homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 50.19.206.49
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 77 message thread spans 3 pages: 77 ( [1] 2 3 > >     
Google now running "Advertise on this site" ads on your site
oddsod




msg:1397617
 3:37 pm on Sep 29, 2005 (gmt 0)

See announcement here [adwords.google.com].

The 'Advertise on this site' link is a shortcut that makes it easy for advertisers to run ads on a specific Google partner site. Working in partnership with the website, Google helps the advertiser create an ad and begin running it on that site -- often on the same day.

 

europeforvisitors




msg:1397618
 4:21 pm on Sep 29, 2005 (gmt 0)

I haven't seen the "Advertise on this site" link with my Google ads. Has anyone else? Or isn't it implemented yet?

ronin




msg:1397619
 4:26 pm on Sep 29, 2005 (gmt 0)

Is this the beginning of allowing advertisers to select specific publishers they want to work with and deselect ones they don't?

Or have I missed something and they can do this already?

NoLimits




msg:1397620
 4:28 pm on Sep 29, 2005 (gmt 0)

I have not yet seen it.

novice




msg:1397621
 4:30 pm on Sep 29, 2005 (gmt 0)

I would rather have the link that says "Advertise On This Site" than the "Ads By Goooooogle" link.

woop01




msg:1397622
 4:30 pm on Sep 29, 2005 (gmt 0)

ronin, advertisers could select websites to run CPM ads on for a couple months.

Jenstar




msg:1397623
 4:33 pm on Sep 29, 2005 (gmt 0)

It is another one of the cool beta tests they run from time to time to test out potential new features.

Rodney




msg:1397624
 4:40 pm on Sep 29, 2005 (gmt 0)

wow, this would be great for my sites. I hope they open it up to more publishers soon.

incrediBILL




msg:1397625
 4:44 pm on Sep 29, 2005 (gmt 0)

I hope they only run those ads for niches with low advertising unless they intend to pay me for that click.

It's only fair if Google wants to advertise on my site I get paid for the click, especially with overflowing ad inventory.

oddsod




msg:1397626
 5:05 pm on Sep 29, 2005 (gmt 0)

Interesting point, incrediBILL. If I've already got a "Advertise on this page" message on the page and am selling ad blocks directly to those advertisers who approach me ... it could be argued that Google is competing with me and hindering my ability to sell the non-Adsense ad space on my site.

If Google is running this ad as a "PSA" (when no other ads for that page exist) then why isn't my alternate ad showing (instead of Adsense's house ad)? And isn't that costing me money that I'd otherwise be earnings on my alternate ad?

[edited by: oddsod at 5:09 pm (utc) on Sep. 29, 2005]

incrediBILL




msg:1397627
 5:08 pm on Sep 29, 2005 (gmt 0)

True Oddsod, I'm in the same boat as I'm already selling direct ads as well.

The only difference is my ads are flat rate per month, limited risk for the advertiser, so I'm not too worried overall based on cost effectiveness.

oddsod




msg:1397628
 5:15 pm on Sep 29, 2005 (gmt 0)

One of my channels is a highly filtered one and each page view earns me in excess of $1.00. I sell adspace there for a fair amount of money and market those spots as attractive places for merchants to buy a presence. If a merchant hits the page and sees Google's ad he doesn't have an incentive to sign up for my twelve month deal, those spots will all run on empty, and those advertisers will all be competing for the CPM space on Adwords. Net result for me may or may not be a drop in earnings but it will be more of a reliance on the Adsense beast.

tallguy




msg:1397629
 5:37 pm on Sep 29, 2005 (gmt 0)

What if someone is interested and tries to contact us through our contact address.
Then what? :)

NoLimits




msg:1397630
 5:40 pm on Sep 29, 2005 (gmt 0)

I'm with Bill - pay me for that click. Google is going to profit from it, so why shouldn't I.

Sure G - please take free referrals from my site without compensating me.

oddsod




msg:1397631
 5:43 pm on Sep 29, 2005 (gmt 0)

Basically what they are doing is advertising Adwords, advertising for new customers. "Whoever you are, open an account with us and you can have your ad on this page today" (and we'll have a new advertiser for a client acquisition cost of $0).

Now isn't it worth their while to run the ad on pages that attract high paying keywords? And won't that be at the expense of running proper ads that earn me money?

jimbeetle




msg:1397632
 5:54 pm on Sep 29, 2005 (gmt 0)

Basically what they are doing is advertising Adwords

Yeah, and more specifically the Site Target aspect of it. Nothing really new here in how Adsense itself works. If you happen to see site targeted ads and don't want them just use the competitive url filter to knock them out.

jomaxx




msg:1397633
 5:55 pm on Sep 29, 2005 (gmt 0)

Assuming these ads exist at all, is the "advertise on this site" message an entire ad space or merely a replacement for "ads by Google"?

disspy




msg:1397634
 5:56 pm on Sep 29, 2005 (gmt 0)

Oddsod you're damn right. They don't have our permission to sell such a dirty tricks to ruin own publisher?!? Google guys suck these days! Someone should sue them for this or did we all argue within their latest TOS update? I don't have time to search around but I will ... I'm just curious did they put this clausal into AdSense TOS!

Sierra_Dad




msg:1397635
 6:01 pm on Sep 29, 2005 (gmt 0)

I'm in agreement with those here.

If Google is promoting Adwords CPM we should be paid for that click *and* we should be able to filter them as we do other competitive urls.

woop01




msg:1397636
 6:02 pm on Sep 29, 2005 (gmt 0)

Can somebody explain to me what is so different between this and Site Target?

BTW, disspy, if you want to get back at them just remove their ads from your site. Then there's no way for them to do something without your permission.

webnoob




msg:1397637
 6:04 pm on Sep 29, 2005 (gmt 0)

all i know unless i get paid for that click on "Advertise on this site" google will sure hear from me.

google is starting to turn evil with their dirty tricks.

Rodney




msg:1397638
 6:05 pm on Sep 29, 2005 (gmt 0)

I'm with Bill - pay me for that click. Google is going to profit from it, so why shouldn't I

Isn't the whole point that when the advertiser clicks on the link, that you as the publisher WILL profit from that click (since the advertiser is clicking the link to advertise on YOUR site)?

Am I totally misunderstanding what this is?

I sell direct ads to advertisers on my site as well, but not in the same spots as the adsense ads. The advertisers I work would love to be able to have more coverage for their ads, especially in a google text ad block.

I don't think this would compete with my setup at all, but compliment it rather nicely.

europeforvisitors




msg:1397639
 6:05 pm on Sep 29, 2005 (gmt 0)

They don't have our permission to sell such a dirty tricks to ruin own publisher?!? Google guys suck these days! Someone should sue them for this or did we all argue within their latest TOS update? I don't have time to search around but I will ... I'm just curious did they put this clausal into AdSense TOS!

Unless you have a site that advertisers would prefer to avoid, why would you regard this as a "dirty trick"?

I think it's a great idea, and it should do a better job of attracting advertisers than the current "Ads by Goooogle" does.

novice




msg:1397640
 6:20 pm on Sep 29, 2005 (gmt 0)

I don't see why so many publishers are against this. I am more than happy to let Google sign up my advertisers for more. In fact I even made this suggestion back in January after I was asked to participate in an AdWords survey. Message #10
[webmasterworld.com...]

Sierra_Dad




msg:1397641
 6:23 pm on Sep 29, 2005 (gmt 0)

Unless you have a site that advertisers would prefer to avoid, why would you regard this as a "dirty trick"?

I wouldn't go so far as calling it a dirty trick. But a difference from "Ads by Google" is that it doesn't have Google in it.

It's plastered all over the TOS that they don't want the other ads on our site to look like they are from Google. Why do they return the favor by putting one of their ads that looks like it came from our site?

Another is the "bait and switch nature" of the link. Starting with "advertise on this site" when what they really mean is "sign up for Adwords". I'll bet your site url will be long lost by the time they get through the adwords registration process.

It doesn't sound bad for a publisher to have this as an option, though. As long as one has the option. I would probably be in favor of it, depending on the details, but I can see where Incredibill and others wouldn't want it.

If you sell products direct, would you want to display prominently a link to a retailer that takes a 30-40% cut? I think not.

Rodney




msg:1397642
 6:32 pm on Sep 29, 2005 (gmt 0)

Another is the "bait and switch nature" of the link. Starting with "advertise on this site" when what they really mean is "sign up for Adwords". I'll bet your site url will be long lost by the time they get through the adwords registration process.

The page that was linked to in the original post shows that the advertiser will be able to easily target your site by clicking on the link. So I don't think the url getting lost is an issue:

Potential advertisers who click this link will be invited to create their own AdWords campaign, then be guided through a simple process to target their ads to this site. Existing AdWords advertisers who click the link will be able to log into their accounts and create a site-targeted campaign.

We don't know yet how it will be implemented or if it will say Google next to the link or if the Ads by Google text will remain. If it does, then I don't think it would be confused with your site's existing ads.

If you sell products direct, would you want to display prominently a link to a retailer that takes a 30-40% cut? I think not.

I don't think this is an accurate analogy. If you sell products and your inventory is sold out, wouldn't you want to link to a supplier that can give you more inventory and give you a cut without much intervention on your part?

This seems to only increase the ability for quality sites to attract advertisers directly to their site in areas where the advertisers couldn't reach easily.

I mean, if XYZ Corp saw your site and google ads and wanted to pay money to get their link in your google ad block, they would have had to jump through all types of hoops to guess which keywords they should bid on to show up on your site. They already could contact you about your otherh ad opportunities if they were interested in them by visiting your advertising page, this just gives them more options to give you money (that you may not have had anyway)

Now (if this comes out of Beta), all XYZ Corp has to do is click on a link next to your ad block and follow the steps to give money to your site specifically.

oddsod




msg:1397643
 6:50 pm on Sep 29, 2005 (gmt 0)

>> Am I totally misunderstanding what this is?

Not at all. You are indeed correct in that the advertiser is clicking to advertise on your site. But, he may not even be an advertiser. He's just a visitor you paid for. Now he clicks out of your site to see what this Adwords is all about. Or he could be an advertiser who buys space directly from you at present. He sees the ad, and signs up for Adwords. All very well but in both cases where's your commission for getting Google a new customer who will end up advertising on SERPs and content network? And possibly losing one of your existing customers to Adwords (and getting back 70% of what he used to spend on your site)?

>> I am more than happy to let Google sign up my advertisers for more
Except that they are signing up for Adwords. It looks like a benefit to you but what you gain (if you gain) is peanuts compared with what Google makes from that ad for Adwords services. Even if they don't pay you a commission for getting them a new customer they should pay for the traffic at the average rate that page demands (because they are taking traffic away from you).

If you sell products direct, would you want to display prominently a link to a retailer that takes a 30-40% cut? I think not.

I don't think this is an accurate analogy. If you sell products and your inventory is sold out, wouldn't you want to link to a supplier that can give you more inventory and give you a cut without much intervention on your part?

Rodney, the original analogy is very accurate if you sell ad space on your site directly to advertisers.

europeforvisitors




msg:1397644
 6:56 pm on Sep 29, 2005 (gmt 0)

Rodney wrote:

They already could contact you about your otherh ad opportunities if they were interested in them by visiting your advertising page, this just gives them more options to give you money (that you may not have had anyway)

Exactly. As you suggested earlier, this should complement direct ad sales rather nicely. It's a way to generate interest from mom-and-pop advertisers who wouldn't be candidates for traditional display ads, skyscrapers, or sponsorships. (And let's be fair to Google: If a seller of Peruvian Guinea Pig Grooming Kits is reading your page on Peruvian Guinea Pigs and clicks an "Advertise on this site" link, it's likely that the seller wants an ad on your site, not a search-only AdWords campaign.)

oddsod




msg:1397645
 7:01 pm on Sep 29, 2005 (gmt 0)

>> this should complement direct ad sales rather nicely

Except that I get 100% of direct ad sales. No commission, no cut, no middleman.

[edited by: oddsod at 7:02 pm (utc) on Sep. 29, 2005]

lorenzinho2




msg:1397646
 7:01 pm on Sep 29, 2005 (gmt 0)

Very interesting development.

Seems like Google is going directly after AdBrite.

While Oddsod has a point about this potentially cannibalizing direct advertising $$, I do know that Google's ad product is far superior to my site's. And if Google is able to close more advertisers for my site than I can, and take away the administrative hassle, and generate more net $$ for me, I'm all for it.

Though the increased dependence on "the Adsense Beast" is scary.

It seems to me that Google has a vested interest in making sure that my site is paid well for the new Adwords clients that we refer, because if we're not paid well, and net ad $$ go down for us, we'd become suddenly more open to trying YPN.

This 77 message thread spans 3 pages: 77 ( [1] 2 3 > >
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