| This 218 message thread spans 8 pages: < < 218 ( 1 2 3 4  6 7 8 ) > > || |
|Jenstar reveals data about Adsense Smart Pricing|
| 6:46 am on Oct 26, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I just read Jenstar's blog about smart pricing. I want to be shocked, although I'm not. Let's just say disappointed.
How in the hell can Google be so stupid as to count Smart Pricing on an account basis rather than at worst domain basis. No wonder... That explains a lot.
It is really ridiculous.
| 6:45 pm on Oct 29, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|What really happens? As soon as Smart Pricing gets turned on by *any one* of your domains, G just pays out less. But they don't hand that money to the advertiser. Nor do they give it to better quality sites. They pocket it. |
This is 100% incorrect. With smart pricing, the advertiser pays less and the publisher earns less on the same click. Google does NOT pocket the money. Google earns less on those clicks because an advertiser's price per click is dropped by the same percent.
Smart pricing is a good thing, IMO. It protects the integrity of the publisher program, and keeps advertisers opted into the content network. It is about keeping advertisers on board with the content network - without the advertisers, publishers would be out of luck.
| 6:51 pm on Oct 29, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I'm just speculating out loud. But I'm wondering, how do we know they don't pocket the money? Or somehow use a fancy algo to use it as an excuse to make more?
I agree Smart Pricing in theory is good. But the fact of Adsense Arbitrage shows that quality sites are making less while MFAs are earning more. It seems G's implementation of SP *HELPS* them achieve it rather than stopping the practice as intended.
| 8:51 pm on Oct 29, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|Clark wrote: |
I respectfully disagree with that speculation. Naturally I can be wrong, but in my opinion it has no basis.
|If better quality sites saw more money, or advertisers saw significantly cheaper prices, we'd have heard about it. |
We've heard it plenty of times. Advertisers talk often about discounts, etc. They refer to smart pricing as "the AdWords Discounter".
For example, a typical dialogue in the AdWords forum:
I took a few minutes to go over Google's support pages regarding how the discounter works and it's too vague. It still seems to refer to individual terms but it "could" be referring to entire adgroups. Advisor, do you know if the discounter is determined by individual term performance, AdGroup performance or even by an entire campaign's performance?
Everything I know says that it's the individual term performance.
I also remember advertisers talking about Google, more than discounting, even reimbursing them money in the extreme case of suspended publishers (for invalid clicks, etc.).
|Then on the blog they try to play angel and claim they are "losing money" on SP. Hah. |
Surely in the short term. However I agree with Jenstar: in the medium and long term, smart pricing is good not only for advertisers, but also for us -the content publishers- and therefore for Google, given that publishers and Google share percentages of the revenue.
I would say it very clearly if this was different but, as a publisher, I've never seen one reason to diminish our trust in Google. On the contrary, for many reasons I'm sincerely happy with the level of fairness in this business. Of course it cannot be perfect, but in my opinion it's quite good.
Just an small example: when members of the WebmasterWorld community developed on this forum an alternative click tracking script (that didn't modify the ad processing or the ad code), Google was not afraid to say immediately OK to it. I think we can trust them.
In brief, all leads me to conclude that the correct version is on the AdSense blog:
|1. Many factors determine the price of an ad |
3. Google doesn't make money from 'smart pricing'
In fact, we make less money, since the cost to advertisers is reduced in order to provide a strong ROI. Ultimately, this leads to higher payouts for publishers by drawing a larger pool of advertisers and rewarding publishers who create high quality sites.
Inside AdSense: The facts about smart pricing [adsense.blogspot.com]
| 1:15 am on Oct 30, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|This is 100% incorrect. With smart pricing, the advertiser pays less and the publisher earns less on the same click. Google does NOT pocket the money. Google earns less on those clicks because an advertiser's price per click is dropped by the same percent. |
Jen, not to disagree with you, but could somebody tell me what I am missing here? Why would a company, with virtually no competition, decide to DECREASE THEIR INCOME and the publisher's income by LOWERING their prices?
Seems to me they're either really, really stupid or they actually take that "don't be evil" concept a bit too seriously.
| 1:29 am on Oct 30, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Why do you think? Isn't it obvious? There's a healthy skepticism among advertisers about the quality of AdSense content network traffic. And it's hard to blame them.
There are so many so many people gaming the system and so many outright fraudsters that Google has to focus on maximizing the advertisers' bottom line, otherwise they'll simply opt out altogether and we'll all be poorer.
Don't blame Google for this. Blame the cheaters. Blame minimal-content sites with excessive ad blocks. Blame the webmasters trying to funnel low-grade traffic into high-value subject areas. Blame people running AdSense on untargeted sites like photo galleries and general-interest forums. Not that the latter examples are against the TOS per se, but they cannot provide traffic with anything close to the same level of interest in the ad subject as Google's own site can. So why would an advertiser be willing to pay google.com rates for this traffic?
| 1:58 am on Oct 30, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Well put Jomaxx.
| 2:47 am on Oct 30, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|Jen, not to disagree with you, but could somebody tell me what I am missing here? Why would a company, with virtually no competition, decide to DECREASE THEIR INCOME and the publisher's income by LOWERING their prices? |
Seems to me they're either really, really stupid or they actually take that "don't be evil" concept a bit too seriously.
I'm not Jen, but I use both adsense and adwords, and the answer is simple. Google wants the advertisers to feel comfortable advertising on content sites (many advertisers don't, including myself). They are saying to advertisers: "We understand that not all clicks are equal, and that clicks on the content network may be worth less to YOU. So, we want to provide an incentive for you to advertise by charging you less when we deem the clicks have less value."
Since advertisers pay EVERYONE's bills, the more they advertise on content sites, the larger the inventory of ads, the larger the market share. If it costs less to do it, it's supposed to act as an incentive, and the higher the demand for content net ads, the higher the ad prices should go (theoretically) due to competition.
Think of it as taking less money today, to get MORE advertisers competing for spots, larger market share, and long term MORE money due to economies of scale for google.
| 3:03 am on Oct 30, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|I also have taken AdSense from some of my pages that were not generating money and I have seen an increase in money for the month for my efforts. |
The problem is knowing what caused the increase.It might have been outside factors.
I've noted an increase in my earnings the last month or so and I didn't change anything.
|Don't blame Google for this. Blame the cheaters. Blame minimal-content sites with excessive ad blocks. Blame the webmasters trying to funnel low-grade traffic into high-value subject areas. Blame people running AdSense on untargeted sites like photo galleries and general-interest forums |
Exactly. Before smart pricing there was concern among people on this forum that adwords advertisers would start pulling out of the program because many were unhappy with cheaters and shady publishing sites. That does not help publishers! In fact many advertisers were pulling their ads off of content sites and some still do.
Low grade sites carrying adwords does the advertiser damage in two ways. Partly they lose money on clicks that don't convert. Face it. If a visitor is on a good content page and clicks the ad it's probably because he are really interested in the product. While if a visitor finds himself trapped on a made for adsense page and finds an ad that even remotely might be what he is looking for the ad is less likely to convert.
The second reason scummy sites are bad for advertisers is that it looks to the public like the advertiser has associated himself with a low grade site thus making his company look bad. Most surfers don't know that the advertiser doesn't choose the site that the ads appear on.
[edited by: annej at 3:08 am (utc) on Oct. 30, 2005]
| 3:06 am on Oct 30, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Smart pricing is a good thing, IMO. It protects the integrity of the publisher program, and keeps advertisers opted into the content network.
I can tell you about my own experiences with the "content network". I have turned off all my ads with the "content network" because of the fraud and the theft going on. I only turn on the search part of the ad network. I don't want to have my ads wasted on scraper and "click the ads to support our site" type of sites. I just don't want to pay for that crap. So I have turned off all the "content network" ads.
| 3:11 am on Oct 30, 2005 (gmt 0)|
OK, here's what I don't get. Why should Google promote the content network at all, since they have to share revenue with publihsers and discount clicks?
Seems to me that they (and Yahoo, too for that matter) are going to a lot of trouble for a very small return. Not only do they have to put up with griping from advertisers, but from publishers as well, who feel they are getting a bum deal.
In the end, Google, Yahoo, MSN, and all of us are chasing the same brass ring - good paying, repeat ads on OUR sites. As long as search engines, G, Y, MSN, et. al., are selling ads alongside their own search results AND on other sites, all of which show up in those same search results, somewhere, they have their own self-made conflict of interest.
In order to maximize their site revenue, they have to, one way or another, degrade ours. Is this the dog chasing its tail or the tail wagging the dog? On the one hand, they all want to deliver relevant search results, but on the other, the ads are just as relevant, if not moreso. That leaves crumbs for publishers.
As long as the SEs are running the adserving, independent sites, that part of the internet that is real, innovative and without which the SEs would not exist, will continue to be treated as second rate in terms of ad revenue potential, when, in truth, the opposite should be true.
An independent ad serving system would be much more preferable than what the SEs are currently offering. And, they are out there. It's just that Google, and to some extent, YPN, and soon MSN, have the technology and the money to market it.
Added: I thought the "facts" on the adsense blog, fell far short of being "factual" and were closer to pure policy propaganda than anything else.
[edited by: fearlessrick at 3:17 am (utc) on Oct. 30, 2005]
| 3:12 am on Oct 30, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Why would a company, with virtually no competition, decide to DECREASE THEIR INCOME and the publisher's income by LOWERING their prices?
My guess is that they want to keep people like me spending money on ads that may end up on scraper sites and "click our ads" sites. I choose to not keep spending my money on such a network and only spend my money on the search part of the network. Until they (Google) cleans up the scraper sites and the "Please Click our Ads" sites, I will not support the "Publisher Network".
| 3:22 am on Oct 30, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|Seems to me that they (and Yahoo, too for that matter) are going to a lot of trouble for a very small return. Not only do they have to put up with griping from advertisers, but from publishers as well, who feel they are getting a bum deal. |
Easy answer. It's not a "small return". More answers: "griping" isn't a good thing, but it's not a heavy direct hit on the bottom line. Yet more: Diversification of their income streams. Last - Economy of scale: They have the infrastructure, and the cost of using it for content is small relative to the initial investment. It's a little like some big time gravy.
| 3:42 am on Oct 30, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|Don't blame Google for this. Blame the cheaters. |
You can also blame Google somewhat for their glacial response to reports of wrong doing which just encourages the bad guys to multiply.
It is their responsibility to police the system in a somewhat more energetic way than in the past.
Now that we have had a serps update I wonder how many new sites could be found by some simple Google searches for "click the Google ads" and the like. Google should have a team of people on this right now and take immediate action - not 6 weeks from now.
| 4:30 am on Oct 30, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|Why should Google promote the content network at all, since they have to share revenue with publihsers and discount clicks? |
At least with established sites a lot of people go directly to the site rather than getting there through a search engine.In my case over half arrive at my sites through book marks, links from other sites, newsletters, and word of mouse (or even mouth). Those visitors would not see the ads with search results.
Also on a search result page the surfer is distracted with a page of links to sites on the topic he is looking for. I find even on my site people are more likely to click on article pages. A page of links to articles competes with the ads for the visitors attention.
So there is plenty of reason to have adsense on content pages.
| 4:39 am on Oct 30, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|The terrible part about this is that AdSense does not let you have more than one account. If they did let you have more than one account, they could use their current system of smart pricing and if you did not like it, place each webiste under a different AdSense account. It would be tedious but there would still be the option. |
You can most certainly have more than 1 account with Adsense. You just have to do it in accordance with the TOS. I, and many other people legitimately have more than one adsense account.
As for this whole smart-pricing thing.. I missed this whole thing unfold, but going through it now it has inspired me...
Inspired me to do absolutely nothing. I like the general concept of smart pricing because I attempt to make my sites for visitors and not advertisments. I believe in the long-run mechanisms like smart-pricing will make me more money. I have believed/understood for a while that conversions were the key-metric in smart pricing. I have no way to know what the conversion rate is at this point. I do believe that by delivering a good site to visitors, I will have high quality visitors, and when they go to an ad they are serious and be much more likely to convert than someone who is trying to escape a content-less site.
Would it be useful to have more data on conversion rates, sure. Heck I would love to be able to select advertisers for my site.. But all in time. What I don't see myself doing is randomly yanking ads off my site in hopes that it might make me more money. Especially not with the evidence in hand.
I think Jenstar summed it up best when she said it is probably not worth worrying about. I would guess 99.999% of us are not in a position where all our sites are optimized and tweaked to the point that messing with smart-pricing is the best way for you to increase your revenues. I am sure most of us all have a laundry list of things that would help us before fiddling with that.
| 5:42 am on Oct 30, 2005 (gmt 0)|
When G's quarterly reports started coming up, the bulk of their revenue was coming from adsense.
To the user who was talking about the discounter, I didn't really follow what you're saying. I will check the thread when I get a chance, but is the quick version that you're saying once in a while the advertiser pays less than their bid? Because everytime I played w/ adwords it was an extremely difficult experience and more expensive each time I came back to try it again. Even on made up words. It reminded me of being an adsense publisher only in reverse.
Whatever happened to KISS?
Instead of algos to confuse everyone, make it an open system and put a bunch of humans in there to police the cheaters.
One question to everyone following G closely. Are you under the impression that G is doing
A. "An amazing job at killing MFA sites? You rarely even see one."
B. "A very good job at killing MFAs."
C. "A decent job at killing MFAs."
D. "A poor job."
E. "A horrible job. In fact Smart Pricing works to the benefit of MFAs who have the mentality to game the system."
| 5:44 am on Oct 30, 2005 (gmt 0)|
While they haven't cleaned them up they have mostly removed them from their se's results. They do offer site targetting where you can narrow your ads down to a specific section of a site.
| 7:27 am on Oct 30, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Why ask the question? The answer is E.
I've been reporting a site both as an advertiser and a publisher for a couple of months now that is a pure click trap. Adlinks on the left masquerading as a menu, adsense on the right masquerading as content and just to make sure, adsense at the bottom. Back button disabled just to make REALLY sure.
Have they removed it? Nope. I've given up reporting it, I've given up reporting ANYTHING to Google - even the ads with a flashing .gif saying "Click the ads to make me rich". I've come to the conclusion that Google actually prize these crappy sites over sites that have content and play by the rules. I'm guessing that in some twisted way this represents a better short term gain for the shareholders.
Oh, and one final point. Google state that they don't make money out of smart pricing. Does anybody really believe that? I'm sure that the smart pricing discount google gives advertisers is rather less than the discount it gives publishers. Even if it's only a cent per click that Google make on the discounted transaction, there is no doubt in my mind they make it. If I was Google, I most certainly would be making a very modest profit by discounting the publishers discount more than the advertisers - and I'm sure they do. Why wouldn't they? They have shareholders to please.
| 7:55 am on Oct 30, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I asked the question because some very smart and knowledgeable people believe the spin.
To me it doesn't add up since I'm seeing an ever increasing discount in earnings as a publisher and every time I try to advertise it costs more.
Pretty obvious, but I thought perhaps I'm missing something. I guess if Jen hadn't responded to my post I would have let it go, but she's the topic of the thread and I respect her knowledge tremendously.
P.S. the Christmas season is coming up. I'm determined not to let Google eat up the extra traffic earnings without doing something about it. Experimenting a lot with YPN and Chitika. In some cases Chitika seems to be about even. But I don't think the ads look as good. Too much Amazon and Shopping.com. I wonder why they don't let advertisers come in.
| 8:14 am on Oct 30, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I too am an advertiser. OK - only minor league, but I also note that smart pricing doesn't seem to make much of an impact on advertising costs.
I am aware that some respected people believe the spin. I personally don't. Based partly on my experiences as an advertiser and publisher, and partly on the fact I'm an appalling cynic!
Many questions are being asked about their open-ness and honesty, and there is a lot of doubt in the public domain on how well the algorythms they use actually work. Doubts expressed in this forum for some time now. I think the whole debate has created a situation Google don't know how to deal with, and they seem to be hoping that some spinning will tide them over until the fuss dies down. And let's face it - that is probably what will happen. Today's news is tomorrow's fish & chip wrapping paper. Hopefully, it's been a big enough bite on the bum for them to ask themselves some serious questions about their practices and algorythms, and listen to the answers.
| 5:43 pm on Oct 30, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|Smart pricing is a good thing, IMO. It protects the integrity of the publisher program, and keeps advertisers opted into the content network. It is about keeping advertisers on board with the content network |
Adwords competitors don't have SP so why does Google feel the need so, so badly? It's a good thing for Google in that it contributes some good vibes with advertisers (publicity value) but whether it's a good thing for anybody else is arguable. Even advertisers! There is an indirect benefit for Adsense publishers in that advertisers stay with the content network. But, is that even a good thing? In an efficient system people stay not for PR reasons but for ROI. In a purely competitive situation (which we may be headed towards with YPN, Chitika etc) advertisers won't stay because of a vague assurance that they'll be protected from bad publishers. They'll move freely between one network and the other and that's a good thing for publishers in the long term, especially those who can use different networks.
|without the advertisers, publishers would be out of luck. |
The three parts of this equation are, of course, the advertisers, the publishers and Google. I have long argued that the most important cog is the publisher. He's the one with the commodity that's in limited supply. (I'm an advertiser as well) I do wish the general feeling that the advertiser is the one who finances the whole system is laid to rest. (It's the customer who finances it)
|Seems to me that they (and Yahoo, too for that matter) are going to a lot of trouble for a very small return. |
|Why should Google promote the content network at all, since they have to share revenue with publihsers and discount clicks? |
Google has admitted that search is a very, very small fraction of how people get to destinations. We help Google reach places they couldn't otherwise reach. We allow Google to earn money at locations they wouldn't normally get a foot in. We are Google's future because search itself is such a small part of the web. We are the ones who are going to be helping generate the bulk of Google's future revenues. You'd better believe we're a pretty important part of their future.
|Missing from their list of 'misconceptions' is the report that smart pricing affects an entire account not just one page or one site. I'm guessing becasue it's not a misconception, and it's a fact. |
This is the important bit that we seem to be losing focus on. They've commented on the rumours and did their best at damage limitation but they did not address the central issue of account wide effect. That is a crucial omission. It's not like they declined to comment in a thread talking about it. They specifically put out a blog post but didn't or couldn't refute that allegation. In my mind that's tantamount to an admission.
I hate moaning threads as much as anyone especially the ones where people complain of earnings drops that can't be caused by anything except somebody else's fault. They have no understanding that advertisers and the campaigns/budgets wax and wane, seasons change, even the quality of their free traffic could vary from one Google update to the next (even if the number of uniques is exactly the same). And, for a long time, I thought that it was this kind of publisher who kept complaining about SP. But, not anymore. I've had more than one Adsense account in the UPS club ...but not for November 2005. I've got lots of sites on different Adsense accounts and am currently seeing both sides of the SP coin on different accounts. I've done some detailed testing and analysis and am now finally convinced that er, SP sucks. It's a primitive system and a flawed implementation. Perhaps that's why it's so secretive and witholds from you the most valuable metric: conversion.
With all my testing I'm so convinced that SP is bad news that I started playing with other options. I've settled on Chitika. It's been paying well, doesn't have the million restrictions Adsense does, allows you to change code/modify fonts/specify keywords and lots more. But, most importantly, there's no fudge. No attempt at convincing you that they got some complicated algo in the background that's always taking care of everybody's best interests. Nah, they pay 60% and, that's it. In fact I've been so impressed with Chitika that I've set up my own site to promote it (in my profile). I've made close to a million dollars with Adsense and my thanks to Google for that. Now, it's time to explore other avenues and give other party ads a run of my prime spots (with Adsense demoted to filling unused ad inventory at less important places on my sites).
| 6:11 pm on Oct 30, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Smart pricing is a good thing, IMO. It protects the integrity of the publisher program, and keeps advertisers opted into the content network. It is about keeping advertisers on board with the content network ...
Why would Google need to worry about the "integrity" of the publisher program? Is the program not on the "up and up"? Is there something wrong with the program? Is the program filled with fraud? Is there theft of ad dollars going on by unscrupulous web sites? Is Google unable to find such web sites and remove them from the program?
Why is Google unable to make the program fair and open and have "integrity" without attempting to buy the favor of advertisers with discounts?
- without the advertisers, publishers would be out of luck.
Where would Google be without publishers?
| 6:52 pm on Oct 30, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Every time I jump in the shower I think of a new angle to this. Got to run though so I can't explain it all the way yet.
There are two sides to the coin. The MFA publisher and the MFA advertising. The MFA games Google's Adsense algo to achieve higher returns than the typical publisher. He also games Google's algo on the adwords side. In essence buying ads at a discount to the true merchant. This drives the cost of ads up for the advertiser. And drives down the fee to publishers.
The most efficient system would be for advertisers to reach true publishers directly. Putting more advertisers and publishers (who add nothing of real value) into the mix benefits two parties. The MFAs themselves and Google. The hurt parties are the advertiser and the publisher.
In effect, from the world of stocks (I have a series 7 & 8), Google is "churning" the accounts to bump up their commission.
| 7:13 pm on Oct 30, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Clark: all I can say is if you seriously believe that Google will lie, cheat and steal from publishers in order to prop up its stock price, then you should leave the AdSense program and never come back. The stuff you have posted in the past few days has been just unbelievable in light of the fact that you apparently still rely on Google's money.
oddsod - "Adwords competitors don't have SP so why does Google feel the need so, so badly?".
I haven't seen it in action, but I understand that Yahoo has a separate set of keyword bids for YPN. That's another way of addressing the same issue of network quality. In the long run we'll see how it works, but if every publisher gets the same revenue for the same clicks then I suspect my site will be a loser, and the lowest-common-denominator sites will benefit the most.
[added - that part about the separate bids may not be correct. I read that recently but I can't figure out where or otherwise confirm it's right.]
| 1:36 am on Oct 31, 2005 (gmt 0)|
a lot of bitterness in this thread. as mostly, spoken out by publishers who see a contemporary glitch in their adsense revenues. but there is no need to criticize the program in such an extent.
i only regret that with smart pricing, the fabulous cpc concept is reduced to absurdity. apparently sp is needed to resolve the flaws in the content network. maybe google should have worked it out otherwise. anyhow, i really can't complain income-wise.
hopefully, the focus of adsense will be drawn more towards site targeting and one-to-one advertising in the future, as way too many participants try to game the system.
| 2:38 am on Oct 31, 2005 (gmt 0)|
So lets start at the beginning....Google until recently was the only search engine offering text ads and a publishing network. When adsense was started they were a private company attempting to set up for an IPO.
Content based advertising was a new game in town and google reached a critical sitution with their advertisers not accepting the network. The result was a reduction of adwords cost to advertisers that used the content network. At the same time they wre offering free adwords to publishers that used the content area.
As noted on their information page there is a minimum ROI for the advertisers and they had to reduce ad pricing for content areas to find this level. Hence smart pricing was invented. It is a discounting system for advertisers....that's all. I am sure it floats based on number of advertisers in the content network. Although google uses the words like conversions etc it is pronanly based more on how many advertisers have the content side turned on and a threshold price of ads.
Has Google changed the payouts? Probably and some information in their financials see a huge increase of administrative purchases being applied to cost of ads. However even if they have can you as a publisher achieve a higher return with anyone else right now. If the answer to this is no....then you ride the wave until that changes. As has been stated many times we are in a business relationship with Google, not in a charitable relationship. The moment their offerings are less than others we are free to move on.
Whether they pay us 20% or 70% is all relative to what other returns I can generate on my site. If I can't generate a greater return with Yahoo or others I will remain with adsense. What will happen in the marketplace is that the return will flatten with competition not increase. This will be a direct result of competition for advertisers dollars by the top players. Discounting to generate revenue in the world of growth requirements by wall street will ensure that.
I think it is somewhat idealistic to be critisizing a program that no one really has any idea how it works. We have always said smart pricing was nothing but smoke and mirrors discounting. That is not a negative statement just our opinion. Google has put a spin on this since its inception but if it keeps advertisers money flowing to us than I can accept whatever they call it.
Just to clear up a couple of other posts on this subject. Revenues are split nearly 50-50 between search ad revenue and content revenue. Google tracks costs under one broad classification that hovers about 75% of content revenue. This information available in their finacials.
| 3:35 am on Oct 31, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I think the problem is NOT smartpricing but the active removal of non-performing ads from our ad blocks - somehow I feel that Google is not doing THAT as well as it used to - maybe cause there are just TOO MANY advertisers. So naturally our inventory takes time to improve and by the time one non performing ad is removed - another is introduced.
I think what we need is a SANDBOX of some kind for advertisers which should only be removed with higher bids [for new advertisers] but it may have a negative impact for Google. So I think Google needs to sit down with their brainy chaps and figure out the solution.
| 7:33 am on Oct 31, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|The stuff you have posted in the past few days has been just unbelievable in light of the fact that you apparently still rely on Google's money. |
I disagree - there are a lot of people angry with a stupid algorythm that doesn't work, and I think it's a good thing that people are criticising it so vehemently. Google may actually listen to some of our points now. Especially as people are moving to the competition because of it.
The problem I have with Google's paraniod secrecy is that us white hat webmasters who don't abuse the system have no idea how to tailor our responsible sites towards it. I understand that it's not possible to issue accurate info as it's constantly changing, but they MUST have some basic principles that aure unchanging. Why can't they issue basic information to help us?
One of the reasons smartpricing was introduced is to give advertisers reassurance that the MFA's weren't going to scam them as G would discount the clicks. As an advertiser I don't see this working. I would like to see Google cease to spend a single cent on smartpricing from today, drop the thing altogether and start to MANUALLY REMOVE MFA sites that do not meet the letter or spirit of the TOS.
Advertisers KNOW that smartpricing is a flop - they also KNOW that Google doesn't deal with the MFA sites.
Drop the MFA's then there is no real need for the dumb smartpricing algo.
| 8:16 am on Oct 31, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Jomaxx, the problem with monopolies is that it hinders the democratic concept of competition. Today without venture capital you can't compete. To get venture capital you have to sell out.
I accept this noncompetitive environment because it's reality. But it's sad. There's a lot of talent by people who will never "make it". The big guys are "patenting" obvious concepts and legalities will keep small guys out of business. It's downright unamerican. I don't like it. A lot of people don't.
But if they're going to go public, make compromises and play games being a monopoly they will have to face fierce criticism. That's all that's left us. Our words. Are we so stupid that we will get slapped in the face and just take it without saying a word?
Microsoft faced criticism. Google will and that's just the way it goes. At least they can cry in their pool of money.
Anyway, while I made some money from Google, Google made even more money from me. For a little while they were good to me. And I was VERY GOOD to them. So just because they're big and I'm small relatively I should be shy when I'm getting screwed along with a ton of other publishers? No.
And as I said many times, I'm migrating away from Google. I hope they feel pressure to do right by their partners. But if they don't, they won't have as many partners left. And we'll make noise as we leave. Why does it bother you so much? Do you have a ton of MFA sites that would be hurt if Google fixes the problem?
[edited by: Clark at 8:30 am (utc) on Oct. 31, 2005]
| 8:29 am on Oct 31, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|I think it is somewhat idealistic to be critisizing a program that no one really has any idea how it works. |
Isn't that ignorance itself a valid reason for criticism? Why all the secrecy? Because the system will be exposed for what it really is? Why doesn't it "penalise" bad advertisers (ones with poor conversions/those who don't allow tracking of conversions?) like it does "bad" publishers?
|And as I said many times, I'm migrating away from Google |
A lot of people have already moved; I've moved a lot of my inventory over to Chitika. In fact, I so liked Chitika I set up a site to promote them (the site in my profile). For those Adsense publishers who don't download their CSV and Excel or otherwise analyse their various stats I suggest it could be very revealing (there are threads at WW about how to do that). See a pattern you didn't recognise before?
[edited by: oddsod at 8:34 am (utc) on Oct. 31, 2005]
| 8:33 am on Oct 31, 2005 (gmt 0)|
There's a great song about this phenomenon. "some of them want to abuse you. Some of them want to be abused."
| This 218 message thread spans 8 pages: < < 218 ( 1 2 3 4  6 7 8 ) > > |