homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.161.240.10
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member

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

Google AdSense Forum

This 37 message thread spans 2 pages: 37 ( [1] 2 > >     
More Publisher Control
surfer67




msg:3232828
 2:43 pm on Jan 26, 2007 (gmt 0)

How about giving the publisher more control over what ads are displayed on their sites. Would you like the ability to set a minimum CPC for ads shown on your sites? Most banner networks have this.

 

Vlad




msg:3232840
 2:58 pm on Jan 26, 2007 (gmt 0)

I would like to set my minimum cpc for $2.00, that would mean I would make 0 at the end of the day.

Adsense is not the "most" banner networks.

BigDave




msg:3233098
 5:55 pm on Jan 26, 2007 (gmt 0)

So, if you set your minimum to 50 cents, does that mean that those of us that don't set a minimum almost never get to see those greater than 50 cent ads. So in effect, we would be punished for making less work for Google, while you would be rewarded?

Or should google still keep the same mix, but if the ad selected for a certain location is less than 50 cents per click, the just white out that particular ad spot?

And how does your suggestion benefit Google? It seems to me that it only makes work for them without any benefit.

danimal




msg:3233123
 6:07 pm on Jan 26, 2007 (gmt 0)

why would google need to change it's ranking algo for people who didn't set a minimum bid?

surfer67, it's epc, not cpc... and there is more to the ad ranking position in a block than just how much it costs, unfortunately... that's how the mfa trash gets in there.

justageek




msg:3233129
 6:15 pm on Jan 26, 2007 (gmt 0)

Or should google still keep the same mix, but if the ad selected for a certain location is less than 50 cents per click, the just white out that particular ad spot?

How about show the alternate ad?

And how does your suggestion benefit Google? It seems to me that it only makes work for them without any benefit.

This could very well help Google identify the best of the best and the worst of the worst. If someone is willing to set a high payment bar and keep it high then it most likely is for a very good reason. If they take any amount...well...that could very well be for a good reason also.

Right now there is no predetermined publisher value whatsoever for any site even the ones that publish a rate card since it does not apply to AdSense.

AdSense and any other network should basically be treated the same as an advertiser in AdWords. May the best network win the right to show an ad. Sometimes money may be the determining factor and maybe something else at other times.

JAG

BigDave




msg:3233139
 6:18 pm on Jan 26, 2007 (gmt 0)

why would google need to change it's ranking algo for people who didn't set a minimum bid?

Because advertisers have a daily budget. If Google's goal is to fill all the ad blocks with paying ads, those with higher paying ads will start having their budgets used up sooner. There will also be less options for where to put the lower paying ads, and Google wishes to collect their percentage of those ad budgets as well.

BigDave




msg:3233174
 6:44 pm on Jan 26, 2007 (gmt 0)

This could very well help Google identify the best of the best and the worst of the worst. If someone is willing to set a high payment bar and keep it high then it most likely is for a very good reason. If they take any amount...well...that could very well be for a good reason also.

Sorry, that's not reality.

The quality of the site has little to do with what ads are posted, it is the subject of the page that matters. Some subjects just do not pay well.

How many times do we see someone posting here about how they don't understand why their humor site is only making a couple of cents per click, and there aren't many clicks.

Most people overvalue their own work, which would create inventory issues for google.

On my personal blog, I post a lot of recipes. Recipes pay lousy. I've written about some experiences with fixing up my house and I've written about a medical condition, as well as the variety of other stuff 6that you would find in a personal blog.

The recipes draw the most traffic *by far*. Only one of my top 40 search terms is related to something other than a recipe. I would also say they are the highest quality pages on my site and the ones that get the most natural links.

Those quality recipes pay lousy on a per click basis. They are in the 2 to 20 cent range.

The quick mention of things that happen while working on the house can easily draw the home renovation ads that pay .50 to $1. They are far from the same quality as the recipes.

Whenever I get a click in the $2 range, I know before checking that it came from the entry about the medical condition. It's a page about what the family and friends went through and would provide little useful information, just moral support to someone else going through the same thing.

My highest quality pages are worth the least on a per click basis, and one of my lowest quality pages is worth the most.

Which brings up another issue, how do you propose specifying where the minimum bids apply?

justageek




msg:3233240
 7:35 pm on Jan 26, 2007 (gmt 0)

My highest quality pages are worth the least on a per click basis, and one of my lowest quality pages is worth the most.

I think that is what surfer67 is saying though. If the webmaster has a clue as to what the value of their property is why not be able to set a price point for it.

Which brings up another issue, how do you propose specifying where the minimum bids apply?

The page level would be nice but a site level would be a start.

JAG

europeforvisitors




msg:3233246
 7:42 pm on Jan 26, 2007 (gmt 0)

If the webmaster has a clue as to what the value of their property is why not be able to set a price point for it.

That's a big "if," but in any case--as BigDave has pointed out--Google needs low-cost inventory, too. Letting publishers cherry-pick the higher-paying clicks wouldn't be good for Google or its paying customers.

Still, publishers do have a certain amount of control. For example, publishers can use channels to determine which pages do well with AdSense and which pages don't, and--if they wish--they can let the results dictate which pages display AdSense ads and which ones don't.

BigDave




msg:3233261
 7:56 pm on Jan 26, 2007 (gmt 0)

If the webmaster has a clue as to what the value of their property is why not be able to set a price point for it.

They can. They just can't do it through AdSense, which is a different type of program. The suggestion breaks the way AdSense works.

AdSense works by having a large volume of ads and a large volume of ad spots, and matching them through an automated method in an attempt to make everyone (advertiser, publisher, customer and Google) reasonably happy with the result. The only people that are likely to be happy with this suggestion are the very few publishers (if any) that this system would work out for.

The page level would be nice but a site level would be a start.

But how? Seems pretty compute intensive. Do you want to be able to set limits on the link units as well? How about search?

In my case, Google knows which pages are worth what and serves up appropriate ads. I just don't see the need to tell them otherwise. I also know what they are paying for certain types of pages, so if I don't like the basic rate, I can just change the ads that show on those pages.

You do have the ability to control your ads. But you seem to want Google to provide you with a tool that will reduce their income, and make things more difficult for them when it comes to placing ads.

surfer67




msg:3233329
 8:59 pm on Jan 26, 2007 (gmt 0)

My point here is that I'd prefer not to run 1 and 2 cent per click ads. If I and other sites in my niche refuse these low paying ads it would either force them to increase they're minimum bid or go away. Either scenario would suit me fine since I could run alternate advertising that pay higher than 1,2,3.. cents per click.

We need better reporting on what ads are appearing on our sites and more control over them.

What I'm asking for may seem ludicrous to some, however it may very well be a feature we will see in the future. The only reason we don't have this already is lack of competition.

BigDave




msg:3233345
 9:20 pm on Jan 26, 2007 (gmt 0)

Again, how do you make it attractive to Google, advertisers and other publishers?

You've done a great job of convincing yourself that it would be good for you. I've suggested problems that others might have with it. If you want to convince the others, explain how it is better for *them* than the status quo. Don't expect google to make the change unless it will appeal to all parties.

surfer67




msg:3233370
 9:51 pm on Jan 26, 2007 (gmt 0)

Again, how do you make it attractive to Google, advertisers and other publishers?

How can this possibly hurt other publishers? This feature would be available to all publishers. I never stated or implied than Google should create this feature soley for my own personal benefit.

It would benefit Google since it would in my opinion increase the overall quality of the ads, ie. epc. Obviously some bottom feeding advertisers won't like this, but don't you think there should be some sort of minimum standard put into place?

BigDave is implying that I am being selfish for requesting more control, however what he doesn't realize is that there is a degree of selfishness on the part of the advertiser who can choose to run they're ads on our sites for a penny. Am I going out on a limb by assuming you're a penny pushing adwords advertiser BigDave?

europeforvisitors




msg:3233383
 10:02 pm on Jan 26, 2007 (gmt 0)

BigDave is implying that I am being selfish

I don't think he's implying that you're being selfish; he's merely suggesting that you're being unrealistic.

surfer67




msg:3233423
 10:44 pm on Jan 26, 2007 (gmt 0)

I don't think he's implying that you're being selfish; he's merely suggesting that you're being unrealistic.

You've done a great job of convincing yourself that it would be good for you

Yes he is.

I had the gall to suggest that I should have a say as to what ads are placed on my sites.

BigDave




msg:3233433
 10:53 pm on Jan 26, 2007 (gmt 0)

How can this possibly hurt other publishers?

Go back to my first response, which is the third message in this thread. You could end up hogging all the higher paying clicks from those of us that do not put this restriction in place.

This feature would be available to all publishers.

But not all publishers would choose to use it.

I never stated or implied than Google should create this feature soley for my own personal benefit.

But that is all you ever addressed.

It would benefit Google since it would in my opinion increase the overall quality of the ads, ie. epc. Obviously some bottom feeding advertisers won't like this, but don't you think there should be some sort of minimum standard put into place?

But wouldn't it be easier if Google just decided that the minimum bid as the "minimum standard" for the entire network was 25 cents?

But Google hasn't done that because they see how much those pennies really add up to. I don't think of those clicks on low paying recipe ads as a few pennies, I think of it as hundreds of dollars that I get when you combine all those low paying clicks. They don't total as much as I get from reviews, but it is a couple hundred that I wouldn't get otherwise.

Not all low price clicks are bottom feeders. Some clicks are only worth a few cents. In some cases, more expensive ads might be served, but it is the low paying ones that are the most relevant to the reader. I would rather get 0.03 than to have an ad for 0.79 that never gets clicked because it is off-topic.

BigDave is implying that I am being selfish for requesting more control,

No, was not implying selfishness, though it certainly is there and there is nothing wrong with that.

I am outright stating what anyone that teaches persuasion/negotiation will tell you. To convince others, do not tell them how your idea benefit's *you", tell them how it benefits *them*.

however what he doesn't realize is that there is a degree of selfishness on the part of the advertiser who can choose to run they're ads on our sites for a penny.

I think I realize that better than you do. For I was suggesting that you have to appeal to their selfishness, rather than explain why *their* selfishness should be less important to *them* than *your* selfishness.

And they cannot choose to run their ads on your site for a penny. They can choose to pay a penny for an ad, though it is probably higher than that, but it is Google that chooses to put it on your site. They have no more control than you do.

Am I going out on a limb by assuming you're a penny pushing adwords advertiser BigDave?

And you would be wrong again. I have never bought an AdWords ad. I have never bought any sort of ad. I've never even used the free Overture, AdSense or YPN advertising that I have been given in relation to hosting accounts. I have never used any paid advertising in any form.

But I have studied persuasion, research methods, linguistics, logic, critical thinking and psychology. All of which tell me that you aren't going to get anywhere by stating "I want" as compared to "this would be great for all of us if".

europeforvisitors




msg:3233440
 10:58 pm on Jan 26, 2007 (gmt 0)

I had the gall to suggest that I should have a say as to what ads are placed on my sites.

And he explained, very politely, why that isn't likely to happen.

If you're really, really bothered by having to run ads that don't pay the eCPM that you think your ad space is worth, why not ditch AdSense temporarily and sell ads direct? You'll quickly learn whether your appraisal is correct.

BigDave




msg:3233446
 11:01 pm on Jan 26, 2007 (gmt 0)

Yes he is.

No, I was pointing out the obvious. Haven't you convinced yourself that it would be good for you?

I had the gall to suggest that I should have a say as to what ads are placed on my sites.

I don't believe I suggested anything about "gall" or even that you shouldn't have convinced yourself of that. Could you please show me where I did?

There is nothing wrong with convincing yourself that something would be good for you.

The problem is that you will not convince anyone else that they need to do something just because it would come out in your favor. You need to convince them that it would come out in their favor.

Stop being indignant, and figure out how this might help *them*.

Then go back to what you were taught in school about critical thinking and scientific method, and challenge your own suggestion to try and find holes in your own theory. Then try and fix those holes, or at least acknowledge them as limitations. If you can't find any holes, think harder because they are there.

surfer67




msg:3233472
 11:39 pm on Jan 26, 2007 (gmt 0)

I don't think of those clicks on low paying recipe ads as a few pennies, I think of it as hundreds of dollars that I get when you combine all those low paying clicks.

I see them as opportunity lost. For me and you. What if you could fill that space with higher paying ads? If you can't, then like you said a few hundred extra dollars is better than nothing.

The bottom line here is, if it will benefit Google they will do it. They're well ahead of the competition and therefore don't need to hear what I or anyone else wants. Online advertising agencies slowly but surely gave more and more control to publishers over the last 7 or 8 years. Frequency caps, blocking specific advertisers, cpm caps,etc...

When the competition arrives our control panels will be filled with all sorts of goodies.

BigDave




msg:3233478
 11:55 pm on Jan 26, 2007 (gmt 0)

You still aren't using critical thinking. What is wrong with your plan, you are only seeing what is "right". Like you said, if it will benefit google, they will do it, or what is probably more accurate, they already would have done it.

I can guarantee, Google has considered it. Who knows, they might implement something like this in the future, but I doubt it.

They have given you a way to block advertisers, just as I hear there is a way for advertisers to filter sites where they don't want their ads. That does serve a purpose for Google, quality publishers and quality advertisers. It allows you to d3eal with the worst offenders and off-topic ads.

Telling Google to serve an alternate ad when AdSense doesn't have the ads that meet your requirements means google loses lower priced click-throughs while serving your alternate ad AND has to spend the resources to serve the alternate ad.

AdSense *isn't* other plans. It has a completely different mode of operation. Consider how they work when suggesting that they change.

surfer67




msg:3233484
 11:58 pm on Jan 26, 2007 (gmt 0)

If you're really, really bothered by having to run ads that don't pay the eCPM that you think your ad space is worth, why not ditch AdSense temporarily and sell ads direct? You'll quickly learn whether your appraisal is correct.

I do sell direct and that is why I want to ditch the low paying adsense ones. They are mixed in with the higher paying ones and I would like the ability to avoid these and redirect to my own direct sales.

BigDave




msg:3233499
 12:04 am on Jan 27, 2007 (gmt 0)

It did occur to me that there is one place where I think Google should allow a site to set a minimum, and that is CPM ads. If someone is targeting your site, that means that they REALLY want to run ads there.

As that is a different mode of operation, it should be something where the site owner is involved in the negotiations.

rbacal




msg:3233518
 12:27 am on Jan 27, 2007 (gmt 0)

It did occur to me that there is one place where I think Google should allow a site to set a minimum, and that is CPM ads. If someone is targeting your site, that means that they REALLY want to run ads there

There's some evidence to suggest that google intended to implement just such a feature for those CPM ads. Danimal oft quotes a rather old article for another reason, but at the bottom there's an erroneous discussion of that feature as if it already exists.

It won't help the site targeted side right now anyway.

As for the issue, yes, I'd love to see minimums, but it took the traditional banner ad industry many many years to introduce those kinds of features, most likely in an attempt to stave off google adsense competition.

I've given up trying to figure out what google is trying to do, or might do in the future.

surfer67




msg:3233563
 1:21 am on Jan 27, 2007 (gmt 0)

This thread did go a little off topic. The intention of my original post was to get some feedback from publishers as to whether they would like total control of the ads. I did not intend this discussion to be about whether or not this would be good for Google or if Google would agree to it.

europeforvisitors




msg:3233573
 1:26 am on Jan 27, 2007 (gmt 0)

The bottom line here is, if it will benefit Google they will do it.

I'd amend that to read "if it will benefit Google and advertisers, they will do it," but otherwise we're in agreement on that point.

To expand on what BigDave just said, AdSense differs from other ad networks in having ads to serve (and clicks to sell) at nearly every price level. Why would Google or advertisers want to sacrifice advertising and revenue opportunities purely for your benefit or mine?

Daily ad budgets, like airline seats or hotel rooms, are a perishable commodity. Just be glad that Google doesn't sell last-minute inventory to remnant ad networks that might run really crappy ads on your site!

rbacal




msg:3233587
 1:53 am on Jan 27, 2007 (gmt 0)

The intention of my original post was to get some feedback from publishers as to whether they would like total control of the ads.

Sure. And I'd also like total control of my income, the weather, my favorite baseball team. I was going to include my wife in that list, but that's just begging to die young (well, not exactly young, but younger than I would otherwise).

I'm willing to wait, but if you have any pull...

...and there's that thing about being carefull what you wish for?

surfer67




msg:3233625
 3:11 am on Jan 27, 2007 (gmt 0)

Why would Google or advertisers want to sacrifice advertising and revenue opportunities purely for your benefit or mine?

They wouldn't purely for publisher benefit. They would out of pressure from the competition. Maybe in the future when there's more competition between contexual ad networks they will try harder to win publisher loyalty. Banner networks didn't offer this for a long time. However, after a few began offering it, they all soon followed. And you can rest assured that they weren't happy doing it.

If Yahoo or any other network goes global and offers this and other features in an effort "steal" publishers, the pressure would be on.

It's like any real world employer. Why do they offer employees a good benefit package? Is it because they love you and do it purely for your own benefit. Of course not. They do it because if they don't someone else will.

Vlad




msg:3233662
 4:25 am on Jan 27, 2007 (gmt 0)

I could see this work for CPM ads, but not regular ads. Advertisers are only willing to pay what its worth to them. They can't start bidding $5 per click just because all the publishers set their prices at $5. They will go buy ads elsewhere before they can do that.

I suggest you try adwords yourself to see how it works, it would help you understand adsense a bit better.

surfer67




msg:3233672
 4:34 am on Jan 27, 2007 (gmt 0)

They can't start bidding $5 per click just because all the publishers set their prices at $5.

We were talking about 1,2,3 cent clicks not $5 clicks. I already have an adwords account.

I could see this work for CPM ads, but not regular ads.

We don't necessarily need to set a minimum cpc bid. What would be better is to set a minimum ecpm. If a certain ad falls below your set ecpm, then it stops running on your site. Do you have a Fastclick account? Something similar to that.

BigDave




msg:3233709
 5:52 am on Jan 27, 2007 (gmt 0)

What would be better is to set a minimum ecpm. If a certain ad falls below your set ecpm, then it stops running on your site

Huh? You can't be serious! That makes NO sense when you are talking CPC. It makes sense on a CPM basis, but not when juggling all the factors in an AdSense like CPC system. Ads don't necessarily pay the same every time they are clicked.

Google already stops running ads that don't get clicks on your site. But not running ads that do get clicks, but they have to calculate the eCPM for them even when the bids change.

Anyway, you are complaining about the specific click payouts, then you switch it to wanting to set a minimum eCPM. What are you most concerned about and which do you want to control?

And let me ask you this, if you set the parameters on your site in such a way that you are restricting google's ability to serve ads to their satisfaction, would you consider it fair for them to kick you out of AdSense? Because everything you have suggested will cost them money to implement, cost them more money to serve your site, reduce the number of ads they serve and reduce their income. If they kick you out for this, would you come back complaining that they were unfair?

This 37 message thread spans 2 pages: 37 ( [1] 2 > >
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