| 10:08 pm on Aug 25, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Sergey Brin stated that paid inclusion could be detrimental to the search results so as far as Google goes it looks like relevancy rules.
I think Google serves good results to advertisers with adwords and helps webmasters to profit from our efforts with adsense, pretty muchh a win-win-win scenario, when I compare it with the traffic capping of Looksmart and blatent he who pays wins strategies of some others.
| 11:08 pm on Aug 25, 2003 (gmt 0)|
At last weeks SES in San Jose, I attended the SEMPO unveiling and one of the things noted was that 80 percent of the booths/keynote speakers at San Francisco's AD:Tech Conference were staffed by Internet related firms.
A look at the upcoming New York AD:Tech Conference reveals a continued embrace of cyberspace. Sessions include forums on affiliate marketing, SEM, a Google Breakfast Forum, etc.
You'd think it's a gold rush, only it's not just Google, but a multitude, who are out there selling shovels.
As for discussions about traditional advertisers entering the fray, I initiated a discussion this very morning. Feel free to jump in.
| 4:59 am on Aug 26, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Didn't realize that...will be jumping in over there....thanks.
| 12:50 pm on Aug 27, 2003 (gmt 0)|
My question is slightly different than the other discussion. I am wondering how existing advertising companies (traditional banner ads, pop ups etc) suppliers are responding to google coming into the market. Are contracts being revised, are payouts increasing? Sooner or later as I noted the erosion of their publishing base has to have a negative effect. Or are they so well positioned goole coming into the market has no effect?
<edit - can't spell without morning coffee>
| 1:04 pm on Aug 27, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Visi - They will and some already have responded. Some have already been doing contextual advertising for years.
Folks keep forgetting that Google did *NOT* come up with idea. They just implemented it in a bigger way. They bought Applied Semantics who was working with others first. Since the others were able to do this with the help of Applied Semantics software they may take a step back since obviously they can't use it anymore.
I gotta have my coffee as well!
| 3:11 pm on Aug 27, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I would also like to know how the traditional ad networks (e.g. Burst, Fastclick, etc.) are responding to Adsense.
The first as I see it is the reduced number of people selecting Google CPM ads offered through the ad networks (per the show only 1 Google ad guideline). Of course, those who put Adsense code directly into their site and find that it does not work for them will then revert back to the Google CPM ads served through the ad networks.
I would like to know how the other publishers are using Adsense vis-a-vis the other ad networks. Are they:
(a) using Adsense in addition to their traditional ad network, putting in the Adsense code alongside the other ad creatives supplied by their ad networks?
(b)are the publishers altogether dumping the ad networks and concentrating on Google? This can be the mode of action for those who have been earning pennies on their banner ads and decide to simply concentrate on the real income generating source. If this is the case, how are the ad networks responding? Or are will the number of publishers adopting this stance be big enough to actually concern the ad networks?
| 3:25 pm on Aug 27, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Some ad networks are working to enable their publishers to use Adsense as a default in their banner rotation.
This is a strategy designed for those who want to work jointly with Google and the ad networks to maximize their ad earnings. I am not sure if any of the ad networks have made this work so far and if they are already offering this capability to their publishers. If this works, this is a good strategy for ad intermediaries to hold on to their publishers.
| 4:37 pm on Aug 27, 2003 (gmt 0)|
alika - I really can't understand why other networks would work with Google on this one. It means another rev share and lower profits and Google is restrictive on what other ads you can show so the networks would not be able to show more than the Google ad if another ad appears to conflict with Google. Now if a website only pulls one ad from the netowrk at a time that cuts that part down but then their still doing a rev share. Seems like it would be more of a nightmare than anything.
| 4:49 pm on Aug 27, 2003 (gmt 0)|
justageek -- I know that one ad network has been working on this and has been testing it to some of their "premium members." They're doing it because of publishers' requests.
I think it is advantageous to ad networks. By providing this feature, they will stop the exodus of publishers who will now remove their ad codes for Adsense. For example, a site using an ad network leaderboard may hesitate removing the ad network code to replace it with Google leaderboards IF they can simply add the Adsense code as a default in the ad network's leaderboard code. Instead of choosing between ad network vs. Adsense, the publisher can now have the ad network + Adsense. Then they can simply deselect the Google CPM ads from their RON campaigns and serve Adsense as a default.
If ad networks can make this work and Google cooperates - "IF" the operative word here - then ad networks can tell their publishers: "Hey don't remove my codes because I am now able to make Adsense work for you as a default."
In fact, some publishers using ad networks are saying to hold off hardcoding the Google codes onto their pages and simply wait for ad networks to allow this functionality.
I saw a post in an ad network forum the other day of a member saying goodbye from the network because the network has not been able to give them the revenues they need. They will now be concentrating on Adsense where they earned in one month the earnings they had for the whole year last year from the ad network. Now, that is not the kind of scenario that ad networks will not want to see.
| 5:11 pm on Aug 27, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Don't get me wrong, I understand the networks not wanting to loose their customer base and the need to do something with regards to contextual advertising due to publisher pressure. Just seems that since contextual advertising is relatively easy that they would do an in-house solution or licsense the technology from someone who can do it. That way they would have the best of both worlds by keeping their identity and serving the needs of their customers. Maybe I'm just looking at it the wrong way but it just seems to simple of a deal to do and not have to share revenue.
From the content owners side I'm not sure why they would want to share revenue with the networks when they can go directly to Google.
I guess I just don't see it, my logic is flawed or I'm missing something :-)
| 5:31 pm on Aug 27, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I guess our perspectives are different. I am looking at this issue from the point of view of content publishers who are ALREADY using ad networks. For years, they have been using the ad networks to generate online advertising to their site, accepting the split between the publisher and the ad intermediary.
Now here comes Adsense.
For those who are already with ad networks, the question now is how will they add Adsense to their advertising mix? If they use Adsense, will they be sacrificing the ad network's code? Afterall, how many leaderboards can you actually put in a site without it becoming an eyesore? Will the publishers have to choose between the leaderboard of the ad network OR the Google Adsense leaderboard?
Before Adsense was offered straight to publishers, Google first used the ad networks (Burst, Fastclick, etc.) and offered the text ads as a RON CPM campaign. That was an easy decision to their member publishers: simply select the Google ad.
Now, publishers with ad networks must choose as to what type of creative they can give to the ad network and what creative can be used for Google. They can maybe strike a compromise: use Adsense as a skyscraper (or some other type)while use the ad network for leaderboards or banners (or some other type).
If the ad network can make Adsense work as a default, then publishers will not be faced with that decision: they can continue using the ad networks' skyscapers (for example) as they have done so for the last year, then serve Adsense when the ad networks cannot provide paid ads.
As to doing an in-house solution (another text based ad), sure they can do so. But the popularity of Adsense is so strong that publishers MAY be changing their views as to which better serves them in terms of online advertising.
The relevance of ad networks can be at stake here. I don't know.
As a publisher using a chain of ad networks in the past few years, I have been rethinking how to maximize my earnings. As such, I have refused to implement the ad networks' leaderboards and instead used Google's Adsense. I still use them for skys and banners, but I removed them from my homepage and critical pages. In short, I have given my premium impressions to Adsense, and drastically reduced the impressions that I am giving to the ad networks.
For someone using an ad network, this is an interesting topic. Glad I came out of my lurker mode.
| 5:32 pm on Aug 27, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Alika wrote: "Now, that is not the kind of scenario that ad networks will not want to see."
That's what they have now and the worst is still coming.
| 5:44 pm on Aug 27, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Glad you're not in lurker mode now also ;-)
Perhaps we are looking at it from a different point of view. I guess I'm thinking that if I'm an ad network and I make this available to my current customers as default and they are indeed making more money with this versus other ads in my network then where is my real value to anyone any more?
I don't have my own contextual product so I can't make money there.
I'm serving less and less of traditional ads so I'm making less money there.
I can still make money from the folks who still use me but if they realize they are serving mostly adsense ads then why would they stay with me in the long run if they can go to Google directly so I'll lose money there.
As an interim solution it might work. Long term I see it as the death of other networks.
| 5:55 pm on Aug 27, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Yes, I agree. It may work as an interim solution.
I see as an eventual scenario where Adsense will be used by content publishers currently making a killing on it; while for those that fall by Adsense's wayside, the ad networks can still allow them to leverage their site for online advertising.
I think we have already seen that some sites are suitable for Adsense, while some cannot get targeted ads for the type of their content. Those who cannot get targeted ads from Google may find it more worthwhile to participate or continue with the ad networks.
| 5:57 pm on Aug 27, 2003 (gmt 0)|
"Where is my real value to anyone anymore?"
As Mauricio pointed out, that's the question the ad networks should start asking themselves.
| 6:04 pm on Aug 27, 2003 (gmt 0)|
So with regards to the question "how are the ad networks responding as yet" I can surmise some observations:
1. Ad networks are trying to make Adsense work as their default
2. They are now working harder to get better paying ads from better advertisers (I can dream, can I?) to increase their publishers' revenues and hopefully match Adsense.
| 6:10 pm on Aug 27, 2003 (gmt 0)|
The folks who are making a killing will eventually see a decline in profits as more sites are showing the ads since ad dollars are limited even for a cpc campaign. Unless, of course, more dollars are converted to this than other types such as cpm.
When Google dumps the software solution they have now from Applied Semantics and realize there are much better ways to target then the others can be brought on board :-)
I really do think the networks are in trouble.
Interesting side note. OK, maybe only interesting to me....
I know of a group (heard it from the bagger at the grocery store who new the cousin of one of the owners daughters sons friend) that approached some of the networks quite some time ago. He suggested to them that they get on baord with this type of advertising. The answer was nope. Then Google started doing it and the suggestion was made again. The response was something such as - yeah right, Google is a search engine and we believe them when they say that's what they want to be even as we see them changing to a network so go away kid and leave us alone as we're making money hand and foot now so we're not going to change. Plus we're making money from Google buying the ron. We're right, you're wrong.
If the story is true then I really don't have much sympathy for them either :-)
And yes, Mauricio was absolutely correct.
| 6:17 pm on Aug 27, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Many publishers are adopting the wait-and-see attitude: they want to be assured first that Google will be with them for the long haul. They don't want to make the mistake of dumping their ad networks only to find that Google Adsense is no more, or as you pointed out, payouts have dramatically decreased.
There will be some who will not be inclined to dump the ad networks out of sheer loyalty, tried-and-tested stick-with-us through the pits of online advertising.
And yes, I've noticed an uptick, albeit small, in terms of CPM and CPA rates from the ad networks. Bigger advertisers are coming back. In fact in one network, one topic of their discussion is "The return of web advertising." I dunno how Adsense contributed to that, if it ever did, or whether the increase in the quality and payouts is a direct function of the economy, better sales people, increase marketing budgets, or some other variables.
| 6:28 pm on Aug 27, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Hope you are right about folks taking the wait and see approach :-) Like I've said before, I really do think contextual advertising is a good thing but I sure do hate to see people just diving in because of the "it's Google therefore it *must* be good" arguement.
Also glad to here an upswing in what you see from cpm and cpa rates. Good news for all.
| 6:33 pm on Aug 27, 2003 (gmt 0)|
It's hard to compare AdSense to traditional ad networks, because the two network types are more different than similar.
AdSense works best with targeted niche sites where readers are likely to be interested in what's being advertised. In this respect, AdSense is like special-interest consumer publications and trade magazines.
Traditional ad networks, on the other hand, work best on general-interest news and entertainment sites that can deliver huge numbers of impressions for mass-market products and services.
IMHO, it makes little sense for a site like washingtonpost.com to be running Google "content partner" (AdSense) ads, just as it would make little sense for a site about Irish canal cruising to be running banner ads for Tide, Ford SUVs, or Coke.
| 6:38 pm on Aug 27, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I think publishers are diving in because they hear that the potential income can be very substantial, and not just because it's from Google. It helps of course that it is from Google. So they joined and are joining to see if they can replicate on their sites the kind of revenues other people are saying they earn from the program
As a publisher, I would jump on any program -- whether it is from Google or not -- that could give me real revenues and fits well with my objectives :o) I suppose publishers are constantly on the lookout for opportunities to leverage their site.
Plus, the buzz for Adsense has been extremely strong. But the program is still so new and we don't know how it will look like a few months down the road.
| 6:42 pm on Aug 27, 2003 (gmt 0)|
| 6:46 pm on Aug 27, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Yes, that's true europeforvisitors. It really depends on what kind of site you have.
One question is: will the niche sites leave the ad networks for Adsense and only the general sites be left with the ad networks? Or will there be an intersection somewhere between the two? And how will this move affect the ad networks?
| 6:49 pm on Aug 27, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I think there will have to be an intersection in the sense that the existing networks will implement this and perhaps Google will expand to do other types of advertising as well. We've already seen Overture and MSN do it.
| 7:00 pm on Aug 27, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Europe...as adsense enforces the TOS for similiar text ads....do you think this will sqeeze the traditional mass advertisers?
| 7:08 pm on Aug 27, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Visis - My .02 on that. As long as Google can enforce that then it would seem to have to have an impact. In fact, if Google can get the masses to join the program then I don't see why they wouldn't eventially get to the point where they say no more blue hyperlinks for anyone else anymore as it looks to similiar to ours :-)
| 8:31 pm on Aug 27, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|One question is: will the niche sites leave the ad networks for Adsense and only the general sites be left with the ad networks? Or will there be an intersection somewhere between the two? And how will this move affect the ad networks? |
In theory, some of the ad networks offer targeted advertising. In practice, they seldom deliver on that promise. And even when they can deliver targeted advertising (such as airline ads on travel sites, for example), the targeting and the CPM isn't likely to match what a niche site on a commercial site can earn from AdSense ads.
|Europe...as adsense enforces the TOS for similiar text ads....do you think this will sqeeze the traditional mass advertisers? |
I don't see why. Traditional mass advertisers don't use text ads.
|In fact, if Google can get the masses to join the program then I don't see why they wouldn't eventially get to the point where they say no more blue hyperlinks for anyone else anymore as it looks to similiar to ours :-) |
The latter certainly won't happen. And Google can't tighten up its definition of what it considers to be "competing text ads" without losing the publishers it needs most. If it were to forbid affiliate links, for example, it would lose sites like mine that earn twice as much from affiliate links as they do from AdSense. The more commercial a topic is, the less willing a publisher will be to let Google dictate terms. The people at Google are smart enough to realize that demanding exclusivity would relegate AdSense to being a program for hobby sites, information sites on topics with little commercial potential, and other Web sites with limited revenue options.
| 8:58 pm on Aug 27, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|Many publishers are adopting the wait-and-see attitude: they want to be assured first that Google will be with them for the long haul. They don't want to make the mistake of dumping their ad networks only to find that Google Adsense is no more, or as you pointed out, payouts have dramatically decreased. |
Yep, with a good ad-servicing setup a publisher can change the percentage of delivery by network within a matter of minutes, even down to assigning one network to specific zones within their publications. Then, you just watch and wait. The old Flycast days taught A) never sign an exclusive and B) never move all your inventory at once.
| 9:05 pm on Aug 27, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Ok so here is my five cents worth. Did you ever consider that publishers are want to have a better ROI also. Unless you are deaf, you are sure to have heard all about advertisers and their precious ROI. NEVER do you hear of a publishers ROI (yes we invest in our site also)! Does no one care or even consider?
Why do you think publishers are running to Adsense? The money! They just want maximise their ROI, just like any retailer, wholesaler, or manufacturer. They know that a better targeted ad is far more valuable to them as well as an advertiser. Rather that an ad for coke on a page that talks about bagpipes, Adsense shows sites that sell bagpipes and with little to no management (cuts a few employees and a bunch of time).
Advertisers and ad agencies had the upper hand and I see that the tide's a changing. As publishers we have sent out a message exclaiming "No More!" just by switching to Adense.
| This 36 message thread spans 2 pages: 36 (  2 ) > > |