homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.196.189.229
register, free tools, login, search, subscribe, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Subscribe to WebmasterWorld
Home / Forums Index / Google / Google AdSense
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: incrediBILL & jatar k & martinibuster

Google AdSense Forum

This 40 message thread spans 2 pages: 40 ( [1] 2 > >     
NYTimes Article about AdSense
Overture Takes Potshots at AdSense Program
martinibuster




msg:1430415
 2:31 pm on Aug 4, 2003 (gmt 0)

"Technology will never do the job of a human in making sure this ad makes sense in this news story," said Bill Demas, Overture's senior vice president and general manager of the partner business and solutions group.

NyTimes [nytimes.com]

[edited by: martinibuster at 2:45 pm (utc) on Aug. 4, 2003]

 

rogerd




msg:1430416
 2:38 pm on Aug 4, 2003 (gmt 0)

Gotta love the luggage ad on the story about the "body in a suitcase". ;)

chiyo




msg:1430417
 2:52 pm on Aug 4, 2003 (gmt 0)

most interesting bit from manager of For Rent dot com

>>only about 0.5 percent of users who see the ads click on them. That compares with 3.5 percent of those who see them on Google search pages. But of those who do click, she said, about 12 percent actually turn into ForRent.com customers, compared with about 10 percent of those who come from Google.com. <<

First she is getting a fairly low CTR compared to some Adsense publishers here!

But most interesting is that seems to be saying that ROI or conversion, is better from content sites that google search proper.

Theoretically, content ads should convert less than search ads in general as people are supposedly browsing rather than being more goal oriented in behaviour. However this case, and a couple of situations we are monitoring oursleves and other case studies suggest this is not always the case Rather than assuming i think its prudent to ask for evidence an look for cases where people have gone to the trouble of setting up objective ad effectiveness tests

Also very interesting for me is further evidence that OV (and of course Sprinks) have no intention of offering their sevices to low to medium traffic sites liks Adsense, mainly because they argue that Google's automated system is deficient in targeting. [Far be it for me to suggest that they may not like the approach because they CAN'T do it - at least right now] Of course if you are offering it to sites with say less than 20,000,000 views a month, automated crawling is almost essential for cost-efficiencies.

In the end, as long as google can ensure the quality of adsense sites (regardless of size) they have a major competitive advantage if they can prove that automated indexing is comparable in effectiveness.

Im convinced ad placement on small, niche sites can provide very high ROI and targeted exposure to advertisers, as compared to mega sites like MSN, Knight Ridder regional newspapers (he he!) CNET, ivillage, AOL, MArket watch, etc etc.

[edited by: chiyo at 3:11 pm (utc) on Aug. 4, 2003]

loanuniverse




msg:1430418
 2:53 pm on Aug 4, 2003 (gmt 0)

Anyone else liked Susan Wojcicki's picture?

Grrrrrrrrrr!

martinibuster




msg:1430419
 3:19 pm on Aug 4, 2003 (gmt 0)

But most interesting is that seems to be saying that ROI or conversion, is better from content sites that google search proper.

Yup, that was very interesting the way they trotted out this rent.com person. But her praise doesn't hold up under scrutiny.

If you do the math according to her figures, I'll receive 3.5 conversions per 1000 via AdWords, while only receiving .625 conversions through AdSense.

As an advertiser, is that anything to crow about?

It's like she's saying, "The food at Bistro AdSense doesn't taste too good, but they do serve large portions of it."

chiyo




msg:1430420
 3:30 pm on Aug 4, 2003 (gmt 0)

martinibuster,, maybe my fault in communicating it, but she wasnt referring to CTR, but "conversions" as in those who followed the ad AND also signed up.

To an adwords advertiser, CTR does not really mean much compared to conversions as you only pay for the click. The rest is free branding (and the more of that the better as it does not affect my CTR and lead to losing keywords due to minimum CTR;s) and as we know repeated exposure often leads to action on later exposures.

What I want as an advertiser is to make sure that those clicks i PAY for are serious potential buyers. Im happy to let millions of others LOOK at my ad for free as long as im not being charged for them LOOKING...

saoi_jp




msg:1430421
 3:33 pm on Aug 4, 2003 (gmt 0)


Gotta love the luggage ad on the story about the "body in a suitcase". ;)

Yes, I can foresee many scenarios where details skew the algorithm to display morbid or simply humorous ads. In this example, they failed to notice that other context words such as corpse, murder and victim didn't fit into the general context you'd expect to find with luggage (vacation, sunshine, relaxation, fun).

(Sure, the story could be "Expecting a relaxing vacation in the sun, beachgoer Gregor Samsa woke up to find himself a corpse in a suitcase" kind of thing. But when "suitcase" collocates with "corpse", it's about the Sopranos, not Samsonite.)

However, what if the story were not news to me? (...if it were not functioning as news.) I mean, the ad is jarring when I see it as I'm reading the news website, but what if I just came across the page while on a general search for "suitcases". The story itself is what I'm not looking for. The ad, though...leads to exactly what I wanted.

But yeah, if google could understand the semantics and intent of the text, we'd see better ads.

europeforvisitors




msg:1430422
 3:34 pm on Aug 4, 2003 (gmt 0)

Im convinced ad placement on small, niche sites can provide very high ROI and targeted exposure to advertisers, as compared to mega sites like MSN, Knight Ridder regional newspapers (he he!) CNET, ivillage, AOL, MArket watch, etc etc.

Exactly. If you were an advertiser selling $800-a-day Silversea or Seabourn cruises, would you prefer a clicker who'd just read a review on Cruise Critic (and knew those lines were luxury cruise lines) or a clicker who saw "Silversea Cruises 20% off" in a newspaper's travel section and assumed he could afford that Champagne line on his beer budget?

In the offline world, niche publications do very well because they target specific audiences. That's why a company selling "hard adventure" tours will advertise in OUTSIDE instead of in THE WASHINGTON POST. Similarly, a company that's selling container-handling systems for seaports will advertise in a trade publication, not in FORTUNE. I don't know why Overture (or anyone else) would assume that general-interest news and entertainment sites like MSNBC or Knight-Ridder newspapers would be able to change the basic advertising rule that says, "If you want to sell niche products or services, use niche media."

Side note: The example of the luggage ad accompanying a NEW YORK POST story on a chopped-up body in a suitcase just goes to show that Google's page-targeted "content ads" are more suited to niche sites than to general-interest news and entertainment sites. An MSNBC or a NEW YORK POST may wel be better off using Overture, but that doesn't make AdSense (or Google's "content partner" version of AdSense) any less valuable to advertisers when used on niche sites that offer highly targeted topics and audiences.

martinibuster




msg:1430423
 3:41 pm on Aug 4, 2003 (gmt 0)

Chiyo, I believe you misunderstood.

I took the CTR, then followed through with conversion rate percentage to arrive at how many "bodies" are converting.

So, going with her figures, what seems better:

3.5 Conversions/1000 or .625 conversions/thousand?

loanuniverse




msg:1430424
 3:41 pm on Aug 4, 2003 (gmt 0)

Higher conversions = good.

Lower or higher ctr does not really matter that much since you are paying for clicks. In fact, the data seems to back up the claim that the level of pre-qualification is higher through content sites for that particular advertiser than through Google searches.

Edit: Just to clarify. Martini=wrong

valortrade




msg:1430425
 3:55 pm on Aug 4, 2003 (gmt 0)

martinibuster,, maybe my fault in communicating it, but she wasnt referring to CTR, but "conversions" as in those who followed the ad AND also signed up.

I agreed with Martinibuster.

I just could not imagine how you could support your viewpoint of "conversions" if you would not start with CTR.

Similar to Martinibuster's opinion, I felt a little disappointed to the "result".

martinibuster




msg:1430426
 3:56 pm on Aug 4, 2003 (gmt 0)

In this scenario, as cited in the nytimes, I'm right. I'm not talking in general terms but speaking specifically about the cited case, and pointing up that their numbers don't add up.

3.5 sales is better than .625. The difference comes in the fact that the higher roi is coming from a drastically lower ctr.

If your roi is profitable at the higher ctr/10% conversion rate, you're not sitting any prettier receiving a 12% conversion on a miniscule ctr- in the case cited here in the nytimes.

In other words, the 12% rate will put the bread on your table, but the 10% conversion on a higher ctr will put the lobster on your plate.

If the roi is fine on the higher ctr, you end up walking home with more cash in your pocket. With the other scenario, a miniscule ctr, with a slightly higher conversion rate, you are walking away with pocket change.

The percentage of conversion is important, but not to the exclusion of how much money you're walking away with. In this particular case cited in the Nytimes, not in general, but in this particular case, the numbers don't add up.

[edited by: martinibuster at 4:14 pm (utc) on Aug. 4, 2003]

valortrade




msg:1430427
 3:57 pm on Aug 4, 2003 (gmt 0)

Edit: Just to clarify. Martini=wrong

Martini=correct in this case!

loanuniverse




msg:1430428
 4:45 pm on Aug 4, 2003 (gmt 0)

It could go either way determined by your profit margin.

So Martini=partly wrong / partly right

However, once you take a look at adsense as a complement to the already established adwords program {showing in the google SERPs}, then you can see that on the agreggate and based on the information provided by the article, then Adsense is a winner.

Hahahaha... I write financial reports for a living and nobody can beat me when it comes to qualifying my observations! Of course there is no spell checker here :(

martinibuster




msg:1430429
 4:48 pm on Aug 4, 2003 (gmt 0)

However, once you take a look at adsense as a complement

loanuniverse, you sneaky devil!
;)

chiyo




msg:1430430
 4:52 pm on Aug 4, 2003 (gmt 0)

martini.. i think it comes down to ROI. I can understand now what you mean, but looking at it in one way, they are still paying more per conversion for google ads than they are for content ads to get the same results. With a portfolio, i would rather get a better ROI on just content ads than spend more for a lower ROI on SE ads on one campaign. that would get more of my ad budget. Of course a lot depends on your budget AND of course a lot depends on the value of what you are selling - a product for 200 dollars or a sign up to your newsletter? And dont forget they are also getting more "free branding" with adsense than google!

However my key point was that it is another case where the ROI from content ads can sometimes be more than search ads, the latter usually being the assumption.

rogerd




msg:1430431
 5:01 pm on Aug 4, 2003 (gmt 0)

Loanuniverse has it right... Adsense is an add-on, so CTR isn't specifically a factor. The real question is how incremental revenue compares to incremental cost, and it sounds like it compares very well.

valortrade




msg:1430432
 5:03 pm on Aug 4, 2003 (gmt 0)

However, once you take a look at adsense as a complement to the already established adwords program {showing in the google SERPs}, then you can see that on the agreggate and based on the information provided by the article, then Adsense is a winner.

I just could not buy what you "sell".

Maybe I posted too many "negative" messages in this board. But I do hope that Adsense could last forever. I think it would not be a bad thing to let advertisers, Google, and other publishers/webmasters to see/hear the "black/down" side.

For myself, I already saw too much "noise" and I personally think that Google has granted us (publisher/webmaster) too much "freedom/previliage", even resulting in some "manipulations".

Hahahaha... I write financial reports for a living and nobody can beat me when it comes to qualifying my observations! Of course there is no spell checker here :(

Are you familiar with daytrading? I think that I could easily beat you on this court based on what I saw.

PolishGuy




msg:1430433
 5:28 pm on Aug 4, 2003 (gmt 0)

a quote from the article:

Susan Wojcicki, Google's director of product management

Wow, "Wojcicki" is a purely Polish name!

1 of 2 grounders of Google is Ukrainian (a Slavic country east of Poland) so Slavic people in Google are present big time!

John_Shaw




msg:1430434
 1:14 am on Aug 5, 2003 (gmt 0)

I don't know why Overture (or anyone else) would assume that general-interest news and entertainment sites like MSNBC or Knight-Ridder newspapers would be able to change the basic advertising rule that says, "If you want to sell niche products or services, use niche media."

Exactly. I use Adwords ads for an e-book and software and Adsense on my site, which provides technical information about a tiny niche field of engineering. Google makes sense for niche fields, small websites, small advertisers. I couldn't afford to pay for a print or electronic ad in a general interest publication for a product that appeals to 0.02% of the world's population. Large consumer products companies don't want to deal with small sites.

Sure, human editors can do a better job than software at matching ads and sites, but in the niche business that can't be afforded. Almost every Adsense ad has been a good match for my site; almost every time I have seen my Adword ads they were on the sites I would want them on. To do better would require an editor knowledgeable in the terminology of my field.

Visit Thailand




msg:1430435
 1:51 am on Aug 5, 2003 (gmt 0)

Not sure if this is the same article but think so as I did not want to register at NYTimes.com [tuscaloosanews.com...]

wkitty42




msg:1430436
 2:17 am on Aug 5, 2003 (gmt 0)

Not sure if this is the same article but think so as I did not want to register at NYTimes.com [tuscaloosanews.com...]

yes, it is the same article...

danny




msg:1430437
 2:19 am on Aug 5, 2003 (gmt 0)

My site is not really in a niche - it covers everything from agriculture to zoology, via world literature, science fiction, and history - but that makes AdSense even more useful.

A niche site can at least do deals with niche advertisers, but I'd have to do hundreds of micro-deals with niche advertisers, which simply isn't possible.

News sites may have the same problem -- if they're big enough they might be able to attract and manage relationships with hundreds of advertisers, but it might still be more efficient to let Google manage that for them.

rogerd




msg:1430438
 3:03 am on Aug 5, 2003 (gmt 0)

Adsense is great for a diverse site, danny - sounds perfect for you.

News organizations may find it a bit more dicey. Like the body in the suitcase article that spawned a luggage ad. You can imagine the kind of ads that articles like "Casino Executive Arrested for Fraud" or "Cruise Ships Brace for Terrorists" would get. ;) Still, with enough fine tuning, it might work.

John_Shaw




msg:1430439
 1:18 pm on Aug 5, 2003 (gmt 0)

News organizations may find it a bit more dicey. Like the body in the suitcase article that spawned a luggage ad. You can imagine the kind of ads that articles like "Casino Executive Arrested for Fraud" or "Cruise Ships Brace for Terrorists" would get. ;) Still, with enough fine tuning, it might work.

It would be helpful to news sites (particularly those carrying industry or other niche news) to be able to have a way of overriding Googles software and telling it the key words. A site aimed at cruise ship management might well run stories like "Cruise Ships Brace for Terrorists", but want ads from cruise ship suppliers and others dealing with the industry (not prospective passangers). Such "assistance" in targeting would help Google, their advertisers, and the web publishers.

rogerd




msg:1430440
 1:34 pm on Aug 5, 2003 (gmt 0)

I think suppression with keyword lists by the advertiser might do the trick. Someone selling cruises might well avoid stories that contain words like sink, bacteria, flu-like, terrorist, pollution, etc. It would take some work and even some experimenting, but it could be done. Then the advertiser could rest assured that ads appeared with "Cruising Popularity Increases" but not with "1,000 Cruise Passengers Stricken by Flu-Like Illness".

danny




msg:1430441
 1:38 pm on Aug 5, 2003 (gmt 0)

I'm not sure I see the problem (with this particular case, anyway). Someone who has just read an article on terrorist threats to cruise ships may be less likely to go on a cruise than they were before they read the article, but they're probably more likely to go a cruise than a randomly selected person.

Who knows, some readers may think along the lines of: "Wow, that bomb attack will have devastated Bali's tourist trade, I wonder what good deals are going?"

Visit Thailand




msg:1430442
 2:22 pm on Aug 5, 2003 (gmt 0)

I think it should be down to the publisher. Should a site that features the Jakarta Bomb offer ads that more than likely will be for other Jakarta Hotels.

One could look upon it and think like Danny suggested that there may be some good deals around etc.

The publisher may though see it as inapproriate and decide not to run ads on that page.

As with a magazine some publishers will take them out and others will leave them in.

As for the advertiser I am sure the ability to be able to select negative words such as terrorist, bomb etc should be used to ensure that their ads do not appear on such articles.

chiyo




msg:1430443
 2:31 pm on Aug 5, 2003 (gmt 0)

Our news item on the Jakarta bombing has been showing public service ads ever since published. ;( Getting heaps of hits though. I would prefer the ads were for Indonesian Red Cross and to any charity for the victims, the great majority of whom were Indonesians.

martinibuster




msg:1430444
 2:36 pm on Aug 5, 2003 (gmt 0)

As for the advertiser I am sure the ability to be able to select negative words such as terrorist, bomb etc should be used to ensure that their ads do not appear on such articles.

That's a good idea however, most advertisers are unaware of where their ads are showing, let alone of within what context they are being shown.

Advertisers are out of the loop on this one.

This 40 message thread spans 2 pages: 40 ( [1] 2 > >
Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Google / Google AdSense
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Home ¦ Free Tools ¦ Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About ¦ Library ¦ Newsletter
WebmasterWorld is a Developer Shed Community owned by Jim Boykin.
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved