| 6:26 am on Nov 4, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I'd like to know the answer to this too, but I wouldn't assume that site targetted ads are going to be bad payers. I have a couple of ads that never shift from my site, and I think they might be targetting me. I also happen to think they may pay very well.
I think the cpm ads have proved a problem for some webmasters, but I believe you can disable them by not having image ads on your pages.
| 6:41 am on Nov 4, 2005 (gmt 0)|
so that means that most likely, cpm ads are image ads?
| 6:43 am on Nov 4, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Actually, to disable them you have to email adsense support and ask not to have them shown on your websites.
| 6:47 am on Nov 4, 2005 (gmt 0)|
You can block them individually using your URL filter.
| 6:56 am on Nov 4, 2005 (gmt 0)|
No, advertisers can choose text cpm campaigns too. I think a lot of them choose image campaigns though.
Google do say that they will target cpm ads only if they think they are the best payers. As an advertiser, I have to say that my low value campaigns didn't get shown once, so I'm guessing that they may well be right in this respect. I would have had to bid a lot more than I wanted to to get shown.
However, the target bot places ads on what it calculates as maybe being the best paying ads based on ctr and cpc rates of that ad elsewhere on the network. This doesn't always work out for the best on your individual site.
You can't know what ads are site targetted currently AFAIK, but it's been my experience that blocking all made for adsense (MFA) gets rid of the bad payers, gives better targetted ads, gives visitors a better impression of you, and your site and improves the repeat visitor numbers. That may be a possibility for you, but beware of blocking - it can reduce your income! If you do try it, make sure you do it slowly so as not to alarm smart pricing by a drop in CTR, and make sure you can measure the changes to see if it's helping or hindering the bottom line $$$ figure. And don't expect to see an immediate improvement - it takes smart pricing a while to recover. A couple of weeks in my case, but it was worth it.
| 7:03 am on Nov 4, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|If you do try it, make sure you do it slowly so as not to alarm smart pricing by a drop in CTR |
how many at a time did you add to the filter? if i can ask
| 7:39 am on Nov 4, 2005 (gmt 0)|
The first day I banned all the ones I saw, that took care of most of them. Then as and when I see them they get blocked. The ctr dropped to a third immediately, but the value of the clicks I got compensated for that. From then on it has been a steady and sustained increase in cpc. I started blocking back in July.
My point on site targetted ads is that they aren't necessarily bad. If I banned site targetted ads I have a feeling my best ads would dissapear! cpm ads may be a different kettle of fish, but not necessarily bad if the ad is for a genune advertiser and correctly targetted.
So I'd be cautious in blocking any form of ad for a genuine advertiser, but personally zap all MFA's on sight.
| 4:38 pm on Nov 4, 2005 (gmt 0)|
yes it seems a tricky game blocking sites, especially that there are many other factors constantly changing over the time, for example the nature of visitors you get from serps. I was thinking maybe the reason that blocking MFAs would be beneficial is that they actually run very targeted 'keyword' campaigns.