homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.226.192.202
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

    
Minimum bids option for publishers
david_uk

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 8075 posted 12:43 pm on Jul 23, 2005 (gmt 0)

This has been discussed here before, and I'd like to formerly propose that Google give the idea some serious thought, and give it a trial.

ASA - could you please take this up with the powers that be, and feed back to us.

There are several reasons that it would be a good idea to offer minimum bid price to publishers as an option - the main one is that it would ultimately make Google/publishers more money.

I think Adsense is a great program. I've been with it since Jan '04 and have earned more money from it that I ever thought possible. However, I'm not one of the posters here that worship and revere adsense as if it was a religion. The program has it's flaws, and by feedback from advertisers/publishers it can be improved - *IF* Google are prepared to look at ideas from publishers/advertisers. I know that they do to an extent, as many of the ideas from this forum have eventually fed through to implementation. But I do think that Google have a habit of assuming their algorythms are flawless, and don't seem to take criticism of them seriously.

The problem I mainly have with Google's alogorythms is that targetting is sometimes way off. I'm sure that on the majority of sites targetting is acceptable, but I think many of us with very specific niches don't find it so good. Affilliate programs work best when the webmaster uses their knowledge of the site to select items to promote - and if Google were more open to the idea of webmasters assisting targetting ads, I'm sure they'd see an increase in revenue because of it.

Google's targetting has a habit of booting off decent advertisers that are a) absoultely on topic, and b) pay well in favour of low paying ads. The idea being that 11 5c clicks earns more money that 1 50c click. However, that argument doesn't hold true in narrow niche sites.

I've lately been booting off adverts that I know aren't going to work, and have seen an increase in eCPM, and increase in price per click and bottom line $$.

I know the argument is that by booting advertisers you are likely to lower earnings and reduce the adverts available. It was true in the early days that the inventory of available ads meant that PSA's showed occasionally, but there is no shortage of quality advertisers in my specifc niche nowadays, so that argument is no longer true. Also, by getting rid of advertisers that aren't an asset to your site you GAIN revenue - not lose it.

The sites that were lowering my bottom line figure are sites the adsense bot decided were the best bet. There are several categories of site that I boot off, and all could be removed by simply having a webmaster settable minimum bid price.

Firstly, whilst Google may be keen on introducing 1c clicks (that's the cost to the advertiser - we get less), Google should appreciate that webmasters don't necessarily want them. Quite honestly I'd rather show PSA's. I also think that a lot of 1c clicks would make other advertising programs a better financial bet for publishers than Adsense. I am aware that the 1c clicks won't affect everybody, but knowing just how screwy Adsense targetting can be, I've no faith that they won't decide to take good payers off in favour of these ads because the deranged bot "thinks" they might be a better bet. I know that ads that don't perform will eventually find their way off our sites, but why have them there in the first place?

Secondly, the main site's I boot are in three categories:- Scrapers, directories and webmasters buying site traffic. None of these actually sell goods and services to my visitors - it's just shunting traffic round the web and back again.

I'm not lumping webmasters buying traffic in the same category as scrapers. It's a perfectly legitimate use of adsense. If my site had a low position on a relevant Google search, then I'd certainly think about getting traffic this way. However, I'm in the top three on all relevant Google searches so that's not something I'm likely to do.

What all of these have in common is that they probably don't bid above minimum, or as near to minimum as possible. Therefore, by allowing webmasters to set a minimum bid, all of these adverts that don't work for Google (or me) get banished. I no longer have to play whack-a-mole.

Oh - and the pain-in-the-are Ebay affilliates would also be zapped into oblivion too :)

So how about it Google - are you going to give it a try?

 

vincevincevince

WebmasterWorld Senior Member vincevincevince us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 8075 posted 2:47 pm on Jul 23, 2005 (gmt 0)

I hope they agree to this - I'll want to set my minimum bid to $1, and I'll use the alt ads feature to run another affiliate program.

Another approach would be that the minimum bid should be related to the number of publishers who have banned your ad. If you're running an eBay ad which has been banned by 100 users, you should have to raise your minimum bid to.

darkmage

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 8075 posted 2:49 pm on Jul 23, 2005 (gmt 0)

Hi David

I think the idea would have the opposite impact and would not see it as having any benefit. I would be against minimum bids.

Higher paying ads automatically appear in preference to lower paying ads. Therefore you run the risk of no ads appearing under a minimum bid system. Then there is the issue of pages - I have pages that earn 10 times of others on the same site with similar CTRs, but I still welcome that smaller income - especially since it comes from a lot of pages. Are you suggestion a minium bid per page?

Next up, you don't know what ads are giving you the income, you get averages. So you don't really know how much a click is worth. So how do you set a minimum?

Now to some other things:
-Where is the evidence of google booting advertisers?

-"I do think that Google have a habit of assuming their algorythms are flawless, and don't seem to take criticism of them seriously." Nope, I see the opposite. Google are always trying to improve.

-Looking over your post, I also see problem in the logic:

"there is no shortage of quality advertisers in my specific niche"
"I'm sure that on the majority of sites targeting is acceptable, but I think many of us with very specific niches don't find it so good"
So how do you know there are plenty advertisers? If the targeting is off, then you would not know. If targeting is on the mark with plenty of quality advertisers, then what is the problem?

-Also, what makes you think that scraper/ebay sites are the lowest paying?

Adsense is not perfect, but I find that they do listen and evolve. I think statements like this are unfair "'IF* Google are prepared to look at ideas from publishers/advertisers.." It implies they don't act, when in fact they do. If want a comparasion, just check out Tribal Fusion.

ownerrim

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 8075 posted 3:36 pm on Jul 23, 2005 (gmt 0)

"I'm sure that on the majority of sites targeting is acceptable, but I think many of us with very specific niches don't find it so good"
So how do you know there are plenty advertisers? If the targeting is off, then you would not know.

YES HE WOULD KNOW IF HIS SITE DEALS WITH A SPECIFIC NICHE INDUSTRY WITH WHICH HE IS VERY FAMILIAR.

S-P-E-C-I-F-I-C N-I-C-H-E-S

And I wholeheartedly agree. Adsense targeting is sometimes horrible when it comes to very specific niches. Dead-on on some days, and dead-off on others

david_uk

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 8075 posted 4:15 pm on Jul 23, 2005 (gmt 0)

I think the idea would have the opposite impact and would not see it as having any benefit. I would be against minimum bids.

Isn't that the purpose of trailling something? I think that the idea may well work for some webmasters, and work against others. I suspect that a trial of the idea would give Google some idea as to what sites it's likely to benefit, and what sites it's likely to act against. Therefore if they were to implement it, it may be that webmasters had to apply for it if they met
some basic criteria. The problem with having one algorythm with no means of adding the odd tweak is that it works against as many people as it works for. As the adsense community is so diverse, I think Google should add some diversity to the algorythm based on input from those who know their sites best - webmasters. That way, the algorythm might actually work better for more webmasters - hence Google/us get more $$ out of the program.

Higher paying ads automatically appear in preference to lower paying ads. Therefore you run the risk of no ads appearing under a minimum bid system.

If that was the case, then I would not have made the suggestion. Google does NOT target highest bidding ads. It targets what it *thinks* is going to be the best overall payer based on it's algorythm. That means that if it thinks an ad with a higher ctr but lower bid price is likely to be the best overall return, then that's that you will see. If you have an advertiser that's on topic and bidding £2.00 a click and a scraper that's not on topic yet bidding $0.05 per click, then you may well get the scraper if the algorythm decides that it's likely to get the best return.

Then there is the issue of pages - I have pages that earn 10 times of others on the same site with similar CTRs, but I still welcome that smaller income - especially since it comes from a lot of pages. Are you suggestion a minium bid per page?

I'm in the same situation, and it's not such a bad idea. I don't see why it would be impossible to implement either. However, I wasn't thinking of setting minimum bid at $1 - I was thinking I'd set it to just above the minimum. That way I'd dump the scrapers, direrctories, ebay affilliates and webmasters buying traffic.

Next up, you don't know what ads are giving you the income, you get averages. So you don't really know how much a click is worth. So how do you set a minimum?

See above.

Where is the evidence of google booting advertisers?

Maybe "Booting" is the wrong expression. What I mean is that adsense will show what it thinks is likely to do best, and show that in preference to other advertisers. What's been happening on my site is that the bot has decided that low paying scrapers etc are the better bet, and other advertisers (better paying ones) are not selected to be shown.

"there is no shortage of quality advertisers in my specific niche" "I'm sure that on the majority of sites targeting is acceptable, but I think many of us with very specific niches don't find it so good"

So how do you know there are plenty advertisers? If the targeting is off, then you would not know. If targeting is on the mark with plenty of quality advertisers, then what is the problem?

By removing the ads that are IMHO not appropriate, therefore not going to be good earners there are others that fill the space. The ads that filled the space have proven to increase the bottom line figures.

Also, what makes you think that scraper/ebay sites are the lowest paying?

I don't *know* this, but I suspect that they would not bid above bare minimum. Why would they? They get selected on the basis of higher ctr more than anything, so why bid high? Also, if you are encouraging traffic to your site in order to funnel the visitors to the same ads for goods and services, paying more for traffic aquisition than you earn from what they actually buy is not a sane business model. Therfore to suppose that advertisers selling goods and services pay more per click than scrapers etc. is not an unreasonable assumption.

This idea is not something that flitted into my mind casually. It's a serious suggestion based on detailed analysis on what happened when I blocked certain adverts. Any suggestion as to how to improve the program has to be something that can be incorporated in an algorythm - Goolge is not going to manually review anything (apart from the odd QC check). Therefore, based on the work I've been doing analysing my experiment it's the one solution I can suggest that Google could implement as part of the algorythm that will solve the problem.

By removing scrapers, directories, ebay and advertisers after my traffic, I have seen an increase in eCPM and bottom line $$ by some 20% site wide. It's true that I've seen ctr and clicks decrease by nearly half, but to compensate the epc has gone up by some 120%+. This does prove that higher paying ads are being squeezed off by what the target-bot mistakenly thinks is going to be the best bet, and that they are indeed low payers.

Erku

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 8075 posted 4:36 pm on Jul 23, 2005 (gmt 0)

Are you guys saying that excluding an eBay ad is a good idea in general, for publishers?

If yes, please advice how to do it.

caran1

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 8075 posted 4:56 pm on Jul 23, 2005 (gmt 0)

I see Ebay ads on almost every page of my websites. Does anyone have any idea how much they pay in India? My CTR has dropped a lot , so I'm thinking of blocking ebay

europeforvisitors



 
Msg#: 8075 posted 5:11 pm on Jul 23, 2005 (gmt 0)

A minimum-bid option might be nice for publishers, although the law of unintended consequences might cause some unwelcome surprises. (I wonder how many threads on this forum would begin with: "Google is really sticking it to publishers--I used to get paying ads on all my pages, and now I'm getting PSAs.")

But the real question is why Google would want to go along with such an option, which would reduce the available inventory for lower-paying ads. Unlike individual publishers, Google needs to look at the broader picture and provide a service to all of its advertisers. Allowing publishers to cherrypick high-paying ads and boycott lower-paying ads isn't in the best interests of Google and its customers.

david_uk

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 8075 posted 5:12 pm on Jul 23, 2005 (gmt 0)

Simply add ebay.com and ebay.co.uk to the competitive ads filter. It takes a few hours for this to filter through and become active, but this should reduce the number of "New and used dead Pope's" that are advertised.

If the figures drop and the ebay ads actually work on your site, you can always remove them from the filter. But I don't recall anyone here ever claiming that they increased their adsense revenue.

david_uk

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 8075 posted 5:29 pm on Jul 23, 2005 (gmt 0)

But the real question is why Google would want to go along with such an option, which would reduce the available inventory for lower-paying ads. Unlike individual publishers, Google needs to look at the broader picture and provide a service to all of its advertisers. Allowing publishers to cherrypick high-paying ads and boycott lower-paying ads isn't in the best interests of Google and its customers.

Google is about making money. It's not a charity for low payers. If the low payer represents the best earnings then I have no objection to that. I don't see why webmasters should have them on their sites just because Google has loads of them sloshing around in the system.

My point is that Google is losing money by not allowing diversity in it's targetting algorythm. I'm not suggesting that $1 minimum is going to squeeze more out of advertisers - it isn't. I'm suggesting that by setting the minimum bid just above the level where it removes low payers that really shouldn't be targetted at all off of a-n-other.com, Google will make more money. Better targetted ads = better revenue. Very low paying adverts do not do anybody any favours.

To want to make the target bot work better is not cherry picking - it's sound business sense for Google, publishers and advertisers alike. My suggestion is a practical way that could help the bot work better for more webmasters - that way everybody gains.

One of the advertisers I blocked was purely one button banner in the middle of entire whitespace above the fold, and a few keywords way below it. By ejecting it I have proper adverts that pay proper click prices. This ad is not unique. Are you saying I *should* have to have that ad on my site to be fair to low paying advertisers?

What I want to do is have better targetted ads. Minimum bid price would remove adverts that don't pay that were mis-targetted by the bot. I see no reason I should have 1c clicks when the advertisers in my niche are clearly quite happy to pay me 50c a click for genuine traffic. Google's algorythm can't be trusted not to target 1c ads. Forcing it not to target them is the only practical way IMHO.

europeforvisitors



 
Msg#: 8075 posted 6:04 pm on Jul 23, 2005 (gmt 0)

Minimum bid price would remove adverts that don't pay that were mis-targetted by the bot. I see no reason I should have 1c clicks when the advertisers in my niche are clearly quite happy to pay me 50c a click for genuine traffic.

There may not be an unlimited supply of 50-cent clicks, though, in which case Google serves whatever ads it can.

Google's algorythm can't be trusted not to target 1c ads. Forcing it not to target them is the only practical way IMHO.

I think Google would rather improve its algorithm than turn control over to publishers.

universetoday

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 8075 posted 8:56 pm on Jul 23, 2005 (gmt 0)

I would prefer the opposite, that Google removed minimum bids entirely, and set things at $.01 or something. That would remove an artificial minimum price and really create an Adsense economy based on supply and demand.

If you could advertise for that cheaply, I think it would encourage more advertisers to start using Adwords.

europeforvisitors



 
Msg#: 8075 posted 9:07 pm on Jul 23, 2005 (gmt 0)

If you could advertise for that cheaply, I think it would encourage more advertisers to start using Adwords.

I don't think there's any shortage of advertisers using AdWords. Or AdSense, either, for that matter. The real opportunity for growth isn't among penny-a-click bottom feeders, but in the market segment that Google hasn't yet reached--mainstream corporate advertisers and ad agencies to whom AdWords and AdSense (whether CPC or CPM) are a bargain compared to what they're used to spending in offline media. That's obviously why site-targeted CPM ads were introduced, and it won't be surprising if Google introduces other product extensions and options to attract bigger-spending advertisers.

John Carpenter

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 8075 posted 10:15 pm on Jul 23, 2005 (gmt 0)

I don't think Google will ever allow publishers to set minimum CPC. The reason is simple: Instead of displaying PSAs, they will at least have these low-CPC ads to serve, which will generate substantial income (PSAs won't generate anything for them). For a single webmaster, these cheap ads may be useless/unwanted, but for them, in large quantities, they represent income. If it was not so, they would certainly rise the minimum bid limit.

sailorjwd

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 8075 posted 1:36 am on Jul 24, 2005 (gmt 0)

If you are getting a lot of ebay-like ads then consider removing adsense from that page and write a page about something for which real companies advertise.

Your content is under your control as are the subjects of ads on your pages.

Or, as someone once told me long ago 'maybe adsense isn't right for your site'

Leave us bottom feeders and advertising arbitrage folks alone!

david_uk

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 8075 posted 7:12 am on Jul 24, 2005 (gmt 0)

If you are getting a lot of ebay-like ads then consider removing adsense from that page and write a page about something for which real companies advertise.
Your content is under your control as are the subjects of ads on your pages.

That's exactly what I have done. Ebay isn't a big problem, but scrapers are. Well, scrapers per se aren't the problem - Google's target bot is.

My point is that there *are* plenty of advertisers that want to advertise on specific niche sites, yet the bot doesn't target those pages well.

I'm not opposed to low bids, and I fully accept and agree that on many sites low bid, high ctr ads will provide the best level of income. But one size does not fit all, and Google's algorythm will never be clever enough to be able to target all sites properly. If they amend it to work better with tight niche sites, then no doubt webmasters who don't have a very tight niche will suffer.

I don't see this idea working in any other type of site than very tight niche ones, and believe me we are very poorly served by the target bot. I see minimum bids working very well in tight niche sites by adding variables to the algorythm based on a bit of human input.

If you have a tight niche (as many of us here do), then it's not in advertisers interests to be kept off of the site by webmasters trying to aquire traffic, it's not in Goolge's interest to keep off advertisers that are trying to get customers and willing to pay well for it, yet that's EXACTLY what the adsense target bot does.

I'm not suggesting that all sites have it. It's not going to work for all sites. By trialling the idea I suspect that Google will find out who it will work for, and can manually apply the feature to sites that apply for it.

I see it as a way for Goolge to better serve a lot of advertisers / webmasters they are currently letting down. I'm sure that it's in Googles interest to improve the way they target ads, and I'm equally sure that adjusting the algorythm that applies to all is NOT the way to do it. I'm sure that there are other ways they can make the algorythm work better - this is merely one suggestion I think worthy of serious consideration.

aravindgp

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 8075 posted 9:17 am on Jul 24, 2005 (gmt 0)

How about this?

Based on your traffic & google analysis ,google selects you for Minimum Bid Price on all your sites which it informs you in your adsense system."Congratulations you have been selected as Google Certified Adsensor, (High Converting Webmaster),all your sites would be served minimum bid price as requested by you.

As a reward to giving google quality niche and high converting traffic over a period of 3 months and earning over $1000(like adwords professional spending over 1000 in a period of 3 months)

aeiouy

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 8075 posted 2:34 am on Jul 26, 2005 (gmt 0)

I think the idea of setting publisher minimums is a good one. It would allow a real value for some segments to be established.

If you set your minimum to a level that is too high, you may not end up getting any ads. And they could even account for that. People who carry lower-priced ads for the segment might get first crack at the higher price ads.

But lets say all the publishers in a given segment value their space more than Google does, or more than the advertisers currently pay, if they all set minimums at a certain level, prices for those words will rise because the space is valued at a higher level.

Obviously there are a lot of potential pitfalls with such a system... But i don't think it is out of line for publishers to have a say in how much money they are willing to accept for their space. In fact I think it is entirely reasonable.

europeforvisitors



 
Msg#: 8075 posted 2:57 am on Jul 26, 2005 (gmt 0)

But i don't think it is out of line for publishers to have a say in how much money they are willing to accept for their space. In fact I think it is entirely reasonable.

It isn't out of line, and it may even be reasonable, but is it desirable for Google? Let's not forget the law of supply and demand: If there's no shortage of publishers who are happy without the right to set minimums, then Google has little incentive to give up control.

Also, the advertiser's bid is only part of the equation. Google's payout formula and "smart pricing" also play a role. What really counts, from a publisher's point of view, is EPC. If publishers expect the right to set minimums (based on what they think their space is worth), wouldn't it make more sense for publishers to set a minimum acceptable EPC, not a minimum acceptable bid?

david_uk

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 8075 posted 6:14 am on Jul 26, 2005 (gmt 0)

It isn't out of line, and it may even be reasonable, but is it desirable for Google? Let's not forget the law of supply and demand: If there's no shortage of publishers who are happy without the right to set minimums, then Google has little incentive to give up control.

It's in Google's interest, it's in genuine advertisers interest and it's in publishers interest. Targetting niche sites with a flood of way off target 1c clicks when there is no shortage of genuine advertisers that are actively targetting that niche AND ARE WILLING TO PAY FOR IT is only good for the low paying advertisers. Google, genuine advertisers and publishers all lose. Yet that's exactly what happens.

Adsense publishers and advertisers are very, very diverse and having one algorythm to target all advertisers is not going to work - they will *never* optimise it for best targetting of all sites.

It's in Googles interests, as it adds some specific site info to the algorythm. Better targetting of ads = better income for Google. Poorly targetted ads don't earn them money.

It's in advertisers interests, as they will then be in the position of not having to outbid low paying ads that are placed only because Google's algo thinks they should be there - depite the fact they are an irellevant scraper. Advertisers would then gain access to the space they want to be on at lower cost to them, and Google/webmasters would do better than they currently do.

It's in publishers interests as clearly they will not see adverts that should not be there. Low paying scrapers, minimum clicks and webmasters buying traffic. It's a perfectly valid point that webmasters should have some input into how much their space is worth. I'm not suggesting that in any way it will push up costs for advertisers.

My point remains that Google's one size fits all algorythm performs very poorly in tight niche sites. Goolge do not gain by this, advertisers do not gain by this, and publishers certainly don't either. By having a minimum bid/click price that is set quite low, all the badly targetted, irrelevant ads that webmasters *know* are simply not going to work in their specific niche will go.

It's not going to work for all sites, but it will work for many tight niche sites. Any input from ASA?

2fast

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 8075 posted 6:54 am on Jul 26, 2005 (gmt 0)

Hi david_uk and Everyone!

I like the idea hMinimum bids option for publishersh very much.

But I think it will not happen.

Think like this for a second.

Google is the Stockbroker.
Publishers are the people who are willing to sell stocks.
Advertisers are the people who are willing to buy stocks.
Hence, the Price is determined by the marketsf demand conditions.
Not by the publishers, advertisers or by Google.

Therefore we can say that Google's Adsense Market strategy is similar to a stock market or an auction.

It is hard to believe that Google would change the current strategy, becuase they are currently profitable from AdWords and AdSense program strategy.

arrowman

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 8075 posted 11:38 am on Jul 26, 2005 (gmt 0)

Targetting niche sites with a flood of way off target 1c clicks when there is no shortage of genuine advertisers that are actively targetting that niche AND ARE WILLING TO PAY FOR IT

Google doesn't do that, IME.

I have one fairly large and broad site with a reasonable and average epc. I selected a set of connected themes that seemed to do well and created a niche site with only those themes. The epc and ecpm on this new site are about 4 times the average, which I consider very good.

As long as this optimization mechanism really works, I don't see the need for a minumum epc option for publishers.

lammert

WebmasterWorld Senior Member lammert us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 8075 posted 12:02 pm on Jul 26, 2005 (gmt 0)

Targetting niche sites with a flood of way off target 1c clicks when there is no shortage of genuine advertisers that are actively targetting that niche AND ARE WILLING TO PAY FOR IT

Well, I doubt that advertisers are willing to pay.

I run a small AdWords campaign to promote a niche website and I bid pretty high compared to the others in the same field, yet I prefer to pay only $0.05 per click, even for clicks from sites with "great content". It is all about the money you know.

I use such a high bid price in my campaign because there might be occasionally a content website or search query which is very interesting where the high bid is worth the money. The average money per click I pay is much lower and I like it that way. If I had to pay my maximum bid for every click because publishers were setting a minimum bid value for their "great content" site, I would opt-out the content network immediately.

birdstuff

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 8075 posted 12:05 pm on Jul 26, 2005 (gmt 0)

You already have a minimum bid option. If your EPC isn't equal to or greater than your minimum acceptable bid amount, simply replace AdSense with another revenue generator on that page.

I have to agree with EFV on this one. I can't see anything but bad coming out of it if Google allows publishers to set a minimum acceptable bid.

AdSenseAdvisor

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 8075 posted 10:02 pm on Jul 26, 2005 (gmt 0)

Hi david_uk

Sorry it took me a few days to reply... I'm still catching up after the weekend :)

I passed your suggestion about allowing publishers to set a minimum bid price along to the product team. Additionally, I mentioned the problems you've been having with targeting and the steps you've been taking to address this.

Thanks for providing us with this feedback!

-ASA

david_uk

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 8075 posted 5:48 am on Jul 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

Thanks for the help ASA!

I know it's probably not going to be implemented for some of the reasons the other contributors have mentioned, but it's great to know that there is someone there who listens and provides feedback to Google for us.

I think allowing publishers to set $1.00 per click for their space is pretty pointless. None of us believe there are enough advertisers willing to pay that (though there are some that will). I don't believe it would push up the bid price for advertisers either.

I've been toying a bit with banning advertisers from my site over the last month. I started by banning scrapers, directories and webmasters buying traffic. My eCPM and bottom line earnings went up by 20%, the cpc by 120%. I got roughly half the clicks and ctr, but the bottom line figure was up.

As an experiment, I went a bit further in the last week or so by ditching ads that are not strictly relevant to my tight niche. This resulted in a drop in all figures. Going back to banning just the scrapers, directories and traffic builders re-established the previous improvement.

So I still conclude that it's the poorly targetted low paying ads that are not doing Goole, me or advertisers targetting my niche any good. I'm guessing that setting the minimum very low would remove them all, improve the targetting at a stroke and thus the income for Google, myself and hopefully be of benefit to advertisers actually selling goods and services to my niche.

Thanks again for the input, and taking this on.

Gargen

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 8075 posted 7:42 am on Jul 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

yea you are getting the most your site will get i thikn it may squeeze a few pennies out maybe but id rather have low paying ads than PSA just because of the look

jimilives

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 8075 posted 9:03 am on Jul 27, 2005 (gmt 0)

I think that alot of people here are looking at this as publishers, what about the guy who is advertising, ALOT of money is made from these so called "low payers sloshing around" if there is compitition then the terms price goes up, if you have a page about tea cups made in 1974 what makes you think anyone is going to pay $1 per click for a relative ad.

My point is google works because no matter what your topic is, no matter how lame your blog is, there are advertisers that will pay on any given topic, by forcing them to pay $1 per click before you will show thier ad we might as well go back to banners, banners didnt work because no one clicked on them, CTR's are high on google because the ads are relative and so are the prices for those ads, if its a niche market it should be cheaper to post.

If you wanna make $5 a click have sites about hosting and mortgages, good luck getting traffic though (unless you buy it from overture for $4 lol)

Get real, enjoy the money your making, if it werent for the advertisers you wouldnt be making it, its a real world and at $1 a click it doesnt make sense for many advertisers to advertise.

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