|Can't Afford Google Adwords =(|
Maximum CPC requirement even though no other adds...?
| 12:33 am on Jun 6, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I suppose I'm spoiled by goverture, but sure would be nice if I didn't have to pay the minimum cpc google requires for terms that have no competing advertisers. The terms are relatively specific phrases, e.g. "wayne's modified super widgets".
The more general term (widgets) has a high cpc, and I can understand that competition is high, and so thus the price, but for the more obscure term, the price is also high (over .25 per click). The high price might work for some businesses, but not for what I'm trying to sell (margins and conversion are too low).
Has anyone found a way around the minimum CPC for obscure terms. I tried changing the term to "exact" (by using brackets instead of quotes in the keyword list for the add) but to no avail.
Just feels wrong to have to pay more for a phrase that nobody else is bothering to compete for.
| 12:42 am on Jun 6, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Well, if the people advertising for just widgets are paying more... It makes sense that their ad would also show for your complex widget phrase. When you type in your phrase how many ads do you see. Is is still zero.
| 1:30 am on Jun 6, 2002 (gmt 0)|
yes I and several others have has the exact same problem (there have been several threads on this in the past month or so.
The min price generally gets more expensive the more terms you add, completely different from overture. This also unfortunately discourages niche advertisers, and I note the Adwords seem very very general and sometimes even irrelevant on many SERP pages.
Ive found no way around it. I guess it is just the nature of the way Adwords works, and it doesn't work for us, so we have to keep on sending our money over to overture!
| 3:15 am on Jun 6, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Many ads do appear for the more specific key phrase lisa, as chiyo points out. Besides making specific phrases very expensive to advertise for, it waters down the results that appear (along the right) which can't be good for adwords in the long term (people will lose interest in the whole program unless the ads remain relevant) :-(
Another thing that's not too cool, for several of the terms in my advertising list, I'm "forced" into the top posistion. I don't have a choice in what to pay, but have to pay the minimum, even if they min they list puts me at the top though being top is not so important to me. Especially if all the ads are irrelevant, then wouldn't hurt much to be listed last, since most of the first ads will be ignored if not relevant ;-)
| 11:59 am on Jun 6, 2002 (gmt 0)|
From the auction point of view it makes sense that broader, higher competition phrases cost more. This can make AdWords look expensive for niche terms, but sometimes cheaper than the main competition for the broader word combinations.
I would hope to get more return from the more targeted phrases. From the return on investment point of view it seems to make sense to charge more per click.
A mixture of Overture and AdWords makes sense to me, with the spend concentrated on the best predicted return on investment. Most of the sites I'm involved in concentrate on free listings, with paid clicks as an occasional supplement.
| 12:51 pm on Jun 6, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Here's something I've been trying that you might want to experiment with: put the terms you're interested in into your account, set the bid limit at whatever you're willing to pay (even if it's below the suggested minimum), and just leave it at that. My theory is that such a listing might pop up through the cracks and get a few impressions once in a while, as other advertisers come and go, reach their daily budget, etc. I'm working with some fringe terms so don't have enough stats yet to tell if this actually works, but it's fun experimenting.
| 3:27 pm on Jun 6, 2002 (gmt 0)|
You are right ciml, the return on investment for the specific terms should actually be greater and so paying more for them should not be an "issue". I suppose this leads to the next question... what are the terms really worth. We have calculated that a ppc of .10 - .15 will work with our current conversion rates and margin levels. Yet, many terms sell for .25 or more.
We have seen many advertisers begin their campaign, let it ride for 6 to 8 weeks, and then give up on it. That's too bad, cause they drive up the price, thinking they're return will be such and such, then make the terms unnafordable for all until they come back to earth and realize conversions are difficult to achieve. A steady stream of newb advertisers keeps the prices inflated. I don't know what formula google uses to calculate their cpc, but it's too much.
Google can argue that charging what the market will bear is fair business, and it is, but the program will not be used by solid operations, with the experience to know what is worth being involved in and what is not. Whether this hurts google (and goverture) or not, who can say.
| 4:17 pm on Jun 6, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I agree with your analysis, rumple. I think that for some phrases, Google is missing out on advertising spend because of the price structure. I'm sure that Google take their yield management seriously and we are still fairly early in the life of PPC AdWords so changes may happen.
If people are happy to spend a lot on paid advertising then it helps to keep Google as a very large, frequently updated and highly relevant free service (compared with most other engines). It also helps to make SEO look cost effective;).
As for whether it's worth it, that comes down to conversion ratio and profit per sale. For some sites, $10 per visitor is great value, for others $0.10 per visitor is far too expensive.