homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.235.39.132
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member

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

Google AdWords Forum

This 154 message thread spans 6 pages: < < 154 ( 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 > >     
Are you currently as happy with Adwords as you were last year?
bostonseo




msg:1151651
 6:40 pm on May 2, 2006 (gmt 0)

Simple yes or no question:

Are you as happy with Adwords as you were last year?

 

rbacal




msg:1151771
 8:07 pm on May 18, 2006 (gmt 0)

Well, there's no need to argue with you, you seem set in your ways. Everyone deserves a fair shot, and if you were the affiliate, you'd think the same way, if you were Nextel, you wouldn't want those other ads either. As an advertiser, you have a biased point of view about advertising, and you can't really say for sure what normal surfers want.

I'm not keen on being surrounded by affiliate ads all selling the same thing, from, ultimately, the exact same source. But isn't the real question, this:

How do the majority of affiliates ADD VALUE to a) the original seller, and, b) the buyer?

I'm not sure that most actually do add much value, and if they have in the past, I'm not sure they will in the future. With affiliates from major companies, I do expect market forces to exert themselves, for the companies that know the net, resulting in much less concern for affiliates long term. FOr those that haven't a clue, and for the fly-by-night companies that exist on roping in affiliates, I suspect those will still be around.

Like a lot of companies, on say, clickx.

Richard Overvold




msg:1151772
 8:27 pm on May 18, 2006 (gmt 0)


How do the majority of affiliates ADD VALUE to a) the original seller, and, b) the buyer?

I certainly ad value to my merchants by advertising them, and/or for them.

The buyer also gets what they want.

The merchant should never lose money bidding on terms. They simply use affiliates to shield themselves from losing money on keywords that lose money.

As an example, a merchant is selling something for $100. They pay 10% commission to affiliates. Say for keyword 'x', the affiliate pays $100 to make a sale on their product. The affiliate loses $90 on that keyword, but the merchant still makes a killing. Rather than the merchant spending the $100 and breaking even on the sale.

On the flip side, the affiliate could make a huge ROI on a keyword, and the merchant still makes their killing.

Overall, it's more cost efficient for the merchant to let affiliates figure out what works and what doesn't.

Quantam Goose




msg:1151773
 8:37 pm on May 18, 2006 (gmt 0)

Well, I think crinsongirl is right to a certain extent. Secondary or affiliate sites are going to be less of a necessary adjunct to mainline product manufacturers over time. But here is the rub. Suppose you are interested in NEXTEL PHONES. In reality there are Motorola phones, samsung phones, nokia phones, etc. that are branded NEXTEL PHONES or have sims that make them NEXTEL PHONES. You also have "used" NEXTEL PHONES, nib older NEXTEL PHONES (from some discounters), etc.

If the search engines all use the logic that 10.00 per click from Nextel is the desirable goal, not only the affiliates will be shut out, but ALL alternative sources of those items called NEXTEL PHONES.

Do we really want Google, or any other major SE to be a manufacturer approved and controlled marketing arm?

I gather from this thread that what google did was not evolutionary but abrupt. That is just bad business tactics. And lastly much of the internet/computer successes are heavily influenced by what people percieve to be a little "edgy" or "in". As bill gates once said when asked about the ascendency of Microsoft over IBM - "they had the misfortune to be perceived as the "old" thing as opposed to the "new" thing - and once you are labeled such it is very difficult to dig your way out' And that is a direct quote. Google better pay attention. Google should look seriously at how a company gets on the wrong side of in/out and take heed!

rbacal




msg:1151774
 9:19 pm on May 18, 2006 (gmt 0)

I certainly ad value to my merchants by advertising them, and/or for them.

The buyer also gets what they want.

Perhaps you don't understand the "value added" phrase, or maybe you do, and you haven't elaborated. I can accept that you "might" be bringing in customers that would OTHERWISE not buy from your merchants. Might is operative. Mind you, if they took your commissions and put them into really excellent ad campaigns in different media, I bet they'd do better.

But the stuff on buyers getting what they want? You completely ignored the question. What value do you add for the buyer? What value do you provide the buyer that could or is not provided by the merchant, itself?

That's a damned important question if one wants to explore whether affiliate programs will continue in the future, because bottom line, people will ultimately learn they can go direct, and merchants will discover that as customers mature in terms of Internet knowledge, they will go direct to the merchant.

venrooy




msg:1151775
 9:39 pm on May 18, 2006 (gmt 0)

What value do you add for the buyer? What value do you provide the buyer that could or is not provided by the merchant, itself?

That is an irrelevant question - That is like asking what value does a salesman bring the buyer? The affiliate is the salesman of the internet. A good affiliate knows his way around the psychology of the surfer, like the salesman knows the psyche of the shopper.

Affiliates will always be around, as long as they can make a sale. As a merchant, I will ALWAYs use affiliates. They provide me with free advertising, and don't get paid unless I get paid.

Richard Overvold




msg:1151776
 9:45 pm on May 18, 2006 (gmt 0)


But the stuff on buyers getting what they want? You completely ignored the question. What value do you add for the buyer? What value do you provide the buyer that could or is not provided by the merchant, itself?

When have you ever seen an actual merchant bid on a long termed phrase that an affiliate bids on? The value is that they will probably find what they are looking for no matter what they search for. Plus, they'll have plenty of options. I personally don't see Nextel bidding on "inexpensive motorola phones in florida". I see nothing but a buncha buy dot com ads, and affiliates. Where's nextel dot com? Google's on pace to remove all these buy dot com sites, and the affiliates.

Richard Overvold




msg:1151777
 9:46 pm on May 18, 2006 (gmt 0)


Affiliates will always be around, as long as they can make a sale. As a merchant, I will ALWAYs use affiliates. They provide me with free advertising, and don't get paid unless I get paid.

That was my point exactly.

rbacal




msg:1151778
 11:12 pm on May 18, 2006 (gmt 0)

That is an irrelevant question - That is like asking what value does a salesman bring the buyer?

Uh huh. So you think that the perceptions of the person who actually supplies the money to you as an affiliate - the ultimate customer, in fact, is irrelevant to whether you exist or not?

I think that says it all, actually, and your comment has a lot more meaning to me than it might mean to you. But perhaps it epitomizes an attitude, or I'd actually say ignorance.

I hope those with that attitude -- that adding value to a customer is irrelevant, eventually reap the results down the road, and I expect they will.

BTW, in case anyone is wondering, I have been an amazon affiliate for years,(along with some other programs) run my own affiliate program, at least half-heartedly. The truth is there are good affiliates, and bad, just as with merchants. But I sure as hell know that any affiliate who's doesn't give a rat's a** about whether they actually add value to a customer's experience is a bad affiliate, and perhaps not an exceedingly bright business person.

teenwolf




msg:1151779
 11:53 pm on May 18, 2006 (gmt 0)

I just think of affiliates as like car salesmen

Some car salesmen work for extrememly reputable companies and do a great deal of business. Much like any profession, there are exceptional car salesmen and "not-so-great" car salesmen.

Perhaps it is time for you to rethink your stance on affiliates.

Much as some may think of affiliates as car salesman, I compare people who make statements like this to people who negotiate sticker price with car dealers...

They think they know what they're talking about but they don't.

CrimsonGirl




msg:1151780
 1:33 am on May 19, 2006 (gmt 0)

It's worth remembering that at one time (a few years ago) when AdWords was relatively new, they limited the number of ads that could be shown for each keyword (it was like 6 or 7). I remember many times putting in a bid and getting the message that my ad would not be shown, because a minimum bid of $XX was needed. If you bid below the top 7 visitors, your ad wasn't going to show up.

They subsequently dropped that policy and allowed an unlimited number of ads on any search term. Advertisers could bid $0.05 for anything, and there were often 30 or more ads for a given keyword. Around this time, they started the AdSense program, and people quickly built sites centered on high-priced words in an attempt to do arbitrage. They bid $0.05 on AdWords and hoped visitors would click on ads for the same topic paying higher.

Google's more recent policy change, which reinstates some minimums on some keywords (I can never figure out exactly how it works) is somewhat a return to that older policy.

CrimsonGirl




msg:1151781
 1:40 am on May 19, 2006 (gmt 0)

It's also worth looking at analogies to other media. Nobody thinks newspapers and magazines have a moral obligation to accept all ads. If an issue sells out before an advertiser places his ad, the advertiser doesn't go on an internet message board and complain that the publication won't increase its page count to accomodate all would-be advertisers. Yet that is what happens when Google institutes a similar policy.

Nobody complains when TV networks limit the amount of commercial time in primetime programming. Nobody says that the networks should sell time to both the big advertisers and the small budget advertisers for their own good. Yet people attempt to tell Google to do something similar for its own good.

CrimsonGirl




msg:1151782
 1:51 am on May 19, 2006 (gmt 0)

Also, in the heady days of the dot com boom, theorists would talk of the web resulting in "disintermediation". Disintermediation meant cutting out the middle man, allowing the supplier to sell directly to the consumer.

Maybe that was the pipe dream of ivory tower theorists. It's probably too soon to tell. But in some industries, there has been disintermediation. Take travel. There used to be travel agents in every neighborhood who had as their bread and butter the simple booking of airline flights. I used to buy airline tickets through travel agents because it was just as cheap as getting them through the airline and the agent had computerized access to all flights on all airlines. Calling the individual airlines was a pain. Now the travel agency business has shrunk, because people have access to airline schedules easily on the net. The travel agents, who are affiliates in a way, were made less relevant by widerspread use of the web.

Similarly, personal computers were once sold mostly through retail stores. Now the computer companies will sell you a machine from their website. The retailers, who are like affiliates, have been disintermediated.

Of course, the web allowed the creation of new intermediary businesses, like affiliate programs. But there is nothing to say the number of affiliates in the early days of the web will remain stable as things evolve. The number of retailers selling airline tickets and computers did not stay stable.

rbacal




msg:1151783
 2:04 am on May 19, 2006 (gmt 0)

Of course, the web allowed the creation of new intermediary businesses, like affiliate programs. But there is nothing to say the number of affiliates in the early days of the web will remain stable as things evolve. The number of retailers selling airline tickets and computers did not stay stable.

I wasn't familiar with the term, so thank you for introducing me. I think we are going afield -- many of these posts probably don't have much to do with the original post.

The travel industry may have lost ticket agent brick and mortar (partly due to severe restrictions on the part of airlines on payouts to agents, btw), but on the other hand, it spawned online discount houses like travelocity, etc which also themselves spawned affiliate systems. So, I'm not sure there was real loss of mediating companies, so much as shifts.

That said, I think it's useful to look at Internet history, and at basic economics. The failure of so many internet companies around 2000 had multiple causes, but one fundamental one is that they simply did not create, provide or add value to enough sources of money. Based on old models, of faulty models they "thought" they would. When companies discovered the models didn't work (for that time) they bailed in terms of capital, in advertising money. The bubble burst.

When you have a large number of people offering the exact same thing at the same price, and when those people require and use no skills that their "competitor affiliates" don't have, the situation is non-sustainable, particularly when almost none of them add any unique value to the enterprise. If everyone can do it, almost nobody will eventually be able to make a profit.

If all you need to succeed as an affiliate is a website using feeds, and some money to buy adwords, it attracts thousands of people all alike. It can't work over time without changing. Because there is no sustainable value added.

Finally.

Those who can, create. Those who can't affiliate.

and...

Money for nothing and your clicks for (almost) free.

pdivi




msg:1151784
 2:05 am on May 19, 2006 (gmt 0)

CrimsonGirl, as you said, Google is not under any obligation to do anything...I expect them to serve us in whatever way they think maximizes their profit. But this last round of changes was so drastic, and burried so many of us, that you have to wonder whether Google has considered the long-term effects of its actions. Many of us are working hard to recoup lost G volumes on other networks. Google has opened a window for other networks to grab our ad dollars and loyalty.

Google owes us nothing. But we don't owe Google anything either. So when Google makes us feel like the bottom could drop out at any given moment, it diminishes the value of the service and creates an opportunity for competitors. I just don't see how that's a great strategy.

Richard Overvold




msg:1151785
 2:09 am on May 19, 2006 (gmt 0)


Nobody complains when TV networks limit the amount of commercial time in primetime programming. Nobody says that the networks should sell time to both the big advertisers and the small budget advertisers for their own good. Yet people attempt to tell Google to do something similar for its own good.

I had a discussion about this not too long ago with a pal. I pointed out that in the internet, there isn't a limitation so to speak. For instance, Superbowl commercials. There's only so much airtime for that. It's almost like how the value of land vs automobiles work. Land is so valuable because there is only so much of it. Vehicles aren't, because they are made day in and day out which is why they never hold value. Same with advertising, Superbowl ads are so expensive because there's only so much space to advertise, and it goes to the highest bidder, yet, the internet is so big that there really isn't a barrier. But Google seems to want to put a barrier up.

venrooy




msg:1151786
 2:12 am on May 19, 2006 (gmt 0)

Uh huh. So you think that the perceptions of the person who actually supplies the money to you as an affiliate - the ultimate customer, in fact, is irrelevant to whether you exist or not?

The job of making the customer happy is not up to the affiliate. It's up to the Merchant. However a good affiliate doesn't take long to recognize which merchants make their customers happy.

I agree with you that the customer's happiness is foremost. But that is not the job of the affiliate. The affiliates only job is to bring the customer and the merchant together and make a sale. It's then the merchants job to make the customer happy.

You can preach about customer satisfaction, and how affiliates should operate all you want. But if you do it on this board, you're probably preaching to a lot of preachers. I'm a merchant, but I'm also an affiliate. I spend more money on affiliate advertising in one month, than most people make in a year. And I always make at least 100% profit on what I spend.

There's always going to be people out here that know how to make a webpage and market items better than the rest. And those people are going to be affiliates

rbacal




msg:1151787
 2:54 am on May 19, 2006 (gmt 0)

The job of making the customer happy is not up to the affiliate. It's up to the Merchant. However a good affiliate doesn't take long to recognize which merchants make their customers happy.

I did not comment on making the customer happy. Not once. Please, I would really appreciate it if people would at least read carefully before they reply...that would be helpful.

I repeat. It's about added value, both real, and perceived on the part of the customer (and of course the merchant).

If there isn't added value, the whole thing isn't sustainable, because you, as an affiliate have no value different from any other affiliate, or for that matter, going direct to the merchant.

If your idea of making a living on the net is the electronic equivalent of passing out handbills dressed in a funny bear suit on main st., go for it. But don't expect me to be happy if there's a bear suit guy every ten feet as I walk down the street, passing out the exact same handbill.

If people are proud to have the skills to wear a bear suit, and pass out handbills, more power to 'em. But frankly, I aint impressed, on Main St. or on adwords.

(and I'm thinking of a few companies I can recall ran affiliate programs, quite successfully, then realized that after the company growth stage, they simply didn't need all the affiliate clones that didn't add any value.

Richard Overvold




msg:1151788
 3:02 am on May 19, 2006 (gmt 0)


I did not comment on making the customer happy. Not once. Please, I would really appreciate it if people would at least read carefully before they reply...that would be helpful.

I repeat. It's about added value, both real, and perceived on the part of the customer (and of course the merchant).


Since you seem to be the expert on what customers want, define added value to the customer, obviously nobody knows what exactly it is you're talking about. Don't beat around the bush, tell it like it is.

hdpt00




msg:1151789
 3:58 am on May 19, 2006 (gmt 0)

It's also worth looking at analogies to other media. Nobody thinks newspapers and magazines have a moral obligation to accept all ads. If an issue sells out before an advertiser places his ad, the advertiser doesn't go on an internet message board and complain that the publication won't increase its page count to accomodate all would-be advertisers. Yet that is what happens when Google institutes a similar policy.

This is not related at all, sorry. That is a time constraint, what google is doing is forcing people to spend more when it shouldn't always be necassary.

rbacal




msg:1151790
 4:00 am on May 19, 2006 (gmt 0)

Since you seem to be the expert on what customers want, define added value to the customer, obviously nobody knows what exactly it is you're talking about. Don't beat around the bush, tell it like it is.

Actually, I've written two books on customer service, and done hundreds of seminars on the subject, but I still never call myself an expert on anything (I promise I won't flog myself...err..that didn't come out right) Except come to my website - eatmyshortsyoubuggercustomeryou.com (just kidding).

Actually the customer really gets to define added value. But value added is a very basic business concept, so I'm a bit surprised it needs defining.

When you provide (add something) to the customer experience, that the customer wants or needs, it "adds value". Example: I go into Store A. The salespeople don't know the product, can't provide advice except to point me to the sales brochure. All they have to offer is the "opportunity" to buy the thing. I can get that opportunity at a thousand places.

I go to store B. Their staff are informed, not pains in the butt, provide real informed advice. They are, in effect, helping me with my purchase in ways Store A did not. They are adding value for me.

Talking about value added can't be complete unless you talk about competitive advantage. What value can one add that gives Store C the ability to sell their goods better than A and B?

If there is none, there is no reason for Store C to exist. They don't add value in a way that allows them to supercede perceived value in the minds of customers. Not only is there no reason for them to exist, ultimately they probably will NOT exist.

If then, there are hundreds of stores, all selling the same thing in a mall and none of them are distinguishable from the others, why do they exist? CAN they continue to exist? The answer to the latter is they can't, not sustainably.

They may exist for a while particularly when consumers aren't educated. As consumers become more familiar with the widget mall, and how it works, and the fact that it makes no difference which store they go to, the majority of those stores will be no more, and what will remain will be the few stores (i.e. affiliates) that figure out how to stand out, how to develop a competitive advantage. In all likelihood, if such a mall existed, the entire mall would fall, because people would stop going. Even the value added stores would be swept under.

Running an affiliate site like all the rest of the affiliates, if it's by buying clicks in adwords and sending people to clone sites all the same is non-value added. Any idiot can do it. And many idiots will. No added value. Not sustainable. What seems to be easy money is really temporary as everyone chases the easy short term money.

Eventually the marketplace corrects. We are probably moving towards that kind of "affiliate correction", both on the customer side, and the merchant side.

There's absolutely no good reason why we need a thousand sites selling my books via affiliate programs or advertising my books via adwords, taking a cut, lowering the margins for, let's say amazon.com. Now, if they right original, informed reviews (good or bad), THEN, they begin to add value.

That's a different story.

Finally, as a customer, I'd much rather Amazon.com cut the price I pay for a book when I buy from them direct, rather than kick to a non-value added affiliate. That would also add value. As a customer, I'd like that seven percent cut off the price of a book. Do you think eventually it makes sense, in the life of many companies now maturing, that they won't figure out that they can simply cut out the middle affiliate guys?

..to add value to buying without the middle man?
..to give a better price?

Amazon probably doesn't need affiliates like it did. Travelocity probably doesn't. hotel.urp doesn't. What do you add?

rbacal




msg:1151791
 4:19 am on May 19, 2006 (gmt 0)

You can preach about customer satisfaction, and how affiliates should operate all you want. But if you do it on this board, you're probably preaching to a lot of preachers. I'm a merchant, but I'm also an affiliate. I spend more money on affiliate advertising in one month, than most people make in a year. And I always make at least 100% profit on what I spend.

I missed this part before. Didn't want you to think I was being too selective. More power to you. I'm happy you are making that money, although I am not impressed by whatever amount you spend on advertising. You've obviously figured out how to make things work in the present.

The but part is that while I would like you to join our affiliate program, so we can profit from your affiliate wizardry, I have no sympathy if (and I don't know this is true), you complain because google decides the world doesn't need any more affiliate clone sites in its SERPs, or in adwords (or starts charging ad prices that essentially negatively affect sites that add no value whatsoever.

It's in my interest, as a customer and user of their searches and ads, as an adwords advertiser, and as an adsense publisher, that google declutter as much of the duplicate, scraped, cloned sites and information out there. The higher the pile of dung, the harder it is to find the diamond somewhere within. I'd rather be the diamond than the dung, but I know that as the dung gets higher, people won't find the diamonds, which, hopefully, might include me.

Google credibility is its lifeblood. Unfortunately, or fortunately, Google's credibility affects our ability to do business.

More diamonds, less dung. That's my motto.

..but I'm sure glad it's not me that has to decide which is which, as Google has to.

Richard Overvold




msg:1151792
 11:55 am on May 19, 2006 (gmt 0)

rbacal,

You actually bring up some valid points. Which make perfect sense, and I'm glad you chose to detail my request.

Problem is, it's not all the affiliates fault. I'm not certain what kind of markups the merchant companies do to make up for commissions, but, if you look at certain affiliate programs. CJ in particular. If a company has a commission of 25% per sale. Then CJ charges them 30% per sale. Right there, 55% of the sales price to affiliates, and network. So, just like when pharm was real big. The only way to kill the industry, is to hit the merchants, which would trickle down and kill affiliate sales, and remove them from the advertising market.

So I don't think customer value added is Google's concern, and the reason for them making all these changes, because if it was, they'd cut the fat at the affiliate network level, not individual affiliates.

But you do make a good point for long term success.

pdivi




msg:1151793
 12:18 pm on May 19, 2006 (gmt 0)

or starts charging ad prices that essentially negatively affect sites that add no value whatsoever

rbcal, I understand how in theory, raising minimum bids would cull resellers because they are a step down in the value chain. And I understand how this might be considered a boost to quality, assuming it raises the visibility of direct merchants. Unfortunately, at least in my segment, things aren't really working that way. Raising minimum bids has had a negative effect on quality. Most of the direct merchants have dropped out, and the only ads remaining look like:

Find [insert word] on
[insert giant auction site]!

or...
Thousands of [insert word]
on [giant comparative shopping site]

Seems the dung has risen to the surface, assuming the metric for quality is ad/kw relevance. For whatever reason, be it high lifetime value for new customers (auction site), or arbitrage in a proprietary CPC network (comparative shopping engines), the spam is facing a profit equation that enables it to exist at bids where direct merchants can't exist.

Google's intentions might have been to raise quality, but the move seems to have backfired.

Richard Overvold




msg:1151794
 1:07 pm on May 19, 2006 (gmt 0)

pdivi,

I generally don't mention the kind of things I do on this forum simply because we're very limited to what we can say on here. But I'm pretty heavy in Loans.

This example is one of the biggest reasons why I'm irritated with Google's system, this isn't really related to minimum bid, but rather it's their trademark policy. I bid on "certain type of loan". I use {KeyWord:Back Up Phrase} in my title. So, my ad looks like this.

Certain Type Of Loan
Visit Us For Low Rate Loans
Yada Yada Yada Yada Yada Yada
www.mysite.com

Keep in mind, my ad doesn't show for this term.

However... This ad does...

Certain Type Of Loan
Great Deals On Certain Type Of Loan
Register Free On ebay Now To Bid!
www.that-ebay-affiliate-site-that-doesnt-belong-here-at-all.com

My site, my ad brings the most value to the customer, merchant, and me. Whatever they are attempting to do, they are striking out big time.

Adam_T




msg:1151795
 1:45 pm on May 19, 2006 (gmt 0)

No.

ronmcd




msg:1151796
 2:53 pm on May 19, 2006 (gmt 0)

Richard
just for the fun of it create a second ad in the exact same adgroup and use the exact same ad copy as the ebay ad. See if it affects your min cpc, I think you'll find it might ;-) Or even try it on a new ad group.

Of course copying someone elses copy is baaad, but in this case its an experiment - its not like your actually promoting ebay, you are just trying to find out how low your min cpc becomes, then delete the ad. But try it, word for word, including the destination url and see what happens.

queenbee




msg:1151797
 3:29 pm on May 19, 2006 (gmt 0)

No.

I'm not nearly as happy and I don't agree that it's about competition. The past year we feel like we've been completely cheated by our PPC campaigns. Paying for fraud, double-clicks, and even clicks from the search engine people themselves. We've experienced no customer service, form letter replies and basically seen no concern by them to improve the services.

All of this really has been bad over the past year to year and a half. We've limited our budgets considerably over year to date.

doctor gerlis




msg:1151798
 7:07 pm on May 19, 2006 (gmt 0)

Queenbee

My sentiments exactly-we showed some repeat click data to G and they credited me 39, then took it back then credited it twice and took both back. In the end we received 7 derisory refund. We find the repeat 4-6 clickers as much of a problem as the 17 clicks in one hour fraudster. Is G traffic quiet right now?-looks it to me

steve136




msg:1151799
 7:34 pm on May 19, 2006 (gmt 0)

I for one am not happy. It seems that when i go back to last years stats (i.e. impressions and clicks) that this years are way down. Now I haven't changed any of my campaigns or ad groups drastically however the results are way down. Thay are also disabling more keywords for low bids. These keywords have been on this campaigns doing fine for over a year but now they want more money per click just to show them (impressions. Does anybody else have the same problem with their adwords campaign?

Steve

[edited by: eWhisper at 12:51 pm (utc) on May 22, 2006]
[edit reason] Please don't drop links. [/edit]

xor0




msg:1151800
 7:59 pm on May 19, 2006 (gmt 0)

Problem is, it's not all the affiliates fault. I'm not certain what kind of markups the merchant companies do to make up for commissions, but, if you look at certain affiliate programs. CJ in particular. If a company has a commission of 25% per sale. Then CJ charges them 30% per sale. Right there, 55% of the sales price to affiliates, and network. So, just like when pharm was real big. The only way to kill the industry, is to hit the merchants, which would trickle down and kill affiliate sales, and remove them from the advertising market.

CJ charges 30% of the commission, not the sales price, so that makes 32.5%, not 55%. They have other fees too, they're perhaps the most expensive network. But some merchants pay 75% commission (eg. on Clickbank) and still make plenty of money. Merchants love affiliate marketing. They get free advertising, only have to pay for sales. And google isn't going to voluntarily throw away a large chunk of the $500M a month (or whatever it is) that they make.

gregbo




msg:1151801
 8:04 pm on May 19, 2006 (gmt 0)

I had a discussion about this not too long ago with a pal. I pointed out that in the internet, there isn't a limitation so to speak.

There is a limitation to what people will look at, however. Most people don't go past the second or third page of SERPS, for example.

This 154 message thread spans 6 pages: < < 154 ( 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 > >
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