|Why not AdSense2 : AdSense akin to domain parking?|
Okay, so it's almost there with minimalist sites - go all the way?
A common lament amongst 'better publishers' (one's who actually labor to create valuable unique humanly edited content) is how the appearance of AdSense on scraper sites (or AdWords to minimalist sites, etc.) at least creates the appearance that AdSense isn't selective, which in turn creates apprehension in publishers that a 'take all comers' policy will either 1) turn off potential advertisers to the program; or, 2) drive down the ROI for advertisers and publishers, in turn.
So, why not 2 or more classes of AdSense publishers?
Why not the AdSense equivalent of domain parking programs? Define a mimimalist site via TOS and push such 'participants' into that program. Give advertisers the option to target them. Explain the benefits and disadvantages to the advertisers. There's got to be some ROI or the domain parking programs are a complete sham - which I don't think they are (entirely ;).
There's a problem with too many classifications.
There's also a problem with too few.
So, define different classes of AdSense publishers.
Anyone care to try?
Machine generated sites vs. human experience based sites?
Recycled versus original content sites?
AdSense for forums?
In any model if a given site yields a better ROI than others then there should be a payoff for that publisher, right?
Another thought provoking post? You really are seriously considering joining Adsense, aren't you? ;)
I don't think this is one of your better ideas though :). A continous system of economic incentive/disincentive via smartpricing is immensely fairer and would generate less grief all around for Google themselves than a two tier/multi tier system. I think they would be better placed investing more in tracking of conversions.
> A continous system of economic incentive/disincentive
> via smartpricing is immensely fairer and would generate
> less grief all around for Google themselves than a two
> tier/multi tier system.
Yes, but not because its "fair", but because its inherently less transparent and it allows Google maximise its revenues while keeping everyone else in the dark about micro-level details ;)
If Google can implement domain bound metrics (conversion/ROI) all the better for advertisers and publishers, but on a domain to domain basis doesn't this require advertisers to provide feedback for the results on a specific domain? I can see this happening in the future, when webanalytics are more widely adapted and the advertisers metrics/analytics interact dynamically with the advertising source. (Won't that be interesting times? Domain Widgets.com is generating the best conversion so, on a domain basis we 1) up the rate and/or 2) push more/better ads.)
I still see the need for broader classification, based upon conversion metrics across the class, and then, within the class reward those sites that yield a higher ROI for advertisers. How to track the ROI for advertisers without digging into their sales data? Allow the advertisers to select, amongst the domains/sites in that category, those that their internal/private metrics show to be the best performers.
For example: In AdSense for domain parking offer lists of domains and let the advertiser select domains they wish to appear on based upon the advertiser's view of what would or would not work. They run a test and adjust. Eventually, the domains that an increasing number of advertisers choose would be the one's that get the better ads, etc.
Same for other categories: The more granular AdSense becomes in offers lists of sites to run ads on likely the more efficient the system becomes. AdSense can increase rates for better sites and share the revenue accordingly.
>>it allows Google maximise its revenues
Which is exactly what they should do. Just as you and I would do. The market should decide which ads you place on your site. The sooner the focus is removed from how much Google makes the better. It's how much I make that matters.
I agree, I also think that it is how much Macro makes what matters. ;)
|It's how much I make that matters |
[edited by: loanuniverse at 7:02 pm (utc) on Dec. 23, 2004]
mmm you are realy thinking about this webwork
If G do not do something re: iether vetting each site and scoring / placing in catagory a another will come in and cherry pick adsense publishers
ups club ( sure you will be a member when you roll out adsense )
and down the food chain stopping at xx
by doing the above they would cut costs down and improve use of contextual advertising for advertisers
Somebody said that a high percentage of fraud appears to come from countries where $50 is considered a good amount of money therefore the cost of mangaement / fraud detection / of each account will make it unviable to take on as publishers
I honestly believe G lost some of the plot during thier push prior to IPO and the overall quality was not addressed
|A continous system of economic incentive/disincentive via smartpricing is immensely fairer and would generate less grief all around for Google themselves than a two tier/multi tier system. |
Not all advertisers believe in "smart pricing" or want to entrust control to an algorithm. That's especially true of mainstream advertisers, ad agencies, and direct-marketing agencies, which are used to targeting their audiences through careful selection of media or lists.
|I still see the need for broader classification, based upon conversion metrics across the class, and then, within the class reward those sites that yield a higher ROI for advertisers. How to track the ROI for advertisers without digging into their sales data? |
Don't forget, traditional e-commerce or affiliate ROI is just one measure of success. Advertisers in many businesses don't expect immediate transactions; they're looking for quality leads.
ADDENDUM: If Google wanted to offer tiers ("AdSense Premium") or other subsets of the publisher network ("AdSense Editorial," "AdSense E-Commerce," "AdSense Community"), it could charge a non-refundable application fee to publishers who wanted to participate. This would help to underwrite the cost of editorial reviews, and--just as important--it would virtually eliminate spam submissions.
|Why not the AdSense equivalent of domain parking programs? |
G already has it's domain park program [google.com], introduced with a bit of controversy awhile back.
Not sure what the outcry will be like when they introduce "Adsense for Scraper Sites."
Back when I used adwords I unchecked the content box specifically because of all the traffic I got from domain parks.
So, Powdork, might one conclude that 1) if domain park, marginal or scraper sites were shunted into AdSense2, and, 2) you could choose to join or opt-out of AdSense1 OR AdSense2, you might be an AdSense client since you had some choice?
I could see 2 or 3 flavors: AdSense1 for QC content sites (G reviewed for TOS standards compliance: original content, human line edited, non-duplicative content original to site); AdSense2 for domainpark, scraper, pure DMOZ clone sites or machine generated snippet sites; AdSense3 for forum or community created only; AdSense4 for human edited directory sites?
All domain bound so nothing gets added without first complying with the sector specific standard TOS?
Don't forget Adsense 5- Adsense for AOL and other not quite up to scraper quality sites. ;)
Setting up tiers would be bad overall - as so many publishers will not agree with how they are "classified"
I think the better solution is for Google to approve ALL sites running Adsense. If you don't want to "show" the 20 other sites in your network after you have your "good looking baby" approved - then this is a negative all around. (And if you change the site's focus / layout you have to re-submit for approval)
And they should have a standard review of 10 biz days? and you should be able to pay a "rush" fee of say $30? for a 3 day review . . .
1) This would kill most of the scraper bottom fill
2) It would force publishers to think about a site before slapping Adsense on it
3) Advertisers would know that the sites were manually reviewed by G
4) This would kill most of the scraper bottom fill (I guess I said that twice!)
In exchange for publishers working in this new system - they would receive:
a) direct deposit
b) unlimited channels
c) max of 24 hour delay for channel reporting
d) direct deposit (I guess I said that one twice already too!)
To sum it up giving Advertisers more switches to play with is not the way to go, its all about having a publisher honestly submit a site for approval prior to running Adsense on it.
I hope that AdsenseAdvisor shares all of our collective comments with Google.
Happy New Year and a special thank you to Jenstar for doing an awesome job moderating this forum - I read it everyday and it provides a tremendous amount of value!
This is a good discussion. The topic has come up before under the concept of something like an AdSense Gold where only good quality content websites that have been reviewed by Google are admitted – for a fee. I’d jump at the opportunity because I think it would bring advertisers back to content sites (increasing inventory and bid competition for top spots).
|Setting up tiers would be bad overall - as so many publishers will not agree with how they are "classified" |
How is that bad? That's just human nature. A lot of publishers don't like "smart pricing," either, but that hasn't kept Google from using it.
Advertisers, not publishers, are Google's customers. If Google wants to expand the advertiser base, it will need to offer options that go beyond the current lowest-common-denominator, advertiser-take-potluck network.
>>it allows Google maximise its revenues
Which is exactly what they should do.
You have to ask timeframe. Maximizing current revenues may jeopardize longterm growth.
IMHO much of the the current system is based on advertiser ignorance. Many advertisers have no idea their ads are showing on domain parks and crappy scraper sites. This is especially true of some of the bigger advertisers who go through third party buyers who are incentivized by overall traffic.
Smart pricing does not solve the problem of crappy sites but further obfuscates the issues. Since advertisers have even less per click information, ROI calculations have to be performed on larger aggregates.
Claims that adding an upper or lower tier will open the floodgates to endless choices are not true.
There needs to be a tier for domain parks - this is a valid source (usually considered of low quality) of traffic and clearly identifiable.
Google should then kick the crappy sites of fake directories, screen-scrapers, etc. completely out of the program. This is not an impossible task. I'm sure most of these sites generate minimal traffic/clicks, so they can let most fall below the radar. Once they start booting some of these sites, people will be less-incentivized to make them.
>>Don't forget, traditional e-commerce or affiliate ROI is just one measure of success
I forgot about that. Apologies. Some high value goods/services don't convert online (for example).
I withdraw my suggestion that continuous incentive/disincentive based on conversions is a solution that works for all.
Maybe tiers would be a good idea if Google hand graded them. This could be tricky though. I could buy a grade A site and add a few spammy, content-less, high-value-keyword based pages to it. And push the traffic to those pages. Google's monitoring would have to involve monitoring not just my home page but also the 2000 odd other pages I have in my network.