I have pretty much found that the more major the advertiser (we are talking the monolithic ones) the better deal they have with Google. Which means you get squat from you split of the click as a publisher.
So I would ban any company of that magnitude cause you won't get beans for it.
And ofcourse shopping sites, scrapers, cheezy search partners and the ubiquitous MFAs. Did I forget anyone? Oh yeah, competitors.
Anyone care to deny or confirm this?
your ban list seems right, but i wouldn't ban major companies only because they are major. at least in my area they are pretty rare anyhow and if i get to see one of them in my ad space alongside the no-names, i like it.
it's kind of a nice professional look in the eyes of visitors and advertising prospects if one of the big fish shows on your website.
the theory of low earnings from big companies has yet to be proved.
are you sure it is really Yahoo that you are banning?
What does the ad trying to sell?
It might be Yahoo affiliates.
Yahoo has affiliates programmes for web hosting and such.
It might be an affiliate that shows display URL yahoo.com and the real URL is yahoo.com/?fdsafdskjafhdlkjsfds43h2j4ghkj32ghkj3
Khensu, I don't understand your claim. You're saying that large sites like Yahoo PAY LESS in a competitive bidding system than other advertisers? That Google is preferentially running ads on behalf of a direct competitor, even though they could make more by putting a different ad in their place? How does this make sense?
Isn't it more likely that the large advertisers simply bid a low amount, for a very broad range of keywords?
Yahoo is in my filter list, mainly because they do not sell stuff directly (in my niche). Rather they act as big affiliate site, and I found that blocking them does not hurt my bottom line.
Some guesses here:
- Big names are clicked more often, because the name sounds familiar, and people expect a certain usability from the site (which they like).
- Big names are clicked less often, because the name sounds familiar, and people expect a certain usability from the site (which they do not like). Also, people might have already experienced the site.
- Big names pay more than small players, because they want to stay "on top" of the list, and their pockets are deep.
- Big names pay less than small players, because they know what they are doing and can select zillions of keywords at optimized prices (and thus paying less than mom-n-pop). Also, Google may give certain discounts to large customers.
Yahoo! are not the only search company using AdSense. Ask.com ads show on one of my sites.
Your claims are unfounded. It is both unfair and incorrect to make such claims, particularly with newer people on this forum, as they make take them at face value.
My music site regularly gets ads for music downloads from Yahoo.
For banning I use a rule of thumb, if I think that my customers will feel disapointed or cheated then I ban the site. As the site is strongly UK oriented I don't worry about what is seen overseas.
well, what's wrong with Yahoo! advertising via Google Adsense? :)
Yes, you are right.
Big (ad) networks may be customers of one another from time to time, just like with the phone and electricity companies.
>>well, what's wrong with Yahoo! advertising via Google Adsense? :)
Agree, they advertise on my site too and their ads are spot on.
They aren't doing arbitrage, they are doing branding.
Exactly, and do you think they are paying alot for branding on a mass scale?
Ofcourse, the content and tone of the ad is the ultimate discerner. I am not saying ban them out of hand like an MFA but be cryptic when you see them, more times than not they are losers.
I don't agree with the branding comments. Yahoo! is as big a household name as Google if not bigger, even though people don't use Yahoo! as a verb. They are buying low cost clicks in hopes of turning them into high cost clicks on their own ad network - arbitrage. They made it clear in their analyists conference yesterday that they want to maximize their paid search revenues. All of the fee based services they have (which Google doesn't have) can't juice their stock, because the growth is seen as limited.
Lets just say you can have all of the above going on and you have to decide what vehicle is being employed with that ad.
When I have monolith advertiser I ALWAYS see what is on the other end and it has to be very special for me to let them through. The deal has to be targeted tightly and directly at my niche or they get blocked, none of this obtuse "we got it" BS. If you qualify them in that situation only, do I think that could be a decent paying click, 4 out of 5 other times they are scraping off your belly.
|I ALWAYS see what is on the other end and it has to be very special |
I can't argue with the logic, but it sounds like a lot of work for what probably won't be a quality advertiser, and maybe there's an added risk of violating the TOC if you aren't careful about how you find out where the link really leads.
|Yahoo! is as big a household name as Google if not bigger |
Somewhere. Definitely not everywhere.
1 Preview tool
2 Type in url
3 Google the url
If the listed url doesn't exist, it goes right in the can. It is probably a redirect or erronous come on at that point and I want nothing to do with it.
Click an Ad? (so not), hahaha very funny.
Lets put it this way:
AdSense: Mortgage, car payment & insurance, bills, food and entertainment.
YPN: Retirement fund
It doesn't matter if you're a big household name or not. When it comes to branding, the objective is also to get people to switch. Think coke and pepsi--both are big--but both advertise extensively to try and acquire new market share--maybe from pepsi or motts or whatever...
ask.com and many other major websites are using Adsense for branding porposes