homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.161.228.29
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member

Home / Forums Index / Google / Google AdSense
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: incrediBILL & jatar k & martinibuster

Google AdSense Forum

This 135 message thread spans 5 pages: < < 135 ( 1 2 [3] 4 5 > >     
Complete rundown of the AdSense changes
For April 25, 2005
Jenstar




msg:1320929
 6:01 pm on Apr 25, 2005 (gmt 0)

Site Targeting

Site targeting is a new way for advertisers to select keywords and sites, and then pick and choose where their ads will appear. From a publisher perspective, if you have a high profile site, or even a quality site within a niche, you could find that advertisers are deciding to target your site specifically. However, those with less-than-quality sites could find themselves with a definite disadvantage.

CPM pricing model

There is a lot of buzz [webmasterworld.com] surrounding the way site-targeting is priced.

With site-targeted advertising, advertisers set a maximum CPM bid - that is, the price they are willing to pay for every thousand impressions and pay on a per-impression basis. This means that, unlike pay-per-click ads, you'll earn revenue each time a CPM ad is displayed on your site.

This means publishers will earn on a CPM basis for these ads. But the obvious concern, especially with a $2 USD CPM minimum bid is that publishers will earn much lower than what they would without this. Here is what AdSense says (emphasis mine):

For every eligible impression, both pay-per-impression ads and pay-per-click ads compete in the same auction. Our technology will automatically display the highest performing ads on your pages.

It is worth noting that all publishers are opted into this.

Expanded text ads

AdSense is testing ads that fill up an entire ad unit, likely to be similar to the way public service ads appear. They haven't updated the ad formats page with the new ad style (hint hint :) ) but an example should hopefully appear here soon:
https://www.google.com/adsense/adformats

These ads will currently only be used with site-targeted ads, which will have the added effect of publishers being able to spot advertisers who are site-targeting their sites.

Image ads

Google is adding animated image ads, as well as Flash ads [webmasterworld.com]. I wish there was an option to opt-out of Flash ads, while keeping image ads, so hopefully this will be added in the future.

They have also added the wide skyscraper to their ad units that support image ads. That has been added to the ad formats page, and can be seen here: https://www.google.com/adsense/adformats

They have also now added all the image ad styles into their own "category".

That's all folks :)

[edited by: Jenstar at 6:32 pm (utc) on April 25, 2005]

 

asianguy




msg:1320989
 5:06 am on Apr 26, 2005 (gmt 0)

janethuggard, i agree with you, if google will force the CPM model, i will only make 1/10 of what i am making now...my CPM is $15 per 1,000 impressions because it is rich in contents and it's targetted. But i suspect the advertisers dont want to pay that much. Google is even setting the minimum to $2 CPM as what i've heard.

Even if i have to modify all 5 sites, i would never be making close to what i make now. Google is really crunching our small income.

However, this will fires back to them, because many publishers will start jumping off the boat if this one doesnt work leaving Google losing some revenues.

I hope this is just an option for us to use it or not.

[edited by: asianguy at 5:52 am (utc) on April 26, 2005]

europeforvisitors




msg:1320990
 5:38 am on Apr 26, 2005 (gmt 0)

Making publishers think in terms of impressions will make Adsense more like the traditional CPM banner ad networks, which is not a good thing.

There are two big differences between "New! Improved! AdSense with CPM!" and the traditional ad networks:

1) In theory, at least, site-targeted ads aren't run-of-network ads as most traditional ad networks' banners and skyscrapers are. If you've got a site on Elbonian travel or computer widgets, you shouldn't get ads for dating services, online casinos, credit cards, etc. as you would with a traditional network. At least, that's what the association of keywords with site-targeted ads would suggest.

2) Low-cost CPM ads aren't served across the board; for now, at least, they're filler ads for pages that get poor effective CPMs with CPC ads. (If a site gets mostly "site-targeted" CPM ads, it was probably doing poorly with AdSense anyway.)

If G would have done this right, they would have given advertisers an easy way to block (lots of) individual websites from showing their CPC ads (just like we have the ability to block advertisers), instead of taking this whole new direction with CPM.

Maybe such controls are in the works. We just don't know. And CPM isn't a whole new direction; it's just another product extension or advertiser option that should bring in advertisers who are uncomfortable with PPC.

jomaxx




msg:1320991
 5:58 am on Apr 26, 2005 (gmt 0)

In the short run, there need be no negative effect. But I have to say, the more I think about this the more I think it will be detrimental to most publishers. If a substantial number of advertisers move to the CPM model, it means:

(1) Only a small number of sites will end up serving CPM ads, because they have to be specifically opted in, and as a result the overall revenue going to publishers will see a large decrease.

(2) Advertisers will start thinking in terms of what CPM they consider reasonable, and will be very very unwilling to pay high CPM rates. I have one channel (not a site, just a subset of a few pages on the same topic) that earns about $160 CPM. Do you think any advertiser is going to bid $160 CPM to appear there? Not likely. Not likely even if they were formerly paying the same effective rate based on the CPC they were paying.

universetoday




msg:1320992
 6:05 am on Apr 26, 2005 (gmt 0)

Let's assume that Google's going to implement this in such a way that it earns them more money than the previous situation, either through bringing in brand new customers who only like CPM advertisments, or allowing confident advertisers who've done the math to do CPM ads. For example, car advertisers are happy to promote in magazines about business.

So, a CPM advertiser will set the amount they're willing to pay, and then cast the net as wide as they like to find places to promote on. If they don't get enough ads served up, they can boost up their max CPM rate until they're going through their budget. Or they can widen the net to include lower quality websites. Joke sites, game cracks, etc.

On the publisher side, I think Google has a pretty good idea of what your traffic is worth at this point, so they can just evaluate whether it's a better business arrangement to serve up a text link or a CPM ad.

I wonder if they'll be keeping track of the money we've earned in single ad impressions. "Hey, I just earned another $.002"

halbesma




msg:1320993
 6:41 am on Apr 26, 2005 (gmt 0)

Hi,
Not sure if this has been answered or not (forgive me if it has);
How do I know if my earnings are from ad impressions or ad clicks?
With the new changes announced today, my "Clicks" are up nearly 250% and CPM is up 200% on yesterdays stats (and monthly stats) but page impressions are same. Are some of these "Clicks" actually ad impressions?

Jon.

Freedom




msg:1320994
 6:46 am on Apr 26, 2005 (gmt 0)

Google has said that the highest-paying ads will be served

No, it says the best performing ad will appear, not the highest paying necessarily.

Take a look at what it says in the Adwords section of Google. It says that often, the price per CPM will be much less then what you bid.

And as for this 1 text ad on a unit, it says "At this time, this test will only apply to text ads in a site-targeted campaign"

So those advertisers that get into the CPM/site selection program can run these 1 ad per unit text ads. What scares me is: At this time - that means that later, Google will allow this to be done on the CPC campaigns as well.

We are also running a test with text ads that expand to fill the entire ad unit, so that only a single ad will appear in that unit.

I don't want 1 damn text ad on my skyscrapers and leaderboards and boxes.

I will block each and every 1 text unit ad that appears on my site. I want choices for my visitors, not an ad unit monopoly.

As I said back in the beginning of this thread, advertisers will always do what is cheaper, ie: leave the CPC program en mass and go to the CPM program.

That increased competition among CPM might drive up prices, but somehow, I doubt it. When it comes to the content network, advertisers will select JUNK CPM impression traffic over CPC traffic everyday of the week.

ownerrim was absolutely right when he said they should target the unsold inventory of PSA's instead of force feed this crap onto us.

bts111




msg:1320995
 6:58 am on Apr 26, 2005 (gmt 0)

Can Yahoo please hurry up?

incrediBILL




msg:1320996
 7:01 am on Apr 26, 2005 (gmt 0)

they're filler ads for pages that get poor effective CPMs with CPC ads

Excuse me? My site makes plenty. Don't make me come over there and smack you EFV :)

Actually I've only seen a few of the ads, just enough to make me see purple.

Now that I've re-read this thread, we're all like the monkeys with bones in the opening of 2001 a Google Odyssey running around beating on the AdSense obelisk while grunting and shrieking.

zjacob




msg:1320997
 7:05 am on Apr 26, 2005 (gmt 0)

EFV, you have good points. However, I have to disagree with you somewhat on the issue of

"..it's just another product extension or advertiser option that should bring in advertisers who are uncomfortable with PPC."

Rather than advertisers that don't "get" PPC, I see this as a way for bringing in advertisers that don't want their ads on scraper (or similar) sites, an association that could be detrimental to a company's brand.

On a related note, I'm a bit worried that there's no "SiteTarget: So, How Do I Choose the Sites to Target?" thread on WW Adwords Forum as of yet.

I hope things don't go the way some have suggested, that a site has to be "pretty" in order to be selected to be targeted by an advertiser.

Most of the sites that I know of that haven't been affected by smart pricing (and thus are associated with high conversion rates for advertisers), consist of very plain website designs and stellar, well researched, original text-based content.

SeK612




msg:1320998
 7:52 am on Apr 26, 2005 (gmt 0)

I'm more concerned that my site will not get a look in on any new feature along this theme.

I'm using Adsense as a option as my site isn't really that popular to attract general advertisers (if it were I would perhaps consider in house advertising as many big sites do), hence I would expect to be overlooked by most potential advertisers in this new scheme.

As for flash and image adverts. It depends on you're site. I'm not that concerned about an increase in such items. In the end as long as the adverts pay reasonably well, get clicked and don't mess with page loading speeds too much I'm happy (besides there's still an option to opt out of image ads if needed).

jouwpagina




msg:1320999
 8:05 am on Apr 26, 2005 (gmt 0)

Do you think there will be enough skyscraper-banners in the system? I'm only using the big sky, but it's not a very common adtype for imagebanners.

Second point: if the imagebanner is let's say 20% more expensive/profitable than the textads, I prefer the textads. Only if they're bidding much more, I'd like a relevant imagead.

What about you?

valley




msg:1321000
 8:33 am on Apr 26, 2005 (gmt 0)

Suppose a $2 for 1000 impressions , does it mean that we could get 100 clicked ads for $2, a far cry from a $50 revenue.
If this is so,niche sites wich generates low impressions will be destroyed and even most other good sites will be decimated.
Tell me I got it wrong or the whole adsense doesn't make no more sense

bbcarter




msg:1321001
 8:39 am on Apr 26, 2005 (gmt 0)

As a publisher with about 2000 pages on all kinds of topics who was, until recently, getting 24% CTR about $40 CPM... now at $10 CPM, 10% CTR - and whose pages' main goal was to inform people about and warm people up to the very topic/product/service naturally sold for a given keyphrase, a strategy that advertisers should welcome and google should reward, I am without doubt that Google cares nothing about its publishers except how little they can pay us.

It seems their smart pricing algorithm is trying to minimize my CPM and CTR, because my CTR (with no real site changes) has been steadily declining all month, now 1/3 of April 1st's number. Whatever they're doing is punishing exactly the sort of site I would think an advertiser would love. Only flaw I've thought of in my logic is that my ads are too easy to click without reading the article- not enough warm up time.

Their goal, as has been echoed in this forum by many those with the bigger sites and traffic, as well as aforementioned pundits is to make money.

Not only Google's overthinking and poor results with search, but also their myopic (as Freedom said 'groupthink') advertising changes leave me wondering if Google isn't high on its own fumes. Too smart for their own good. As has also been said, I think an iteration or two ago was actually better than this one- both in search and in AdSense.

It's generally risky, in business, to switch your core focus in order to expand- it appears that Goog's changing its strategies and priorities- dangerous. But... Their earnings are going up ($369m Q1 2005) and from all sounds, payout is going down- if they want to attract big league branding ads (guaranteed to make them big $ but you little or none), then they're just playing the big league corporate game, perhaps hoping to become another M&A success story in a few years- make sure not just Larry & Sergey's kids but also their great grandkids can retire from birth, date movie stars, and clog up the tabloids with their dramas.

I thought search results got worse with the latest update- but I knew I was biased because they hit me big- but other regular people (searchers) say recently they only find junk in the first couple pages.

Yahoo and MSN will benefit from this, because searchers will switch, publishers will switch.

My advice? BOYCOTT Google, all ye adsense publishers- let adwords buyers find only spam scraper sites. Someone mentioned unions before- strikes are sometimes the only way to affect big business. I'm not even using them for search anymore- it's a hard habit to break, but I'm a principled man.

Some have talked about big traffic sites being the only ones who can benefit - even they could make more money from other revenue strategies- don't put up with it. It's insulting. Information providers DO deserve to be paid well. But, Goog will pay you as little as they can.

HitProf




msg:1321002
 9:24 am on Apr 26, 2005 (gmt 0)

Sorry to be a bit late to this :), but:

Jenstar said:
A site-targeted ad will take up an entire ad unit (similar to the PSA style ads, I believe), instead of a multiple ads per ad unit that occurs with most ad units.

That's not how I read it. This is an option only available for site-targeted ads, but it's still an option. Not all site-targeted ads will display this way. Ads that show this way must outperform the combined ads they replace, so I think it's a good thing if they appear on your site.

Also, I read the text from the image in the AdWords FAQ below, that the sites advertisers type in as preferred sites are only used to find similar sites for their ad to display on.

[services.google.com...]
In the fields below, identify the type of site where your ad should appear. The URLs and keywords you enter will be used to generate a larger list of available Google Network sites.

I haven't seen this in action yet, but I don't expect Google to generate a list the advertiser has to choos from. It will probably do it's own pickings.

This would make sense. Otherwise, if an advertiser specifies a url but doesn't bid high enough, the ad would never show*). Now it will show on similar but less performing sites. So this may not be the end of scraper sites at all :(

*) Added: or worse, if the publisher blocked the advertisers url it would never show at all...

asianguy




msg:1321003
 10:17 am on Apr 26, 2005 (gmt 0)

I dont like big banners or graphics in my site. Most of the banners i used are not converting thats why i removed them. They are also taking so much space and crowding your site.

fearlessrick




msg:1321004
 11:20 am on Apr 26, 2005 (gmt 0)

"On the publisher side, I think Google has a pretty good idea of what your traffic is worth at this point, so they can just evaluate whether it's a better business arrangement to serve up a text link or a CPM ad."

I actually don't think Google knows SQUAT about what my traffic is worth, what your traffic is worth, what anybody's traffic is worth. The key term here is YOUR traffic, not Google's, although they seem to think that since you have adsense code on your site, it belongs to them.

People have got to get this straight in their heads. Google is making tons and tons of money OFF YOUR TRAFFIC. Plain and simple. Without publishers, Google's adwords and adsense simply collapses. Not that I wish that but I have my doubts about Google's ability to be forthright about how we are rewarded for our efforts as publishers and webmasters.

My reasoning stems from the wide discrepancies in my stats for April, which, in my estimation, are somewhat outside my threshold for understanding and acceptance. In other words, I barely believe they are real.

A couple of examples on my site, to which I have made no large scale changes since early in April:

From April 8 to April 18, the clickthrough rate on my entire site averaged 5.0%. eCPM was upwards of $3. Over the past 4 days, CTR has averaged less than 2.5%, eCPM under $2.25.

On April 15, the best earnings day of the month for me, there were 314 clicks (CTR 6.5%, eCPM 4.64). From that day, until April 24, the number of clicks decreased on 8 of 9 days until reaching a low of 60 clicks on April 24, with the lowest CTR (1.6) and eCPM (1.07) of the month.

Now, I have made few changes, and I doubt that visitors to my site decided not to click on ads in large numbers. ANY business which experienced such a gargantuan fall-off in core earnings statistics would have cause for alarm. Add to this that G refuses to even discuss the numbers - I've written directly and asked in another discussion here on WebmasterWorld for answers and the ASA actually posted that he would not engage in a response.

Where does that leave me? Pretty much in doubt of anything that Google presents to me. The stats I see roll by on an hourly basis I now regard as pure fiction. Whether I get 3 clicks an hour or 20, I consider that to be purely arbitrary and reliant only upon Google's whim. How much per click? .03, .20, $1.00? Who knows how much the advertiser paid or what my share is. All I know is that Google keeps earning money off my site. MY SITE. Not their site.

At this point, I don't trust the company who claims to "do no evil." I have far too many unanswered questions and suspicions. Sorry if some of you think I'm out of bounds or off the wall, but I really do think human beings deserve to be treated better than tiny cogs in a giant wheel of corporatism.

birdstuff




msg:1321005
 11:39 am on Apr 26, 2005 (gmt 0)

On the publisher side, I think Google has a pretty good idea of what your traffic is worth at this point, so they can just evaluate whether it's a better business arrangement to serve up a text link or a CPM ad.

Google has absolutely no clue what a website's traffic is worth as evidenced by the seemingly random effects of "smart pricing".

trillianjedi




msg:1321006
 11:50 am on Apr 26, 2005 (gmt 0)

Jen,

Thanks again for a terrific summary of the changes.

I wish there was an option to opt-out of Flash ads, while keeping image ads, so hopefully this will be added in the future.

Let's hope so. Lack of ability to choose between static images and animated images is, in my opinion, a bad move by google.

TJ

hyperkik




msg:1321007
 12:13 pm on Apr 26, 2005 (gmt 0)

You didn't think that Google spent the money to give us real time statistice out of the goodness of its heart, do you? (It lets us see that data out of the goodness of its heart, but that's different.) It surely did so such that it would be able to track performance of individual pages in real time (or close to it), and to determine which ads to serve to individual pages on the basis of the page's actual performance. That allows it to pick a CPM ad versus a CPC ad for underperforming pages based upon a page's actual performance.

Presumably, if a page is targeted so well that its users are clicking a CPM ad at prodigious rates, the eCPM for the page will drop and it will again be a target for CPC ads. And if the advertiser wants to maintain that level of traffic they will need to either up their CPM bid to exceed the CPC competition, or they will have to bid for terms.

RedWolf




msg:1321008
 1:11 pm on Apr 26, 2005 (gmt 0)

People have got to get this straight in their heads. Google is making tons and tons of money OFF YOUR TRAFFIC. Plain and simple. Without publishers, Google's adwords and adsense simply collapses.

I keep seeing people say this this, but I can't see where they get the idea that Adwords would collapse without the Adsense publishers. Adwords started with Google and a few other good search partners and did pretty well for advertisers. Then they created Adsense suddenly we have to worry more and more about fraud and take extra effort to track it if we wish to mess with the content network. After a while it is easier just to turn it off. Though after reviewing my sales data it was an even easier choice.

To the person who was wanting minimum 10 cent CPC for content, that is about 7 or 8 cents more than the content network was worth to me. I have no problems with my CPC in the 10 to 20 cent range on search where I get good conversions for the clicks, but there just were not that many good clicks when I did the content network at first or when I turned it back on last summer for the rebate period.

I'm looking at the CPM formula, since it may be an acceptable way to advertise on a few sites and avoid the general garbage dump of content. Now if there was just a way to get rid of those spam "search partner" sites that should really get included in the "content network".

ownerrim




msg:1321009
 2:01 pm on Apr 26, 2005 (gmt 0)

"I keep seeing people say this this, but I can't see where they get the idea that Adwords would collapse without the Adsense publishers."

They wouldn't collapse, but they would lose tens or hundreds of millions in revenue. And they certainly want as many publishers in the network as possible (though perhaps now they are looking at weeding). Otherwise, they wouldn't have contacted advertisers requesting they give the content network another try. They wouldn't have started a referral program. And they wouldn't have opened adsense up to bloggers.

cyanweb




msg:1321010
 2:26 pm on Apr 26, 2005 (gmt 0)

Now that I've re-read this thread, we're all like the monkeys with bones in the opening of 2001 a Google Odyssey running around beating on the AdSense obelisk while grunting and shrieking.

LOL

Regardless we will all have to wait and see what this means to individual publishers... I'm sure the Google Guys and Gals do know what they are doing...

iSense
1) This is definitely a competative move for Google
2) This will strengthen and grow their advertiser base
3) This will increase the # of image based ads
4) This will decrease revenue for poor quality sites
5) This will increase revenue for quality sites

My partner once said (after studying 18 months worth of up and down and turn around stats) "the reason they called it AdSense is because it makes no sense and you have to add your own!" - which is why we are all here speculating and comparing notes yes? -O>

europeforvisitors




msg:1321011
 2:47 pm on Apr 26, 2005 (gmt 0)

Freedom wrote:

As I said back in the beginning of this thread, advertisers will always do what is cheaper, ie: leave the CPC program en mass and go to the CPM program.

That increased competition among CPM might drive up prices, but somehow, I doubt it. When it comes to the content network, advertisers will select JUNK CPM impression traffic over CPC traffic everyday of the week.

Maybe if they're selling mass-market items like little blue pills or credit cards. But for many products and services, junk CPM impression traffic is a waste of money, and the advertiser is better off paying by the click.

zjacob wrote:

Rather than advertisers that don't "get" PPC, I see this as a way for bringing in advertisers that don't want their ads on scraper (or similar) sites, an association that could be detrimental to a company's brand.

Great observation. And for AdSense publishers who have decent sites, it's a good reason to welcome or at least be open-minded toward a CPM option for advertisers.

Fearlessrick wrote:

The key term here is YOUR traffic, not Google's, although they seem to think that since you have adsense code on your site, it belongs to them....At this point, I don't trust the company who claims to "do no evil."....I really do think human beings deserve to be treated better than tiny cogs in a giant wheel of corporatism

Why give space on your pages to an advertising network that you think is evil, untrustworthy, or abusive?

RedWolf wrote:

To the person who was wanting minimum 10 cent CPC for content, that is about 7 or 8 cents more than the content network was worth to me. I have no problems with my CPC in the 10 to 20 cent range on search where I get good conversions for the clicks, but there just were not that many good clicks when I did the content network at first or when I turned it back on last summer for the rebate period.

I'm looking at the CPM formula, since it may be an acceptable way to advertise on a few sites and avoid the general garbage dump of content.

Thanks. We need more advertisers to come in here and provide a dose of realism. :-)

cyanweb wrote:

iSense
1) This is definitely a competative move for Google
2) This will strengthen and grow their advertiser base
3) This will increase the # of image based ads
4) This will decrease revenue for poor quality sites
5) This will increase revenue for quality sites

Sounds pretty reasonable to me.

janethuggard




msg:1321012
 3:12 pm on Apr 26, 2005 (gmt 0)

It is a well-know fact in the industry that images convert much lower than text ads. Why do you think that when you take a cruise around the web, if you look closely, and can see all the text ads, that don't really look like text ads, because the webmaster has been exceptionally bright in creating, and placing his ads, that you will find some 90% of the ads on the web, are text ads? On this point, it is good to note that the best performing text ads look like content.

Yes, google has been saying that. But, not exactly. They also tell you to make them stand out, which is counter productive. Text ads which are pretty much undetectable, without a hover, are the ads that perform the best.

I will tell you why text ads perform better. Because market research has proven, on the web, back as far as I can remember, which is only about 1996, (Before that I was consumed with learning to write code, and my marketing experience had not been applied as a priority.) that text ads out perform banners overall, by a long shot. It is easier to make an effective 'pitch' with words, for most industries.

Sure, we all know what a glass of beer looks like. The bottle will sell it, right? Wrong. What will sell it is words. They may be seductive, they may appeal to our sense of calorie counting, they may appeal to sense of pure, natual ingredients, but all those things are best conveyed, on the web, with words. What really sells a product or service on the web is the concept of a bargain. This is also, not conveyed without words.

This is true, inspite of the fact that the average U.S user on the web has the worst reading comprehension in the free world, doesn't understand a thing he reads, and really only looks at the pretty pictures.

My own research proves that point as well. However, I was able to refine that loose marketing conclusion, by testing and proving, that the average U.S internet user will read about 6-8 words of text, and understand it. Once you exceed that, most become confused or lose interest. It is the very reason I like long posts. If I am going to share, let those who benefit be those who are capable of sticking it out.

Given that, any product description that exceeds 6-8 words, below the pretty picture, will most likely not be understood. So, the most important words, must be in those first 6-8 words. Those have to be, price, size, color (where applicable) otherwise the likihood of a product return, is extremely high, within the consumer product sector.

Now, ask any marketing professional on the web, those who have been here 10 years or more, and who managed to find out what works, and they will tell you, avoid banner ads. Their CRT is very low as a whole.

Now, tell me again, all you people who seem to be more focused on the short term money in your pocket, why is it that Google is making this change? Surely, they have marketing experts there, among those PHDs from IT. The obvious answer is corporate greed. But, is it the correct answer, in that most basic form? I don't think so.

It is part of the answer, the end result. But, it has nothing to do with the most basic concept of selling those banner placements to advertisers, even though we know they will not perform well. Some have said branding. That too is part of it. You are not ripping off an advertisers if that is all he wants and doesn't care if the banner is clicked or not.

The focus seems to me, in this forum, is how high will they bid on my site? That question can be best answered by asking yourself some questions. The high bidding advertisers, the ones with the money to spend, are going to be looking for content that will not break the rules. Since even before nipplegate, those rules have change extensively, in the last decade. Would you qualify?

Many of the webmasters in this forum have boundaries. They have personal lines in the sand they will not cross for the almighty buck. That is their choice, and a fine one. But, those webmasters may have tunnel vision when it comes to Adsense CPM. If you have not used any banner placement on your site, ever, you may be in a for a surprise. Those main stream CPM advertisers, may not want you. Odds are, in fact, they won't.

To those webmasters, I would suggest you go to CJ and apply to those advertisers, that if push came to shove, and you could not earn revenue, you would accept on your site. Since this only market research, endulge me here. Do it. Now apply to them, for the sake of research. How many accept you? Are you surprised? Likely. Of those who accept you, what are they paying for banner placement through CJ? Based on your current CRT and total impressions, how much would you likely earn with them through CJ. Now, apply your stats to Adsense CPM, and answer these questions.

1. Why did sites turn me down. (tricky to fine tune)
2. Of those who approved me, how many competitors do they have that also do banner ads?
3. What would be the likely CPM of that company if they chose me for Adsense CPM based on competitive bidding in my industry, and the quality of my site?

Now that you have answered those questions, you have a pretty good idea how likely you are to earn a decent revenue with Google.

I pose this one more time. Think about it. Given click fraud has become as large of a problem to the PPC advertising industry, as a percentage, as spam is to the average user, how long will it be until the following rules are applied, with a broader brush, in Adsense?

To answer that, answer this. How long was spam such a huge problem before the first anti-spam program was launched? I'm not talking since spam first began, but the time from when it was really crippling email. The answer is less than 6 months. How long before a new worm or virus is launched before the virus scan software is updated?

Using the history of the web, to predict, the time it will take to solve any problem on the web, that affects nearly all users within a group, solutions are always implemented fairly quickly. While none completely remove the problem originally, in time, the preventions work pretty well.

PPC fraud is one of those things they can not tech out, unlike spam and worms. It is much more complex, within it's simplicity. The solution was more internal industry regulation. But before cutting off 200,000 publishers, who are the bulk of the problem in PPC fraud they needed an alternative. Enter Adsense CPM in combination with PPC, and new guidelines.

1. New sites, less than two years on the web, are approved for CPM only
2. Sites with less than 1 million page views a month, CPM only
3. Sites with marginal content, CPM only
4. Sites in specified industries, CPM only
5. Sites lacking original content, CPM only

Most of you will be clipped by #2. For you, I suggest reading a very imformative article by Bruce Morris regarding page views, dated January 10, 1999. Google it. There is a great deal of marketing wisdom within the article. I would read it several times.

One million page views a month is the mark many key advertising companys use to determine suitability. So, Adsense using it, would not seem out of line.

All along you may have been saying, I won't do CPM. But, if you don't meet the guidelines, you don't have much choice. How many other companys with targeted advertising really perform well enough to earn you what Adsense has? Today? None. If you are on the web, to earn a full-time income, and rely on contracted advertisings servers to do that, your world is on tilt, beginning yesterday.

I believe that it is in the near future, that many of the current Adsense PPC users will be forced into CPM because they will not qualify for PPC. Today, you have choices, you decide. That is not the future. Given that, what you should be doing is figuring out if they decide to come up with the kind of guidelines, that have been in place on the web for the last ten years already, and apply them to Adsense, will you qualify for PPC? If not, you need to resolve that issue, and ensure you will qualify.

...and that, for most, will be no easy task.

Waiting for Yahoo, isn't really an option. It is not realistic to think that Yahoo, also named in the Class Action, has not been modifying their PPC program, pre-launch, and closely watching Google et all. You don't get to be the #1 site on the web, by making those kind of no-brainer blunders upon launch.

You need to be spending more time on getting your site ready to play by the new rules, which by my prediction, could be implemented as early as November 1, 2005, right in time for peak season. I would think six months of testing on this, would be enough to gather conclusions, and fine tune those new rules. If the small business owner is lucky, they will wait until peak season is over, December 20 to bring you to your knees. They have a history of that too.

I think it will depend on the numbers in the next six months, adjusted for moving specific numbers of publishers to CPM, as far as their bottom line. At minimum, we can count on a wave of scheduled TOS updates, that will one by one remove another cross section of sites from the PPC roles, to CPM over the next year.

It would also be timely for showing a class action judge that you were in fact working on the problem of PPC all along, you did solve it, and there is no case. Clever.

europeforvisitors




msg:1321013
 3:23 pm on Apr 26, 2005 (gmt 0)

Now, ask any marketing professional on the web, those who have been here 10 years or more, and who managed to find out what works, and they will tell you, avoid banner ads. Their CRT is very low as a whole.

Only because the vast majority of banner ads aren't (and never have been) targeted.

Jenstar




msg:1321014
 3:25 pm on Apr 26, 2005 (gmt 0)

All I know is that Google keeps earning money off my site. MY SITE. Not their site.

fearlessrick, if you are having such an issue with Google earning money off of you, there are plenty of other programs to try and see if you can achieve the same level of earnings as you are making with AdSense.

Why give space on your pages to an advertising network that you think is evil, untrustworthy, or abusive?

I couldn't have said it better myself.

janethuggard




msg:1321015
 3:36 pm on Apr 26, 2005 (gmt 0)

EFV

Is not because they are not targeted. It is because you can not pitch the message, without using flash or animation, that takes time to read, frame after frame, and nobody sits there long enough to read through the frames. It comes back to the pitch. Words.

I can place targeted banners on any page of my site. I can match them perfectly to the visitors, and the keyword that brought them, and the content that keep them coming back, and I have. It is not a problem at all. They will not click them. Replace them with text. Click.

Minchor




msg:1321016
 3:47 pm on Apr 26, 2005 (gmt 0)

Hi, long-time lurker, first-time poster. ;o)

I can't be the only one here who's wondering what constitutes an 'impression' in Google's eyes?

Having used various aff programs in the past and tracking my own site's impression levels there seems to be wild variation across the board with some programs including caveats about "frequency capping", "only so many impressions per unique user" etc.

Focusing on the bid price is all well and good but none of it matters unless we actually get paid for each and every impression that we deliver.

As a previous post said - I too have noticed apparent discrepancies between Google's page impression counts and our own in-house..

So much speculation on here - it's great! Like fisherman's wives' corner! I for one will wait for the dust to settle and see what the stats tell me before making a decision.

hunderdown




msg:1321017
 4:12 pm on Apr 26, 2005 (gmt 0)

Which ad formats, exactly, will be showing the CPM ads? Google says "banner-sized or larger"--does that mean leaderboard, banner, and the two large skyscrapers? Or?

And I'm sorry if the answer to this was posted already. I've skimmed through the whole thread and might have missed it.

Freedom




msg:1321018
 4:16 pm on Apr 26, 2005 (gmt 0)

...but there just were not that many good clicks when I did the content network at first or when I turned it back on last summer for the rebate period.

They all say that. It's the only thing they know how to say. I don't think most of them are smart enough to know if their content traffic is converting or not. They only want a goose that lays golden eggs: cheap/free traffic/business. So, they repeat the only thing they know how to say - in order to get what they want at rock bottom prices.

Yet if that tired advertiser whine was true, there would be no content ads running now at all.

[edited by: Freedom at 4:19 pm (utc) on April 26, 2005]

JaySmith




msg:1321019
 4:18 pm on Apr 26, 2005 (gmt 0)

I really don't see what the big deal is... I believe they will put the "best performing" meaning highest bid price per impression ad up.

If your cpm is calculated at $50 CPM via ppc then a bid would probably have to come in at $51.00 CPM in order for the CPM ad to be displayed. Google is a corperation and makes money along side of us publishers. So it will be in their best interest to implement it in a way to make more, not less, money per page.

As far as people worrying about the exodus to the CPM model by advertisers, remember that PPC as beat out the CPM model before. Google itself used to use the CPM model for adwords advertisers on the SERPS. Being both a publisher and an advertiser, I can tell you that for conversions, I will take PPC over CPM any day... For branding, I will take CPM over PPC. I will use both being that I want to both "Brand" and "Convert"....

This 135 message thread spans 5 pages: < < 135 ( 1 2 [3] 4 5 > >
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