| 4:56 am on Nov 22, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Showing "Advertise on this site" on Leaderboard and Skyscraper
| 6:53 am on Nov 22, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|IMHO it really is unfair to advertisers if they only let them bid by domain and don't let them bid on a particular page on a site, since there can easily be a WIDE diversity in visitor interest in a particular product between pages. |
Per-url bidding would probably be here if it were easy. OTOH, managing all the granularity that AdWords already offers is a fair amount of work even now. Per-url bidding lets me additionally have to track the content of pages to make sure it doesn't change out from under my ad (a non-trivial technical exercise in general, if you've ever used existing tools that claim to do the job you know what I mean).
But managing placement has long been a joint venture between advertisers and publishers. Publishers may not even try to sell ads in specific sections of a magazine that they are known to perform poorly, and may charge more to put them in high-visibility places (such as where the hapless reader expects to find the TOC).
There's nothing to stop that joint dance from happening with AdSense. SmartPricing is going to keep trying like hell to reward publishers who deliver well-targetted traffic by giving them money they took from the not-so-smart publishers. Although the AdSense team will tell you to just put ads everywhere and let them worry about targetting, I can't see any way that publishers savvy enough to route poorly-qualified traffic away from AdSense ads (and vice versa) aren't going to be the winners in the long run here.
|The only party standing to gain in massive profits (and i mean MASSIVE profits) are google. |
(vis a vis poorly targetted ads) I doubt it. AdWords publishers piss and moan as much about having to spend the money as you do about getting paid part of their money. If they were so dumb that they couldn't detect a poor ROI, then they would not have opted out of content ads en masse, and the whole SmartPricing+ever-increasing-granularity effort would not be happening.
Content ads pretty much suck for many (most?) advertisers, and this is the #1 problem Google faces if it wants lots of room to grow revenues. Google can try to do a better job of targetting, but most objective sources already rate them better than their competitors at this. Google cannot go fix your content for you. That pretty much leaves finding more ways to price-discriminate publishers whose content provides good ROI from those that don't.
Now that AdWords offers $.01/click minimum bids combined with SmartPricing, we finally have fractional-cent bidding. In fact, the AdWords/AdSense system may be the first widely used example of a micro-payment system ever on the Internet. This wouldn't be necessary if content advertising didn't suck so bad compared to search advertising.
Google doesn't want to dump lousy content, they just want to pay so little for it that it could still be a good deal for some advertiser somewhere. Some people keep thinking that this should be a market with stable returns, like selling hamburgers. Ain't going to happen. This is a market like the stock market, where everything is dynamic, everything depends on lots of other things, and you constantly adapt to changing conditions if you want to stay on top.
|I don't want it to go and spend part of their hard-earned money on a middleman. |
That's what you don't want. What the advertiser doesn't want to do is form one-off relations with a bunch of different website publishers. The advertiser does want the middle man.
Why do you think an API for automated management was a higher priority for the AdWords side than for the AdSense side? Google needs to define the API for managing web advertisers, they need to see third-party tools and third-party account managers -- and they are well on their way to this goal. Don't want the middleman? Tough luck, because the advertisers do want the middleman and they're paying for all this.
|Google should disclose on how much they share. |
They can't. The value of content advertising varies greatly from one website to another. Price discrimination is the only way to make the content network survive. Being able to pay a different percentage as well as a different amount for clicks on the same ad is a competitive advantage Google cannot afford to give up.
If you're smart, you don't want them to. Google is really the only one making content advertising work at all on any kind of mass-market, long-term basis at this point. And yet they're still a long way from making content advertising as productive as search advertising, which means they need more flexibility, not less.
It is still entirely possible for content advertising to end up being the back-water, stagnant-growth advertising medium of last resort. Google needs to keep making vigorous improvements to keep that from happening, and to succeed, many of those improvements must mean lower revenues for many publishers (happily, they will also mean higher revenues for some publishers).
| 7:12 am on Nov 22, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I'm still keeping an open mind, and might opt back in at some point - depending on reporting being available.
However, I can't see how it would would benefit the sites that are top of the serps. I don't do direct advertising at the moment, but it's an option to consider. I think I'd do well out of direct advertisers if I put up an "advertise on this site" link leading to a page of my rates.
However, I have no experience in direct advertising and the Google way seems soooo easy and hassle free. I guess that's what G are playing on - people's intertia and unwillingness to gain direct advertisers themselves.
| 9:54 am on Nov 22, 2005 (gmt 0)|
First, I don't like being opted in to anything automatically. I have just had to spend a good while reading all these comments to find out about this news feature, when I could have ignored it until I was ready.
Goofle (the best mistype I have done in a while!) should at least have the decency to send me an email. They should also give some testimonials about sites that have used the system in testing to show how it works in real-life situations.
I had thought that if Google was going to offer a middleman service that they would would simply charge say 20% for the text-link auction and display technology. If Google also introduced clients into the system they could keep a further percentage, say 20% or so. This would match industry standards for both technology providers and advertising agencies.
After looking for a turnkey system to run our own text ads we gave up and simply started selling text ads on our sites to existing clients on a CPC basis. We didn't like the way the Google ads take up so much of the page. We have asked for those tools, only to be referred to, and rejected from the Premium Partners system (we have over 13 million page views/month, but you need an arbitrary 20million/month to be accepted).
We don't have a fancy auction system, we just take a deposit and count clicks. We will raise CPC prices as the demand rises. Tracking is done through our banner manager. If Google charged 20% for a simple service to manage my own clients then I would happliy use it.
As a news site, our content is too varied to produce consistent results from contextual ads. Contrary to most of the posters here, we are looking for ads that are less contextual, so Google's system might work for us, but the lack of transparency is worrying. We are also concerned that our new text-link sales will be cannibalised by lower-paying Google ads and it is likely that we will turn the system off.
Why the hell am I discussing these isssues now, on Google's timetable? I am seriously pissed off that Google has forced this discussion into my workflow without my consent. Doesn't Google realise that decisions to use features like this require considerable research, consideration and reflection and should not be forced upon webmasters lightly?
[edited by: crisscross at 10:07 am (utc) on Nov. 22, 2005]
| 10:01 am on Nov 22, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Been turned off for 12 hours plus, and still showing.
Can anyone tell me if these are all cpm ads from the signup?
| 10:03 am on Nov 22, 2005 (gmt 0)|
>>But if you click "Sign Up Now" on the initial landing page, the name of the publisher's site appear along with the site's daily impressions stats.
Excuse me for joining this conversation late, but are you telling me google is showing my site stats (pageviews) to the possible publisher?
| 10:13 am on Nov 22, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Still turned off. Now the ugly "advertise on this site" is still there but the signup is now generic adsense... Great, we are stuck with the uglyness?
| 10:20 am on Nov 22, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Yes. Open an adwords account, even if it's only to spend $2. It will help you immeasurably to understand adsense. This is the biggest mistake AS publishers do (by failing to do).
| 10:36 am on Nov 22, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Agree with you 100%.
Not only do I actually use AW to promote my sites (though with very small budgets), but it really does fix in my mind how the "other side" sees the world.
| 11:20 am on Nov 22, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Kinitz wrote this simple question, but I haven't heard any answer by Adsense Advisor or someone else.
AdSenseAdvisor: thank you very much for being here!
I have one very important question: is it allowed to put my own text links and banner links with something like "now you can advertise at Kinitz-s website, just click here!"?
Could you answer above question please, dear AdSenseAdvisor? It is very important for me and many.
Does anyone have some info about that? Thank you
| 11:38 am on Nov 22, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Agreed, beginning to use AdWords was quite an eyeopener.
I use banners mostly, and a few leaderboards for testing. I'm not sure if it is my imagination, but it seems that the "Advertise on this site" link is primarily showing up on the ads that perform best? And CPM-ads don't seem to show the link. The link blends in nicely on the same line as "Ads by Google". No problem there.
IncrediBILL, I hear ya - not being in control is unpleasant. I also have advertizers coming to me for specific deals, and I don't want to lose them either. But one thing is a generic Adsense ad, another thing is a uniquely handled ad or link to a premium advertizer. I have been thinking about this, and decided to create a customized landing page, informing potential premium advertizers to please contact me directly for custom deals. I have been looking for ways to relatively unobtrusively make potential customers know I'm open for business - now I can piggyback my own business proposals on Google's landing page, which will probably get well known by advertizers pretty fast.
My biggest problem with this right now is the inability to create a landing page per domain. or even subdomain. Seriously, is it that much of a surprise to Google that an account is frequently used to cover several sites?
| 11:53 am on Nov 22, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I simply don't understand why so many publishers are hostile to this new option.
Why not just offer new prospective advertisers the choice between signing up for AdWords or advertising directly on your site. Or both.
What is the objection, here?
The opening paragraph of my onsite advertiser signup page now reads:
You're only steps away from advertising on this site. You can email us direct at email@example.com to apply to be a direct advertiser - which will give you a fixed presence on the site. Alternatively, you can click 'Sign Up Now', open an AdWords account and create your own text ad.
Different strokes, innit?
| 12:11 pm on Nov 22, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Very nice adaptation of the landing page text ronin.
| 12:50 pm on Nov 22, 2005 (gmt 0)|
It's been 9+ hours since I turned this off and it is still showing.
I have determined that what I specifically don't like about the appearance of "Advertise on this site" is the color being used. It doesn't blend.
I could handle it if they used the color that I picked for "URL" when I set up my palette. Seems like something they could easily change. Same goes for "Ads by Goooooogle". Use my URL color.
| 1:41 pm on Nov 22, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Yeah, I turned it off six hours ago but "Advertise on this site" is still showing. I'm not impressed.
| 1:50 pm on Nov 22, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Now thats what I call Being proactive congrats on being innovative
| 2:58 pm on Nov 22, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|Berto said... |
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:
Advertise on this site
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.
Thank you Berto! I was one of the people who suggested this feature, but without the ability to customize it for each of my sites, I sadly turned it off. After reading your suggestion, I've turned it back on.
It's quite surprising that Google would miss a feature as fundamental as handling multiple sites. They usually do a much better job at defining the necessary features. No doubt that this will be added with the first upgrade of this feature.
| 3:02 pm on Nov 22, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I don't trust this at all. The fact that I had to come onto WebmasterWorld to learn about this 'feature' to begin with bothers me - It's not right for google to just enable these things on a publishers account without even sending them an email?
Not to mention the fact that it's for all sites in a publishers account. This doesn't make sense as I think most publishers probably have several sites, some of which this might work, others it most definitely will not.
| 3:06 pm on Nov 22, 2005 (gmt 0)|
The bad news is that you CANT turn it off.
All that happens is that when you do you get a generic google landing page rather than your account one.
The "advertise on this site" ugly text that shows everyone that they are ads, stays!
| 3:18 pm on Nov 22, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I believe I mentioned that was my fear, seeing as how G has been handling our business lately. Maybe I will customize the feature and turn it back on. My text will read:
Do NOT advertise on this site. Google does not let us turn off this link, however if you try to advertise on this site, you will find that your ads do not show up because we have opted out of site targetting.
| 3:19 pm on Nov 22, 2005 (gmt 0)|
As I previously indicated, I am trying this feature. What I hope will happen is that there will be additional competition for CPM advertising on my site, which will raise the value of CPM ads on my site across the board. (I am already frequently targeted.) Ideally, this will eliminate those all-too-frequent periods when targeting lowers my eCPM. (But I still would like to be able to set a minimum price for CPM ads, and I would also like to have meaningful statistics for the actual and relative performance of targeted ads.)
| 4:10 pm on Nov 22, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I used to think that way too. But it is a dangerous way of thinking, at least for your own income.
Google's algos revolve around maximizing their own revenue, not yours. This is where the average webmaster gets confused.
The number of expensive clicks is a lot more limited than the 20 cent clicks. Google wants the expensive clicks to be spent at their sites first. Then at certain partners where G might get some extra benefit that no one knows about. Then down the pecking order.
If they can get additional revenue for site targetting, they will gladly do so. By letting go of targetted CPC ads at your site, Google will fill expensive inventory that went to you at some other site. They'll make sure to get that cash anyway up until the advertiser's budget is spect. But site targetted cash is a separate revenue stream in many cases.
I know I'm not explaining this well, but some stuff I read about how Google is using their math PHDs made me realize the goal of their algos. They've gone into tremendous detail in maximizing revenue for Google. It is a mistake to think that the same algo that works for them also works for you. When it does, it's more coincidence than design.
| 4:34 pm on Nov 22, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|I know I'm not explaining this well, but some stuff I read about how Google is using their math PHDs made me realize the goal of their algos. They've gone into tremendous detail in maximizing revenue for Google. It is a mistake to think that the same algo that works for them also works for you. When it does, it's more coincidence than design. |
STOP FEEDING THIS MONSTER...
| 4:34 pm on Nov 22, 2005 (gmt 0)|
So they won't provide any means of us knowing if the feature is working for or against us, but they will provide anyone with an adwords account (even if they never place ads) details of your page views and site traffic?
WHY would we want this? Am I missing something?
| 4:52 pm on Nov 22, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|Google doesn't want to dump lousy content, they just want to pay so little for it that it could still be a good deal for some advertiser somewhere. Some people keep thinking that this should be a market with stable returns, like selling hamburgers. Ain't going to happen. |
...What the advertiser doesn't want to do is form one-off relations with a bunch of different website publishers. The advertiser does want the middle man.
| 4:54 pm on Nov 22, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|However, I have no experience in direct advertising and the Google way seems soooo easy and hassle free. |
Is marketbanker still in business?
| 5:01 pm on Nov 22, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|Excuse me for joining this conversation late, but are you telling me google is showing my site stats (pageviews) to the possible publisher? |
Some information is provided to the potential advertiser.
It's best if you see it for yourself and then there's little chance of your misunderstanding what I'm describing. Click on an "Advertise On This Site" link on your site (or another site). Then click "Sign Up Now" on the initial landing page. The name of the publisher's site should appear along with the site's daily impressions stats.
| 6:29 pm on Nov 22, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|The number of expensive clicks is a lot more limited than the 20 cent clicks. Google wants the expensive clicks to be spent at their sites first. Then at certain partners where G might get some extra benefit that no one knows about. Then down the pecking order. |
Interesting. Got any evidence for this, or something we can read, or is this just hearsay?
Sounds like something that would have to be done manually, which Google doesn't like to do, and which would be difficult for them to do given the size of the program.
Can you tell us more?
| 6:37 pm on Nov 22, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I don't remember where I read that article, but it was eye opening. It didn't say everything I said above directly, but I don't think it's a huge leap either.
Maybe someone here can dig it up.
| 7:07 pm on Nov 22, 2005 (gmt 0)|
If we can't get rid of that link, it'll drive me crazy.
Talk about an opportunity for YPN to step in here. The lack of control google is giving us will only drive more publishers to seek other options.
| 8:01 pm on Nov 22, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Sorry to hear that some of you are seeing "advertise on this site" after disabling the feature.
Almost as soon as I heard about this, I opted out. Being experienced with eBay from years past and their nefarious opt-ins for sellers, I know that anything a major supplier presents with an auto-opt-in is usually a boneheaded idea or designed only to benefit the supplier (in this case G).
I am not seeing the links for "advertise on this site" anywhere on my site, so I believe there is hope it will disappear for those who have indeed opted out.
I'd opt in if Google would tell me who is clicking on the links to my landing page, and if I could control how much I charge and how much I make per click.
In other words, hell will freeze over first, mostly because of G's intransigence and secrecy.
Added: I agree with an earlier poster who mentioned the possibility that if enough publishers don't opt in, they will automatically opt in all of us (or a significant number of smaller publishers). While that's a possibility, I really can't see G doing it, though their brass has amazed me more than once.
If that happens, G's overall credibility will be even more tarnished.
| This 199 message thread spans 7 pages: < < 199 ( 1 2 3 4 5  7 ) > > |