| 6:14 pm on Jun 12, 2006 (gmt 0)|
How do you look at your reports by targeting type?
I also would like to know how you know if advertisers have requested to have their ads on your site?
| 6:22 pm on Jun 12, 2006 (gmt 0)|
| 6:28 pm on Jun 12, 2006 (gmt 0)|
There's no inherent "good" or "bad" about site-targeted ads (as opposed to contextual ads). What matters is how much you're earning.
For some topics or types of content, site targeting might work better than contextual. (Example: A news site that's heavy on coverage of war and crime, where the audience isn't looking to buy anything but might be attractive to advertisers because of demographic factors such as age, income, educational level, geographical location, etc.)
| 10:14 pm on Jun 12, 2006 (gmt 0)|
>>>or it's a bad thing as site targeting ads brings lower ecpm?<<<
it's not that they bring in lower ecpm, rather, they show up on your site when the value of the pages is really low.
it might be o.k. if google gave publishers control over where and when site targeted ads showed up, but don't hold your breath on that one.
| 10:38 pm on Jun 12, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|it's not that they bring in lower ecpm, rather, they show up on your site when the value of the pages is really low. |
Not necessarily. Site-targeted CPM ads can pay extremely well if the advertiser wants exposure on your site badly enough. (In my experience, that's most likely to happen when the campaign is time-sensitive, such as an airline's spring fare sale.)
| 12:28 am on Jun 13, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Hi sakg --
This will explain why you're probably seeing a lower eCPM for site targeted ads:
Hope that helps!
| 4:43 pm on Jun 13, 2006 (gmt 0)|
>>>Site-targeted CPM ads can pay extremely well if the advertiser wants exposure on your site badly enough.<<<
advertisers will typically not pay as much for cpm as they would for standard adwords:
"The answer is that site targeted ads are most likely appearing on lower performing pages within your account – in other words, pages requiring a lower eCPM to win the AdWords ad auction." -http://adsense.blogspot.com/2006/03/why-lower-ecpm.html
if you have been site-targeted for that spring airfare campaign, it could in theory go to every page on the site, which means that the contextual advantage that advertisers get with standard adwords does not apply?
| 4:50 pm on Jun 13, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|if you have been site-targeted for that spring airfare campaign, it could in theory go to every page on the site, which means that the contextual advantage that advertisers get with standard adwords does not apply? |
Yes, because the airline bid what was necessary to get site-targeted CPM placement on pages that normally do well with contextual AdWords. (I doubt if that happens often, but it does occur from time to time. In this case, it probably happened because the airline was in a time crunch and could design and run CPM ads more quickly on the AdSense network than it could with a traditional media buy.)
| 4:50 pm on Jun 13, 2006 (gmt 0)|
AdSenseAdvisor is among us again, welcome back!
| 6:24 pm on Jun 13, 2006 (gmt 0)|
yes, it makes sense that the advertiser gets less with cpm, that's why it's priced so low... i have been contacted by ad agencies that ask about cpm rates to advertise on my sites, but they aren't willing to pay enough to beat out adsense, or even ypn, which has been horrible lately.
i think that we all have dead spots that don't work for contextual ads, but will work for things like branding with cpm, at a much lower payout... let me decide where to put those site-targeted ads that typically only show up a few times a month... worst case, i don't care if it's limited to pages with no adsense, but maybe let me set a minimum price on it? under a buck per thou might even be worth it, if i don't have to horse around with chasing payments from other networks.
don't make it always compete with contextual, offer it up as a completely seperate option for publishers to use, something that doesn't influence the so-called smart pricing formula.
| 6:38 pm on Jun 13, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|offer it up as a completely seperate option for publishers] |
I second that, but there is an inherent problem there, if your chosen sections to place cpm perform less than the rest of your site, how are you going to evaluate a fair cost of advertising there and protect the advertiser's interests?
| 8:42 pm on Jun 13, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|...if your chosen sections to place cpm perform less than the rest of your site, how are you going to evaluate a fair cost of advertising there and protect the advertiser's interests? |
The question is academic because Google isn't going to let publishers set ad rates. (That would be a formula for chaos--and lost sales opportunities--because most publishers have a wildly inflated view of what their impressions are worth.)
Google already has a perfectly workable system in place: If its algorithm determines that a site-targeted CPM ad at a given CPM is likely to bring in more revenue for the publisher and Google than contextual ads on the same page, then a site-targeted CPM ad is served. It's a win-win method for the advertiser, the publisher, and Google. (As a bonus, both advertisers and publishers can opt out of site-targeted CPM ads if they don't feel comfortable with them--the advertisers by not bidding on site-targeted ads, and the publishers by e-mailing AdSense Support to say "Count me out.")
| 5:12 pm on Jun 14, 2006 (gmt 0)|
it's a no-risk issue for both the advertiser and the publisher, because both of 'em will have already set their pricing however they want it... the advertiser would know your pricing requirements before signing up to site-target this aspect of your property.
i'm talking about NOT competing with adsense contextual ads, so it would not affect the system that's already in place.
this would only be used in spots where contextual ads do not pay... for instance, my home page is a black hole; it's a really good landing page where there are far better choices than clicking on ads, so both adsense and ypn don't work there.
people who get site-targeted ads already won't be able to relate to this... but for those of you who have a decent epc, and never get site-targeted ads because of it, this is an opportunity to make money where there was none before.
right now google isn't making any money off of site-targeted ads on my properties, but now they could... so it's a win-win for everyone, including the advertiser.
| 6:28 pm on Jun 14, 2006 (gmt 0)|
danimal, I see your point, but I can't imagine that Google is willing to serve as a dumb middleman between advertisers and publishers. A major part of Google's "value add" is determining when, where, and for how much ads should run, using a combination of bids and algorithms. Take out the secret formula, and you've got generic soda instead of Coke.
| 1:31 am on Jun 15, 2006 (gmt 0)|
it is indeed difficult to imagine google being just another banner ad agency! but why not take over some of that market share as well? it's proven to be profitable for other companies.