| This 199 message thread spans 7 pages: < < 199 ( 1 2  4 5 6 7 ) > > || |
|AdSense Site Targeting|
Just logged into adsense and see the following new feature
Site targeted ads link will now appear in Google ads asking if advertisers wish to advertise on this site
G suggests you create landing page for potential advertisers with site logo and any information you think will be helpfull to the advertiser at which point adwords advertisers will create adds targetted to your site
Looks interesting any body have ideas of potential of this new add on
[edited by: martinibuster at 9:14 pm (utc) on Nov. 21, 2005]
[edit reason] spelling [/edit]
>many, if not most, people are only finding out about this via forums such as WebmasterWorld
Its clear under NEW as soon as you login, but I still missed it and only heard about it here, obviously webmasters too have text block (ads) blindness, maybe Google should "blend" a little less :)
Personally I am looking for Today's Earnings before anything else.
"Why in the hell would I let people target my site directly when you won't even tell me the profit share and I can't set my minimum CPC or CPM rate?"
Google Adsense should disclose at least the revenue share of this new feature.
It is not ethically correct to use my site to earn money and just to throw to me something about which I will have to wonder.
Depending how this Site Target issue will do, I will seriously consider dropping Adsense in favor of YPN and Contextweb or upcoming ADCenter.
Because untill now Google was doing the business and there was a moment that we could have understood. But now, Adsense will use our sites to generate money for the shareholders and God knows how much to give us from our own site.
Why can't I create my own Advertise on this site feature?
I think, all of you should write to Adsense and request Rev Share disclosure for this feature.
Regardless of merits, this feature is really half-baked. There should be a Product Manager looking for a new job about now.
Even with the generic text, it is still pulling one site name to refer to all my websites. I know other people have previoulsy mentioned this travesty, but its full impact did not dawn on me until I looked at the preview page for the feature.
Another publisher opted-out (at least for now).
This feature is (as many have mentioned) useless unless it's on a site or channel basis. The sites within my account are unrelated.
It's also unusable without any reporting, no point in sending Google fresh advertisers if they won't even tell me if any of them buy any ads. I've turned the feature off.
I have tried following the advice of Google's AdSense representatives with regard to both graphic ads (a disaster on my site) and CPM ads (which can be a disaster on my site, but less frequently can also boost revenue).
The biggest problem of CPM ads, at least from my standpoint as a publisher, is that they remove any contextual basis for the presentation of the ad. This can result in an amateurish presentation, as CPM ads which have nothing to do with the page (and have no conceivable interest to readers of the page) are nonetheless displayed. I understand that it would conflict a bit with the notion of CPM, but I think that if Google did pay some heed to context, particularly if it has calculated that the "value" of the CPM ad is only marginally greater than the "value" of a CPC ad, that sometimes it would be better to err on the side of CPC.
Leaving aside theoretical improvements for a moment, Google's algorithms for targeted versus CPC ads have what I see as two major flaws:
First, they don't take into consideration whether the person viewing the site has seen them on a dozen prior pages and has thus become blind to them, depriving the publisher of the opportunity for revenue by serving up relevant CPC ads when the CPM banner should reasonably be deemed of no interest, and they may well contribute to "banner blindness" across the whole site.
Second, as Google's algorithms are far from perfect, targeted ads can severely depress site revenues. (About three days out of four when my site is heavily targeted, revenues drop significantly. And I will concede that, when my site is targeted, about 1 day in 6 I experience a significant bump up in revenue.)
I have been very patient with site-targeted ads, to give Google's algorithms a chance to work, but having been heavily targeted by one particular ad for the past week, and seeing the impact on eCPM, my patience reached its end. I blocked the ad and, once the block took effect, experienced an immediate rebound in eCPM. Now, if I see any appreciable revenue drop across my site and notice the presence of a targeted campaign, the first thing I will do is block the targeted ad.
I think that Google's refusal to give publisher's reasonable information about targeted ads, and reasonable opportunity to set a minimum price, could backfire. The purpose here is presumably to attract new customers to AdWords, much moreso than to attract them to a particular site. So what happens when somebody comes to my site, Google's algorithms botch the job of pricing the CPM ad, I notice the drop in revenues, and I block the ad? Google gains a new customer whose initial AdWords experience is bad - that is, most will get a lousy click-through rates and then, when they check their stats to find out what is going on, will discover that their campaign isn't even running any more.
Now it is true that Google would probably not see as many advertisers sign up if this weren't offered as a "bargain basement" service, than if webmasters were instead able to define a minimum eCPM. But I think it will be worse for Google in the long run if the initial experience of their advertisers is to have their first campaigns cut off by the sites they target, and for publishers to get an immediate bad taste in their mouths about how this program cuts revenues.
I'm going to try this for a while, to see what happens. If my past experience with targed ads repeats itself, I'll shut it off - probably for good.
(I'll add this, also - I agree with those who assert that you should be able to have an appropriate landing page for each site.)
|I think that Google's refusal to give publisher's reasonable information about targeted ads, and reasonable opportunity to set a minimum price, could backfire. The purpose here is presumably to attract new customers to AdWords, much moreso than to attract them to a particular site. So what happens when somebody comes to my site, Google's algorithms botch the job of pricing the CPM ad, I notice the drop in revenues, and I block the ad? Google gains a new customer whose initial AdWords experience is bad - that is, most will get a lousy click-through rates and then, when they check their stats to find out what is going on, will discover that their campaign isn't even running any more. |
Exactly. I *want* this feature to work, but without adequate reporting I'm thinking of turning it off before it's even started.
I'm not at the 8th position on page 93 for my keyword - I'm at Page 1, Number 1! If I don't get reporting I don't know how / if it's working for me. Why would I use it without knowing this basic essential information?
|Even with the generic text, it is still pulling one site name to refer to all my websites. |
On the Onsite Advertiser Sign-up page, if you customize the site name to "this site", you get the following at the top of the landing page, a generic:
Problem solved, not in the best way (which would be individual per-site landing pages with individual per-site "Advertise on..." headers), but problem solved all the same.
If you go with the Google-suggested default, widget.com (or whatever your primary site name is), yes, the same
will appear on all your sites, including whatsit.com, foobar.com, etc.
So, if this really bothers you, consider customizing the site name to a generic "this site" or somesuch.
Is it not the case that one can opt out of this new advertiser signup, site targeting feature--on a per-site and per-page basis--in still two more ways:
--Use AdLinks exclusively. Or use one of the other conventional ad types that don't accommodate CPM. (Not all do.)
I don't believe it's ever been clarified by Adsense Advisor or any other official Google statement or spokes(wo)man, but it's my impression that CPM ads only apply to the "text_image" or "image" ad types, not to "text" types.
On all of my sites, I specify "text". To the best of my knowledge, I never see any CPM ads. And I never observe any site targeting by individual advertisers.
I also strongly favor AdLinks (my best-performing ad unit type), and downplay conventional ad blocks. I suspect that this new "advertise on this site" feature will only apply to conventional ad blocks, not to AdLinks (since there is no room within the limited AdLinks space to insert "advertise on this site," at least not for horizontal AdLinks).
As I recall, only a subset of non-AdLinks ad types accommodate CPM ads.
If what I say here is true, you can fine tune your participation in the advertiser signup, site targeting program. You can have it one some sites, and some pages within your sites. It's not really all or nothing.
You can be site targetted with text only ads.
|You can be site targetted with text only ads. |
Where is the definitive, authoritative statement of this?
When Adsense CPM ads were introduced, I recall that it applied only to image ads. Some people began reporting image ads that appeared to be text ads, but in fact were image ads mocked up to look like text ads.
Isn't the hallmark of a CPM ad that the entire ad block is devoted to a single advertiser? If that is so, I have never observed such single-advertiser ads on my sites.
I also recall that CPM ads only applied to a subset of ad types.
Anyway, if someone can point to an authoritative reference answering these questions, I'd appreciate it.
On one of my sites, the site where I think the advertiser signup program might be especially useful, I use horizontal AdLinks almost exclusively. Where in that limited 728x15 pixel space would there be room for an additional "advertise on this site" link? Indeed, why would any single advertiser opt to target my site, knowing that his/her ad would appear anywhere among the 40 ads (4 link categories, 10 ads per link category) in the follow-up ad pages?
In other words, I'd like to have a way that a prospective advertiser could signal to Google that he/she would like to site target my site. Google, in turn, would signal to me (via e-mail?) that an advertiser would like to site target my site but is prevented from doing so because I use ad types that don't accommodate this feature. Knowing this to be a fact, I would then introduce site-targeting-friendly ad blocks.
I don't want to willy nilly begin reintroducing underperforming (for me) non-AdLinks ad blocks in the hope that maybe I might be able to entice a prospective advertiser by means of an "advertise on this site" link.
See the conundrum?
Google has emailed me to that effect. Doesn't get more authoritative than that.
Well, a public statement of policy (not a private e-mail) would in fact be more authoritative.
I truly don't understand why Google is so frightened about telling publishers what their income will be in the case of a target. Also, a true target, when accepted, does NOT compete with other ads and they appear where chosen IF...
The publisher knows the net revenue they will receive and then agrees to the target.
This was being done 4 or 5 years ago with an ad company I used to use.
First an advertiser would request a target and all financial details worked out THEN I would receive an email telling me the exact net income from this target, who it is and the flight date.
I would then have the option to agree or not agree to it. Worked out well and the company is still in business today! Even after giving such 'sensitive information, LOL
Google is hurting Google. I am sad to see it happen like this, all the PHDs and such a level of mediocrity.
BTW, Google was one of my biggest target advertisers, made a bundle on their ads.
Berto, I'm trying to help you. If you need to see it publicly posted, do some research. This is something that has been stated repeatedly all over this site and many other sites. It is not in doubt by any stretch of the imagination.
I've been running Adsense as my only ad option on my site for nearly two years, it's been a good two years. I like the idea of not having to deal directly with advertizers.
But I'm not getting tied this closely to Google. Thanks, but no thanks. I opted out. I'd rather deal directly if it came to that.
google should and most likely listening to the concerns expressed here...overall i would like to see full transparency in reporting without that we publishers will never know the type of deal we are getting into with google, and by the sounds of things what kind of deal we may be leaving.
Google Publishers want to know all the details, and publishers deserve them....
"Thanks for the feedback , I am afraid from all those who have had their sites targetted with CPM the only feedback I have seen has been negative from those publishers that are targetted."
To date, I have url blocked every single advertiser who site-targeted me because the overall effect was negative.
On another note: it's common sense to think that if an advertiser really wants to target your site, a better way to go would be a one-to-one relationship, not one-to-middleman-to-one, particularly when the middleman has no clue whatsoever what the value of your pages are (smartpricing, which is an absolute joke). The only ones who know the value of your pages are YOU and an astute advertiser.
postscript: opted out
this is a big step towards one-to-one marketing. congratulations google!
i welcome your way of product introduction, i think you anticipate that the initial discussion on webmasterworld is of great value.
anyhow, i opted out first of all. here's why:
- no date of when it becomes live
- no unique landing page per site
- no adequate reporting of cpm and site targeting ads
if my income increases, you can keep your share a secret. but the current stats are anyhow almost useless because of cpm ads, which will increase with site targeting.
clicks are useless considering cpm ads. please solve this problem.
Adsense Advisor in one of my questions on this board did state that a text based CPM add did take the complete block of 4 adds spread over and my own reason for blocking is it looks cr? when this happens
Answer from adsense advisor post 33
Also, Steve, the single ads you are seeing might not be CPM ads. They could also be expanded text ads (see [google.com...] Please note that opting out of Onsite Advertising will not prevent expanded text CPC ads from displaying on your site. These are displayed automatically when our technology determines they hold a higher revenue potential.
The following statement from Google's AdSense Support page should be sufficient to establish that text ads can be site-targeted:
|CPM ads can be either text or image ads, and are always site-targeted. CPM text ads will expand to take up the entire ad unit. |
Thank you. I had discovered that public, authoritative reference earlier this evening, too.
In the early days of this feature, there was no such public reference, and Google let the question go unanswered.
Anyway, case closed. Specifying the google_ad_type has no bearing on our ability to block site-targeted, CPM ads.
|I have a page about electrical wiring of a specific item in the home. It is a long, very detailed page with 8 separate instruction/explanations with image/diagrams describing the 8 different ways in which you can wire this particular item. This page gets approximately 400-1000 pageviews per day. I have 3 adsense blocks off to the side of this particular page (160 x600) with one on the left and two blocks on the right. |
Two of the blocks always shows targeted ads about the subject and the other shows targeted ads until I get site-targeting. Then they show a single add for off-topic subjects like flooring, water filters, furniture, decorating supplies, sewage/drain cleaning, plumbing supplies, insurance, real estate etc. They look completely ridiculous and I have had two different people write and ask why those advertisers are advertising on that page.
Contractor, I have had EXACTLY the same experience on a site with diverse topics. My income was dropping one day so I checked out the ads and they were exactly as you described. One targeted block that was a great match for the page content, and then a one of two cheesy looking ad blocks filling the second adsense spot site wide. The big ads were really only appropriate on one or two pages of the site, at most. I blocked the advertisers in the big block ads that look like they had targetted my site and my income started going back to normal.
I think advertisers see a page that is a great match for their product and sign up to have ads on the site, not realizing most of the site is on totally different topics. Google really needs to make it page and not site targeting, and they should have more of a topic check to make sure the ads are a fit for the topic of each page.
I've found there are what I call "poison words" - that if they appear anywhere at all on a multi-topical site they'll turn up all over, even in the most ludicrous places. I can't put them on the filter because I have other sites 100% on that topic, so I've just pulled AdSense off some pages entirely because the ads just made the pages look altogether stupid.
No matter what, I feel I couldn't invite advertisers because the rate at which I'm putting scammy, worthless, misleading URLs on the filter and reporting them as being inappropriate for running ads on content sites is escalating.
This feature looks like a valuable addition to me.
I don't see that inviting prospective merchants to advertise though Adwords on your site is incompatible with dealing with direct advertisers.
The first method will appeal more to some advertisers, the second to others. I doubt there will be mass migrations from one to the other in any direction.
And some prospective advertisers, as already mentioned, might choose both methods.
I'd love the feature to work.
However, I've made the decision to opt out until we get reporting. I don't think it's acceptable to have a business partner that won't reveal necessary information, won't answer genuine concerns and above all you can't trust.
I also don't want to p*ss off advertisers that may want to advertise with me by having their ads on site for a couple of weeks, then suddenly stopping their directly targetted campaigns.
If Google introduce reporting then I'll consider using it, but not until. I'd also like to point out that my site is number one im serps for my keyword - prime real estate for this feature. Seems like this feature has backfired before it starts. It didn't need to - all they had to do was have reporting.
Soooo, it appears there is no way to tell which ads are cpm..hmm.
I don't understand selling a targeted ad and then saying it may or may not run on the site targeted unless it wins some bid or other.
I also don't understand why they will not simply lock in the advertiser, do the math, and email us with the name, net revenue, flight dates and give the site owner the option to opt out of that particular target...
Other companies can do this, why not my all time favorite, Google.
I don't give a fig how much Google makes, just tell us the net revenue that WE get on the target. If the flight gets shortened (advertiser pulls the ad) then that only means we will make less than expected but that is a chance even Google takes.
Google has been very good to me and I hate to see things going the way they are, but change is a way of life and nothing ever remains the same.
|Contractor, I have had EXACTLY the same experience on a site with diverse topics. My income was dropping one day so I checked out the ads and they were exactly as you described. |
Yep, that is how I figure it out every time there is site-targeting. Income drops, I can open that particular page and see the CPM ads. BTW I looked at the stats for the page in question and it receives from 2115-3038 pageviews a day this month. I am sure that is why Google sees fit to run CPM ads on that page. Problem is my only choice is to put those site-targeting URLs in my competitive filter which is a loss for everyone as the ad would be fine on the correct pages of the site.
They simply need to quit throwing their page targeting out the window when showing CPM ads.
|Soooo, it appears there is no way to tell which ads are cpm..hmm. |
Very easy to tell if you have diverse topics on a site which are CPM ads and which ads are not. If you had a site on one very tightly themed subject with all pages focusing on the exact same topic, it would be more difficult to tell.
That's just it, all my sites are focused on one subject each so that makes it hard for me to tell what is or isn't :(
Even with the risk of this generating a lot of incoming flaming hot arrows, I'm going to come to the defense of AdSense somewhat and especially AdSense Advisor.
Early on in this thread, the Advisor indicated they were responding to a request by publishers to be able to sign up advertisers directly on the publisher's site. I appreciate AdSense moving in that direction.
However, if this thread is indicative of publishers as a whole, either publishers didn't do a good job of being specific of how they thought it should work, AdSense didn't have a good grasp of the needs of the publishers or AdSense can't (for some reason) give publishers exactly what they want.
As relates exclusively to the topic of this new feature, it seems the top two concerns are first the inability to have different "landing" pages for each of a publisher's sites. (The lack of this is the reason I turned off the feature for my account)
The other top concern seems to be reporting on the activity generated by the new advertiser sign-up feature.
There are some other issues such as CPM ads and site targetting but those issues aren't necessarily exclusive to this new feature.
If AdSense could resolve the landing page issue, I think that would benefit a huge block of publishers.
If they could resolve the reporting issue, I think that would benefit another big block of publishers. Although there seems to be a diverse group of desires for reporting, so that may take a bit more consideration before being implemented.
With all that said, the bottom line is this is business. I entered into a contract with AdSense when I first signed up and it seemed to make it clear that things would change over time. At any time, if I don't like the arrangement, I can simply opt out.
I'll submit my suggestions and make my complaints (which I have) but I'm not going to start making demands, alluding to "rights" or assuming Google owes me anything other than what is in the contract.
I appreciate that I have somewhere I can come and get some level of ongoing direct communication with a representative of AdSense. I don't know if Advisor is one person or a group, but they are human. I hope this place doesn't turn so sour he/she/they will start to dread even visiting.
In closing I'll respectfully suggest that airing complaints, suggestions, comments, questions, compliments, etc. are a vital part of making AdSense better for us, for advertisers and for Google. But once it gets beyond that, comments might be counter-productive.
| This 199 message thread spans 7 pages: < < 199 ( 1 2  4 5 6 7 ) > > |