| 4:40 am on Apr 25, 2005 (gmt 0)|
That would explain all the PurplePill ads that have been running amok on my site today.
|It will allow advertisers to specify the sites on which they want their ads to appear, without having to pick a keyword tied to the content on a page |
How about us advertisers that have spent their entire existence making sure only relative content and ads appear on our sites that don't want this off topic garbage on our pages?
| 4:42 am on Apr 25, 2005 (gmt 0)|
>> It will allow advertisers to specify the sites <<
This could be interesting.
| 4:47 am on Apr 25, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Just do a search on Google News for Google and quite a few articles come up.
Will be interesting to see how this works from a publishers perspective.
| 4:54 am on Apr 25, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Here is a page about this on the Adwords site.
| 5:04 am on Apr 25, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Anyone see anything about publishers being able to opt-in or out of this deal?
Apparently the minimum CPM is $2.00. That might be fine for low paying pages/sites. But on pages that pay a lot more than that it would be nice to opt out if the CPM bids are low.
The only way I see to opt out now is by selecting an ad format that doesn't work with this program.
| 5:19 am on Apr 25, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Off the NY Times:
"Google is giving advertisers a computerized system that will help them comb through the many thousands of sites it represents to find those that may have an audience appropriate for their products."
Story here [nytimes.com]
Very very interesting. Will good to finally see who all the content partners. I'd guess if this is the first step (picking a site you want to have your adverts on) then the next step would be to allow advertisers to specify the sites they don't want to have their adverts on.
| 5:20 am on Apr 25, 2005 (gmt 0)|
What I like about this (without knowing the details yet) is that it appears to give me just what I was asking for in a post earlier this week - 2 ad units, but different ones that hopefully won't hurt each other. One text based, CPC - one graphic based, CPM. This sounds like it could potentially be a boon for us content publishers... there is a NY Times article now too -
| 5:29 am on Apr 25, 2005 (gmt 0)|
from cnet [news.com.com...]
|Google's program, called Site Targeting, is being introduced in test form on Monday, but will be rolled out to all advertisers in the next two weeks, Keane said. Advertisers will be able to target ads not only but Web site, but also by category, such as wine enthusiasts. Google will target ads by scanning Web pages for their content. |
Advertisers must bid at minimum $2 to reach a thousand people, but they must compete against other promoters for the same inventory, so costs could inflate for popular keywords, Web sites or categories.
Will be very interesting to see how this affects stats.
Can't help but thinking though that if an advertiser can see and target specific sites and then that site does not allow ads for that domain, would the advertiser(s) be more tempted to contact the website directly and do a deal.
I wonder whether we as publishers will be able to see which domains are targetting our own sites.
[edited by: Woz at 5:38 am (utc) on April 25, 2005]
[edit reason] made link live [/edit]
| 5:29 am on Apr 25, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Allowing animated ads was announced by Google last year and discussed here:
It will be interesting to see publishers reaction and feedback.
| 5:34 am on Apr 25, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|I wonder whether we as publishers will be able to see which domains are targetting our own sites. |
Wouldn't that be indicated by what non-text adverts begin to appear on your site?
| 5:41 am on Apr 25, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I see at least three things possibly happening with this:
1) those advertisers that have been tracking conversions by referring content network website may see their ROI skyrocket as they can now better target their ad spending
2) based on 1), those publishers who haven't been affected by Smart Pricing (and whose referrals convert at high rates) may get a major boost to their EPC
3) this could be the end to the auto-generated scraper sites with no content, as advertisers will (probably) not choose to show their ads on them
| 5:55 am on Apr 25, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|Wouldn't that be indicated by what non-text adverts begin to appear on your site? |
Site-targeted ads can be text ads, static image ads or new animated image ads (coming soon).
|this could be the end to the auto-generated scraper sites with no content, as advertisers will (probably) not choose to show their ads on them |
I don't think this can solve the scraper sites since there is no change in the format of the keyword-targeted ads. You can't select the sites for keyword-targeted ads.
| 6:19 am on Apr 25, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I'm a little nervous over the site targeting feature--what if the Google going rate is less than my own going rate. My ad sales people will have a really tough sell. Sites with a higher CTR may get hurt with this.
| 6:29 am on Apr 25, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Please keep this discussion as it affects publishers. Discussion for advertisers is here:
Thanks! :) :)
| 6:32 am on Apr 25, 2005 (gmt 0)|
'Twill be interesting to see how this pans out. I can see the advantages for advertisers.
It could also be great for publishers. It should mean more advertisers using the content option. It could mean that as advertisers don't have to have their ads on joe's blogspot, sites that deliver conversions for advertisers get more per click. It might mean that in addition to more money for clicks, we also get money from cpm where a click doesn't happen.
It may mean that made for adsense sites that ask visitors to click on the ads get so little out of adsense that it's not worth their while to do it :)
It may also mean that there are LOADS more adsense banners on sites :(
I have to say that I really don't want graphical ads on my site - especially animated ones. I'll opt out of them given the chance.
I also have reservations on the cpm idea. At the moment, for delivering a quality click to advertisers I'm getting between 10 and 20 * the $2 cpm figure quoted. I'm not happy about the idea of delivering quality clicks for bargain basement prices.
We will see, but overall it sounds like it could be a good thing for both advertisers and publishers in the long term.
| 6:37 am on Apr 25, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|I also have reservations on the cpm idea. At the moment, for delivering a quality click to advertisers I'm getting between 10 and 20 * the $2 cpm figure quoted. I'm not happy about the idea of delivering quality clicks for bargain basement prices. |
My understanding as a publisher is that the CPM adverts will only appear if they are priced in excess of what you've earning via the existing CPC listings. So if you're earning $20-$30 CPM on your CPC (well done!) then advertisers would need to bid in excess of that figure for their adverts to appear on your site.
| 6:40 am on Apr 25, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|My understanding as a publisher is that the CPM adverts will only appear if they are priced in excess of what you've earning via the existing CPC listings. So if you're earning $20-$30 CPM on your CPC (well done!) then advertisers would need to bid in excess of that figure for their adverts to appear on your site. |
I sure hope so, I don't want a measly $2 CPM, I'm in the same boat as david_uk.
| 6:41 am on Apr 25, 2005 (gmt 0)|
But are they talking CPM per page, or per site?
Page CPM can sometimes be far higher than a sites overall CPM.
| 6:56 am on Apr 25, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|"When site-targeted and keyword-targeted ads both are eligible for display in a given position, they compete equally for ranking. The AdWords ranking system takes into account the max CPM prices of all site-targeted ads, compares them to the combined cost-per-click prices and clickthrough rate of keyword-targeted ads, and then displays the highest-ranked ads. " |
From here: [google.com ]
That reads like it is across the site rather than per page. The advertiser sets their maximum CPM -- not their minimum (that is apparently set by Google at $2). If I'm reading that correctly then it seems would encourage publishers to not keep adverts on pages that are dragging down the across the site CPM.
| 6:59 am on Apr 25, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I just fired off a heated email to AdSense about all the off topic banner garbage flying on my site today.
I've never allowed off target ads from any other source and to date AdSense has been very on target but this has my hackles up worse than you can imagine. I'm about to sell my soul to AdBrite if they don't give me a real good answer like "OOPS! Our targetting is broken!" as I could give a tinkers damn if my visitors have acid reflux.
If they have acid reflux they should be on WebMD, not my site.
Maybe I'll just head down to AD:TECH in SF tomorrow and stop by the Google booth and throw a temper tantrum :)
I'm still fuming[/edit]
The filter doesn't seem to block it, now I'm furious[/edit]
| 7:38 am on Apr 25, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I wonder if publisher will be able to choose to run only site-targeted AdWords ads?
| 7:44 am on Apr 25, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I've got to agree with the overall
But I'm already trying out adbrite on about 25% of my pages, and waiting for Yahoo's offering...
Because I've concluded that Google must care more about their advertisers than their publishers- they certainly haven't helped me much with the problems I've had in the last month.
It makes sense they would care more about those who send the money to them... but I'd like to see how well they'd do without AdSense publishers.
| 7:57 am on Apr 25, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I want to curse in Russian. But I guess it is not allowed. :)
I had 7-10 USD CPM - and I was complaining. :)
Now they will sell MY SITE for 2 USD CPM.
Only one thing - you can drop CTR without losing
your revenue after that.
Last 3 days were TERRIBLE.
Now I should expect even worse.
| 8:06 am on Apr 25, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Since AdSense is currently getting me far less than $2 CPM (even less than what my probable portion of that $2 would be), that $2 minimum figure isn't looking too bad.
| 8:16 am on Apr 25, 2005 (gmt 0)|
>> Now they will sell MY SITE for 2 USD CPM.
Just because the minimum is $2 CPM doesn't mean that it will allow the system to show on your site for only $2 CPM. Why would Google do that, when it knows it can get $1O OR $20+ CPM on your site otherwise? Google is in the business of making money, and it wouldn't make business sense for them to show an ad worth $2 CPM over one worth $25 CPM, even if the $2 CPM advertiser is one that has chosen your site specifically. It should either not display the $2 CPM ad at all or require the advertiser to set a higher CPM that would beat out the current CPM on that site.
| 8:20 am on Apr 25, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Also, site targeted ads should be noticeable as either image ads or expanded text ads ( https://adwords.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?answer=18272 ) which means publishers should be able to spot them easily and filter them if they wish.
| 8:24 am on Apr 25, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I think the missing factor here is the bidding. If your site has good CTR, you may find yourself in between two big companies BIDDING up your site. Bill mentioned the purple pill: if SKB and Roche start trying to ourtbid each other for my site, I'll be QUITE happy. Content is king.
[edited by: thvi at 8:31 am (utc) on April 25, 2005]
| 8:25 am on Apr 25, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Interesting side benefit for those curious about how others are going; a canny adwords member would be able to use the CPM mechanism to estimate what kind of CPM another site is earning.
i.e., nominate www.widgets.com, with a max CPM of $2 - no impressions, nudge it up to $3, 4 etc etc till the adverts start appearing - lets sat $7, then cancel the advert.
That would then indicate $7 is above the average CPM of the site - if you were realy bored you could narrow the figure down pretty tight.
Combine that with one of the traffic estimators (alexa, mm etc) and you're well on the way to a better educated guess of how your competitors are doing CPM wise ... if you care ;-)
| 8:54 am on Apr 25, 2005 (gmt 0)|
About "Google making money"
According huge drope in average CPC -
I would say they start making charity
| This 93 message thread spans 4 pages: 93 (  2 3 4 ) > > |