| 8:22 am on Jan 26, 2007 (gmt 0)|
I havent had one!
| 9:31 am on Jan 26, 2007 (gmt 0)|
I got one, but only for one site on the company account. Got nothing on the personal account.
| 9:46 am on Jan 26, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Nothing here either. And that feels terrible after all those "me too" posts.
| 9:54 am on Jan 26, 2007 (gmt 0)|
I got one, for my largest site, but I'm to confused on how to create those "custom channels" and whether I should create channels first or should I redesign my site first and place those 300x250 banners above the fold and take a risk.
For example, naming a channel, how can one name a baby that they know no gender of? In my case I have no idea what I will be naming
and what to enter into the description and etc. The whole channel ad placement issue lacks more thorough instructions.
P.S. I wonder why my text becomes messed up in above lines like that...?
| 9:56 am on Jan 26, 2007 (gmt 0)|
I Did Not Get One. So you guys are in the exclusive group.
| 10:08 am on Jan 26, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Me too, was it from the same "guy"?
| 10:19 am on Jan 26, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|Me too, was it from the same "guy"? |
Yep, same person.
| 10:53 am on Jan 26, 2007 (gmt 0)|
I got a generic email explaining how it worked, but with no specifics about any of my sites, or making any suggestions as far as ad blocks or placements.
I do have site targeting turned off - maybe that's why.
| 11:06 am on Jan 26, 2007 (gmt 0)|
The idea was to 'increase our revenues' because advertisers favored the size. But if everyone changes, the availability to advertisers will shoot up, and revenues will drop.
And those still doing the once-unfashionable sizes will now be in demand. :)
It's be good to hear fro a few advertisers.
Do they prefer 300x250? Why?
| 11:10 am on Jan 26, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|I'm to confused on how to create those "custom channels" and whether I should create channels first or should I redesign my site first and place those 300x250 banners above the fold and take a risk. |
For example, naming a channel, how can one name a baby that they know no gender of? In my case I have no idea what I will be naming and what to enter into the description and etc.
Channels are for YOUR benefit.
For example, you could make a channel called "promo" and use it for just this new ad; then you could separate out the clicks (and income) related to it.
By making other channels, you could compare different sites, positions, pages and ad sizes, shapes and formats (text vs. image). It's quite useful.
But you need to create the channel before you post the code, as the code contains channel-specific stuff. Try it - you've nowt to lose!
| 11:11 am on Jan 26, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Isn't the 300x250 size the normal video ad size? Like on some news media?
| 11:36 am on Jan 26, 2007 (gmt 0)|
I haven't got one.
| 11:44 am on Jan 26, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Just got it here.
Can anyone confirm from G that this is actually legitimate? The entire thing is a bit... weird for an official Adsense email.
| 11:53 am on Jan 26, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Yeah I got it and it made me raise an eyebrow.
My suspicions are the following:
1) It is a genuine email from adsense. But rather hastily put together, hence no logo, no usual font, no usual styling.
2) It is a blanket email, but it's supposed to look like a personal email - in order to elicit a better response. Unfortunately they fluffed it by writing "Dear Publisher" at the beginning instead of doing a mail-merge.
3) The reference to advertiser packages may be genuine, but I strongly suspect that the background agenda behind getting more webmastes to deploy more medium rectangles above the fold is to create a publisher-network-landscape appropriate for rolling out Google AdSense Video Advertising.
4) Someone at the plex suddenly realised that there wasn't nearly enough appropriate advertising estate across the publisher network for video ads - which they are going to need very soon - and so told Geoff Vitt to get on the case as quickly as possible.
The result: a bit of a rushed-looking blanket email.
| 12:00 pm on Jan 26, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|Me too, was it from the same "guy"? |
| 12:03 pm on Jan 26, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|Just curious if there is anyone here who did NOT receive this email. Did they review everyones' sites by hand? |
I did not receive one, but my son did. My site earns probably 3-8X as much as his. He is also opted-out of site targeting, so if these are CPM ads they blanketed publishers without checking their status.
| 12:12 pm on Jan 26, 2007 (gmt 0)|
I can put a 99% confidence level on this email as being legit.
I use an email address that is unique for my AdSense account, and that's the address to which this email was sent.
| 12:19 pm on Jan 26, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Does the email mention video at all?
I would like to have video ads on my site. They are the only ads that ever gather my attention.
| 1:30 pm on Jan 26, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|The result: a bit of a rushed-looking blanket email. |
Yeah pretty much my thoughts exactly, Google emails are at least of a very friendly tone - I didn't like the way this one seemed to be almost demanding I do something that would wreck my site layout!
I'm kind of pleased to know that it was just a blanket mail and they probably hadn't really reviewed my site at all! Having said that I'm still not interested.
| 1:39 pm on Jan 26, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|I can put a 99% confidence level on this email as being legit. |
I am now beginning to doubt that this is legitimate. It was sent to an e-mail address that I haven't used in two years and not to the address in my account.
Something smells fishy!
| 2:06 pm on Jan 26, 2007 (gmt 0)|
I have not gotten an email from google. However I did get a call from them last week, I about fell out of my chair!
We only run a couple of very small ad units on the site which haven't made enough money to send us a check. They did assign a manager to our account and they did graphic mock ups of some pages on our site which would generate good/better revenue.
| 2:33 pm on Jan 26, 2007 (gmt 0)|
I got one for my major sites but none for the low earning site. The email address they used was one almost exclusive to Google so my guess is that it's genuine. If it wasn't something would have appeared on webmasterworld by now.
My question is why all the analysis about Google motives? Just give it a try on some pages and see. i have done and will change back if it doesn't work. What's the loss in trying?
| 2:37 pm on Jan 26, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|I do have site targeting turned off - maybe that's why. |
No, because publishers who run site-targeted ads also received the e-mail.
I think the real reason for the "Custom Placement Packs" is simple and obvious: to attract more advertisers and their money to the content network.
| 2:40 pm on Jan 26, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Like so many others, I got the message. I don't think it makes sense to switch from 336x280 to 300x250 for me especially when my site layout won't allow me to move the ad block to above the fold without seriously redesigning my site.
I did like the new channel customization that was mentioned in the email. This has the potential of being a great new feature.
| 3:04 pm on Jan 26, 2007 (gmt 0)|
My problem with this is about the size of the add and needing to be above the fold
Before long every page on every site the poor old visitor will see nothing unless they scroll down and me as a visitor hits the back button when the page I go to has only adds when I first look at it and have to scroll down to see the information I went to the site for
I am interested in the new channel feature though for a single small block add with advertiseres being able to target that space
but if it means i will have to allow all site targetting for this feature it will be a no no as the biggest problem I have found is site targetting can sometimes mean adds that are not suitable for a page being displayed
| 3:13 pm on Jan 26, 2007 (gmt 0)|
And here I thought I was special! =)
My site does great with the 336x280... But if what they said is true about there being more advertisers for the 300x250, might be worth a shot.
Of course now that we are all switching, there will be an abundance of publishing space with this format now...;-)
| 3:25 pm on Jan 26, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Hmm, actually, now that I look at it, I didn't get the email - I get the AdSense Blog via email, and that's what I got. No wonder it looked different.
| 3:30 pm on Jan 26, 2007 (gmt 0)|
I see this as a "toe in the water" test of:
- a tiered or otherwise segmented network;
- (possibly) video or other rich-media ads.
Even if you choose not to take advantage of it, it's a positive sign, because it shows that Google is aware of the need to offer something beyond the AdSense 1.x "advertiser take potluck" content network.
It'll be interesting to see the reaction on the AdWords forum once the Custom Placement Packs are widely available.
| 3:47 pm on Jan 26, 2007 (gmt 0)|
I made the change last night, and my CTR dropped from 8% to 6% :(
Not sure if to blame this change, I'll wait till the end of the day.
| 3:59 pm on Jan 26, 2007 (gmt 0)|
I got the e-mail from Geoff. An ad unit of that size above the fold doesn't really work on my sites.
| 4:05 pm on Jan 26, 2007 (gmt 0)|
I didn't get an invite. But I opted out of their ridiculous CPM model which was paying even worse than their regular model.
If they want to improve the program a lot, and this goes for Yahoo too, they should sort their stats to determine which sites send the most traffic. Then send human beings to each and every site, review it manually. Offer better rates to quality sites. Can the crappy sites or at least "smart-price" them to hell.
Because the medium-size quality sites I know are giving up on adsense and YPN. I just removed another swath of ad space from google. Today plan to remove some more and by next year will be completely weaned off adsense/ypn. While it's always nice to have extra money, the effort and space has not been worth the cost and the competition probably affected my other advertisers. Google got too good a deal which I'd have never offered another advertiser...
While it's hard to turn down "free" money, I'm beginning to think it wasn't all that free @ the end of the day...
It will feel good to have a much cleaner, better-looking site with all that free space :)
| This 171 message thread spans 6 pages: < < 171 ( 1  3 4 5 6 ) > > |