how great and authority site is and how much money it makes per visitor (which would determine bid to some degree). However, a site that is commercial in nature does make more money per visitor the better (good products, good navigation, good check out process etc) it is, therefore it can afford higher bids, therefore it gets higher placement. The amount one can afford to bid does to a large degree indicate the relevnacy.
If the google SERPs suck so bad that one has to use adwords to get an informaional site noticed, then the whole system is working incorrectly and would eventually collapse--the ppc model is designed for commerce, not information!

MultiMan




msg:1114882
 4:23 pm on Dec 20, 2004 (gmt 0)

Affiliates currently have to put 'affiliate' in the ad, so the user should already know that it is an affiliate. This solution sounds like it would be a nightmare for Google.

I was going to address that "aff" issue in my first post, but I figured I had made it long enough at the start. lol :)

So, thank you for bringing it up, as I do understand that some might reasonably ponder that.

Truthfully, the "aff" is really not sufficient. I know that sometimes people like to say the user is "smart" and othertimes those same people will say the user is "not smart," when it suits their agenda in a specific conversation. (I am not saying YOU did this, though -- I am only saying that people do that frequently.) When it comes to the little "aff" in ads, the user is NOT that informed as to what it really means, and even so, they are certainly no where near as informed as they would otherwise be if affiliate ads were in their own AFFILIATES segment.

Additionally, an affiliate is, for the most part, only a salesperson making a buck (which is fine, but that's all they are); whereas an on-topic keyword-RELEVANT site is totally committed to the keyword and delivering that to the user. Most usually, an affiliate (like an eVowel aff) can go pursue any other number of keywords for their sales, but an on-topic keyword-RELEVANT site is only about its keyword.

Therefore, the latter committed on-topic keyword-RELEVANT site is really not comparable to an affiliate ad. It does not usually have the freedom to pursue other keywords for advertising (because it is specializing in its current keyword). It should not have to share the same adspace. And so, with real RELEVANCE as an important issue, it should not have to compete against anyone other than other on-topic keyword-RELEVANT sites (in its own segment).

You also raise a good point about tech issues. Technically, though, I see this as completely no problem for G$ at all.

The only ones who might potentially cause any problems for G$ would be the sites trying to advertise in segments in which they do not qualify or belong -- and that kind of situation would not occur with the truly on-topic keyword-RELEVANT sites who would be in the RELEVANT segments anyway.

As such, the only potential problems would be by those advertisers who, if they do it too often (having to be moved to the appropriate segment), could eventually face account termination. So, they would want to make absolutely sure they are not playing the games which cause problems anyway. (This issue could even be part of the TOS, for that matter, that an ad not have to be moved too often, etc., or face termination.)

Frankly, I see it as a VERY simple process, and very clear for the user.

Even so, I do appreciate your input. Thanks.

MultiMan




msg:1114883
 4:52 pm on Dec 20, 2004 (gmt 0)

suzyvirtual,

I very much appreciate your thoughts and awareness.

relevancy as determined by ctr in adwords

On that one, I understand that oft-repeated perspective. And I tried to address the issue of RELEVANCE in my first post.

Under all actual definitions, though, CTR would not be a definition of bona fide RELEVANCE. A mass of deceived users could click a false ad, and the resulting high CTR would certainly not demonstrate true relevance by anyone's standards. And certainly, also, if governments ever do get involved, they would define "truth in RELEVANCE" laws in ways that totally inform the user -- much the same way as I proposed, in my trying to provide a means for heading off any such possibilifty of governmment-involvement.

Foreseeing your point of the difference of SERPS and AdWords, I sought to explain this in my original post:

Now, of course, I understand that we are not talking about SERPs, but Ads. But my point is in showing the true definition of RELEVANCE, and the issue of natural SERPs does inform us of what true RELEVANCE is supposed to mean.

You also wrote:

I realise that there are lots of ways to monetize visitors on an informational site, but there is no particular correlation between how great and authority site is and how much money it makes per visitor (which would determine bid to some degree).

And the reverse could be said too. There is no correlation between how much money an advertiser makes and can afford for ads versus how much better it might be than an authority site offering unmonetized intellectual information.

But that's not the point of our conversation anyway. :)

However, a site that is commercial in nature does make more money per visitor the better (good products, good navigation, good check out process etc) it is, therefore it can afford higher bids, therefore it gets higher placement.

Frankly, we are NOT differing on that issue, really -- as long as we are talking about different sites that are all on-topic keyword-RELEVANT sites. (A commercial on-topic site is obviously able to afford more than an on-topic non-monetized informational site. But they are both on-topic and should only be competing with each other.)

The point of my proposal is to separate such on-topic sites from the off-topic, the RELATED, and the AFFILATES, so that the user is fully informed, the adspace is organized instead of being cluttered, and the true RELEVANT sites are sensibly available first for the user.

If the google SERPs suck so bad that one has to use adwords to get an informaional site noticed, then the whole system is working incorrectly and would eventually collapse--the ppc model is designed for commerce, not information!

I very much agree. As I said in my original post, currently with G$, the BRIDGE between the user and the on-topic keyword RELEVANT information sites is already down. I and many others have tried to bring that to G$'s attention, but unfortunately (and frustratingly) G$ is not listening at the moment. I am glad to see you can appreciate that too.

wayne




msg:1114884
 5:25 pm on Dec 20, 2004 (gmt 0)

How many ads would there be per section, and what would happen if, say for a certain keyword, there is
only one ad for sections 1,2, and 4, and 75 ads for
section 3. Google does make a lot of money from affiliates, they don't want to have all the affiliates leave and find other places to advertise. I agree some changes need to be made, but I think stopping affiliate linking direct to the merchant would help a lot. If someone wants to be in business, they should at least have their own website.

Chernelle




msg:1114885
 11:07 pm on Dec 20, 2004 (gmt 0)

MultiMan you said..

....

"Frankly, we are NOT differing on that issue, really -- as long as we are talking about different sites that are all on-topic keyword-RELEVANT sites. (A commercial on-topic site is obviously able to afford more than an on-topic non-monetized informational site. But they are both on-topic and should only be competing with each other.)"

....

I agree with the above statement.

But I fail to see why just because an Affiliate is pomoting the site instead of the site owner it suddenly loses it's relevancy, and needs to be demoted.

Surely if a site is relevant it's relevant irrespective of who promotes it.

MultiMan




msg:1114886
 1:28 am on Dec 21, 2004 (gmt 0)

I absolutely agree 100% with your last sentence there, Wayne. I couldn't have said it better.

As for how many ads per segment to display, in the scenario you described, it would only mean that 2 ads appeared above the 75 affiliate ads -- one in RELEVANT and the next one in RELATED, then the 75 AFFILIATES. As for pushing that last one OTHER ad (category #4) to the bottom of all that (below the 75 affiliate ads), well, that's the segment for completely off-topic advertising anyway. So I am not sure anyone here would be saying that segment should really get too much priority above any of the previous three segments -- those ads take what they get as available.

wayne




msg:1114887
 1:41 am on Dec 21, 2004 (gmt 0)

OK, I think I misunderstood what you were saying at the beginning of this thread. I thought you meant there would be four sections on each page of search results. But what you are saying is all of the first section would show first, then the second group, then the third and finally the last. How do you know an affiliates site might not be more relevant than another merchant above him. The affiliate may be linking to another merchant that has more relevant products, and this merchant may not be advertising on Adwords. Just because he is an affiliate doesn't necessarily make his site less relevant.

MultiMan




msg:1114888
 11:09 am on Dec 21, 2004 (gmt 0)

Hello Chernelle,

I am glad we agree that on-topic sites should only be competing with each other.

For the sake of clarity for users, though, it is best to separate the full-sites from the AFFILIATES.

But I fail to see why just because an Affiliate is pomoting the site instead of the site owner it suddenly loses it's relevancy, and needs to be demoted.

Surely if a site is relevant it's relevant irrespective of who promotes it.

As I said in my post to suzyvirtual

...an affiliate is, for the most part, only a salesperson making a buck (which is fine, but that's all they are); whereas an on-topic keyword-RELEVANT site is totally committed to the keyword and delivering that to the user. Most usually, an affiliate (like an eVowel aff) can go pursue any other number of keywords for their sales, but an on-topic keyword-RELEVANT site is only about its keyword.

Therefore, the latter committed on-topic keyword-RELEVANT site is really not comparable to an affiliate ad. It does not usually have the freedom to pursue other keywords for advertising (because it is specializing in its current keyword). It should not have to share the same adspace. And so, with real RELEVANCE as an important issue, it should not have to compete against anyone other than other on-topic keyword-RELEVANT sites (in its own segment).

I will also add that my own thoughts are not fully settled upon whether the AFFILIATES segment should come before or after the RELATED segment, actually. I do agree that AFFILIATES may tend to be closer to revelance than RELATED sites.

I am sure many of the posters at
[webmasterworld.com...]
would argue that AFFILIATES should be the very next to follow the RELEVANT segment.

At the same time, many of the posters at
[webmasterworld.com...]
might argue that RELATED should be very next to follow the RELEVANT segment instead.

I am inclined to think that AFFILIATES could be second and RELATED third, but the numerous affiliates for one merchant that appear give me reason for hesitation about that.

RELATED vs AFFILIATES for second place. Hmm. It might be interesting to see THAT debate occur here as well. :)

contentsiteguy




msg:1114889
 2:50 pm on Dec 22, 2004 (gmt 0)

This proposal doesn't make any sense for google, users, or advertisers. The problem is you want some sites defined and labeled as relevant in the results. Well if that's the case, then that's saying any other ads that appear in the other categories are their IRREVELANT to the users' search. Worse yet, you want to subconsiously and implicitly imply that any affiliate ads are therefore IRREVELANT.

Also, you say that with the current system, labeling an ad as "affiliate" does not really tell the user anything because most people don't know what that means. So now you want them to categorize, separate, and label all affiliate ads as "Affiliates" and now that's going to solve the problem?

This does not make any sense and clearly only seems to satisfy your particular agenda.

If you are so sure that by labeling them as relevant, affiliate, or other (I have no idea why someone would search for one thing but want "other") then would you have a problem if Google listed the "affiliate" category first and then the "relevant" category second in the results?

And please don't tell me it's because they're "relevant" because affiliate ads can be relevant and nonaffiliate ads can be irrelevant and furthermore every ad can be relevant to one user's search and irrelevant to another user's search whether it's an affiliate ad or not.

*Relevance is in the eyes of the searcher and can change at any time.

For example, I can do a search on hiking wanting some information on where to go hiking so anyhikingstore.com's ad is irrelevant to what I want but Joe Affiliate Marketer's amazon affiliate link to a book called "Great American Hiking Destinations" was JUST what I was looking for. <sarcasm mode on> Shame on google for having such irrelevant stores selling hiking boots in their Adwords results.

When I arrive at the destination I chose in the book Google helped me find, I open my bags and realize I left my hiking boots so I do another search on "hiking" at Google and find all these worthless affiliate links to various books on hiking and finally find a store that sells hiking boots they'll ship me overnight. Why can't google just give me the relevant results I want? <sarcasm mode off>

MultiMan




msg:1114890
 5:29 pm on Dec 22, 2004 (gmt 0)

nonaffiliate ads can be irrelevant

That's very true. Such ads would then only qualify to be in the OTHER section.

contentsiteguy




msg:1114891
 5:41 pm on Dec 22, 2004 (gmt 0)

That's very true. Such ads would then only qualify to be in the OTHER section.

Well then why categorize into an "other" section at all? If they aren't relevant then they should and will be DISABLED because users won't click on them. Heck, advertisers have already have a hard enough time trying to keep relevant ads active especially after google's latest algorithm which takes into account past history for the keyword.

How can putting more irrelevant "other" ads on the search results help the users. This reply only further confirms that you are not looking out for what's best for the user but only how to improve your own little situation.

And you never answered my question either. ;-)

MultiMan




msg:1114892
 6:03 pm on Dec 22, 2004 (gmt 0)

If they aren't relevant then they should and will be DISABLED because users won't click on them. Heck, advertisers have already have a hard enough time trying to keep relevant ads active especially after google's latest algorithm which takes into account past history for the keyword.

I agree with you about off-topic sites, but G$ allows them anyway and the off-topic ads wreak havoc with the existing ads. So, if off-topic sites are NOT going to be deleted right away when discovered, then I only sought to provide a place for them too.

MultiMan




msg:1114893
 6:11 pm on Dec 22, 2004 (gmt 0)

And you never answered my question either. ;-)

I have answered your question more than once in pervious posts on this thread -- I do not want to get in trouble on this board for over-repeating myself and thereby being accused of "spamming."

If an Affiliates are truly "more relevant," let them go to work and develop their own real content to show they are indeed truly committed to the keyword. Simple. :)

BigJas




msg:1114894
 6:17 pm on Dec 22, 2004 (gmt 0)

MultiMan,

I'm not trying to convince you of anything, since your mind was made up long ago. This post is mainly just to point out one fundamental flaw of your newly proposed system.

If two ads have the exact same ad copy, and bid on the exact same keywords, they can still be treated quite differently under your system even though they are the same to the user and to Google.

Sure, there is a problem when you have 3 or 4 different Ebay ads bidding on the word "death" with keyword insertion. Thus, I would propose a more reasonable change in Adwords policy: For the coming year, allow one display URL per search results page. Beginning 2006, allow one URL period. This solution is more effective from a business standpoint because there is a lot of money in adwords and the thing money dislikes the most is drastic change.

Also, from a personal perspective, I believe that adwords affiliate marketing is an example of something very positive about the internet. It gives many people who wouldn't otherwise be able to go into business for themselves that opportunity. Its grassroots, and its a level playing field. All your plans involve erecting barriers to equal opportunity. I would hazard a guess that many, if not most of the PPC professionals out there got their start as affiliates. Think of it as the farm team.

Finally, your vindictiveness towards affiliates indicts your motives.

contentsiteguy




msg:1114895
 6:25 pm on Dec 22, 2004 (gmt 0)

Google's users don't give a flying flip whether the person behind some ad is "committed" to a keyword. Only that the link they click on takes them to what they were searching for.

Luxor1




msg:1114896
 7:25 pm on Dec 22, 2004 (gmt 0)

Multiman,
I would like here to ask for your opinion;
If Yahoo put Adwords ad under certain search term
which leads to yahoo/shopping site from where user
is taken to "true" merchant site and Yahoo doesn't
ship items are they considered affiliates?
Should they put aff. mark or not?
If you search for some scientific or highly technical
terms you would see first listing
Book : widgets, and on the next page Google will offer
you scanned page of the book with your terms highlighted and choice of merchants to buy book from,
now if Google is taking percentages from sales are they
affiliates or not?

My point is; everybody is affiliate of someone.
Many affiliates don't advertise through their websites because they want percentage of sales and
it costs less to link directly to merchant.
It is not very difficult to set up website, everybody has at least some experience doing that.You could set up scripts and pretend to be Amazon yourself but there is no point, if i could advertise successfully through Adwords directly to merchants.The keyword here is
successfully and if you have 1000 impressions with no clicks your keyword is disabled.That disabled
keyword could be mine or you guess from Amazon.
So, who is more relevant?

buckworks




msg:1114897
 7:49 pm on Dec 22, 2004 (gmt 0)

What about merchants who set up their own advertising but use affiliate software to track the effectiveness of various ad placements?

MultiMan




msg:1114898
 1:31 am on Dec 23, 2004 (gmt 0)

This is WebmasterWorld.com -- not AffiliatesWorld.com.

I am here as a webmaster on a webmaster site. G$ purports to be a search engine, which means it intends to be a BRIDGE between internet-users searching for internet-websites.

The internet was created for searchers to find information. The added benefits of ecommerce is a good benefit too.

Content providers do the real work of the internet. Affiliates are lower down on the internet "food chain."

One comparison might be to say that affiliates are "welfare" recipients -- they get their money off others (websites) but do not do any content-work themselves. (I know they might do a little "work" to place their ads, but they do not commit their lives to really create information and products themselves.) Like someone receiving a freebie check for nothing, all that affiliates do for work is position their URL in ads and then take what they raise for money. But the rest of us who actually do the work of the internet are the ones who make the internet what it is. Real content-providers do much, much, much more for the user than merely position an URL in ad. Without us working content-providers, affiliates would have nothing. Welfare (comparitively-speaking).

Now I do not begrudge affiliates an income, but they are not the primaries of the internet.

I understand that affiliates are only going to seek ways to come against any proposal that doesn't allow them to keep getting their near-freebie money as easily. Any post from an affiliate is only about self-interest. It is not about the searcher or the real internet. While I would ask such ones to be more humble in realizing where they really stand on the internet "food chain," I am smart enough to understand that asking that of them is likely "wishful thinking." :)

Now, with that all said, I do understand that many affiliates may indeed work very very hard to position their ads. I do not deny that. But they are not committing to anything but seeking to make money. Again, I don't begrudge that either. The issue is that, in the end, though, none of that qualifies them for being higher up on the internet "food chain."

I would say to such ones, go ahead and make your money, but please just be humble enough to understand where you are and where you stand in priority. I mean no offense, only reality.

Affiliates often scream at me to "understand," but I find it is most often that they are the ones not willing to understand what I am trying to explain. I am hopeful that my attempt to explain this all more fully has been helpful and that we all can have a discussion of good value for the benefit of the internet-users.

I look forward to more good conversation on this proposal.

PPCBidder




msg:1114899
 2:22 am on Dec 23, 2004 (gmt 0)

affiliates are "welfare" recipients

oh, right, now i'm on 'welfare', you are so full of it multiman.

understand where you are and where you stand in priority

I understand perfectly. I stand equal to everyone else, if I pay for an ad I deserve to have it, and its CTR will verify that. If you don't like it, up your bid, bub.

You talk about us ranting in self-interest when you are the one constantly trying to post crap about affiliates to get them out of YOUR market, MultiMan.

Discriminating against a group is wrong, hasn't history taught you anything? Do us all a favor and give up your pointless rants filled with ridiculous analogies, they won't convince anybody of anything except your proven insanity.

[edited by: PPCBidder at 2:27 am (utc) on Dec. 23, 2004]

MultiMan




msg:1114900
 2:25 am on Dec 23, 2004 (gmt 0)

Do affiliates appear in OV?

BigJas




msg:1114901
 2:37 am on Dec 23, 2004 (gmt 0)

Multiman,

The great thing is that you don't get to decide where on the internet food chain anyone is. I say I'm above you. There -- we're even, one opinion for you being higher, one for me.

This really is a silly conversation -- several people proposing moderate adjustments and one guy flouting very extreme solutions to a somewhat minor problem. The silly part is backing it up with some type of imaginary hierarchy. You believe you create content and aren't amply rewarded for it. Cry me a river -- its the story of the world, real hard work is rarely rewarded as it should. This issue is about business, not someone's opinions on the relative statuses of people making a living from the internet.

So, in closing, there should be no automatic rewards for owning a domain. Duplicate affiliate adwords constitute a minor problem, and solutions from someone who seems to regard affiliate marketing with a vitriolic hate ought to be taken with a whole package of salt.

MultiMan




msg:1114902
 2:46 am on Dec 23, 2004 (gmt 0)

On any forums, I tend to ignore attacks that come from posters who just joined the forum the same day of their attack. ;)

mnzhou




msg:1114903
 3:36 am on Dec 23, 2004 (gmt 0)

Affiliates will pay for the price if the site is unrelated to the keywords. The ROI will be poor and the cost will be much higher. Money talks.

In the other hand, I do think Google might have their own standard of relevance which they use to examine each Ads on their page. They couldn't put their brand name at risk.

This 34 message thread spans 2 pages: 34 ( [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