homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.167.238.60
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Pubcon Platinum Sponsor 2014
Home / Forums Index / Google / Google AdSense
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: incrediBILL & jatar k & martinibuster

Google AdSense Forum

    
Site-targeted Contextual Ads
europeforvisitors




msg:3264691
 9:02 pm on Feb 26, 2007 (gmt 0)

Brett Tabke has started an interesting thread in the AdWords Forum:

[webmasterworld.com...]

Key quote from a NEW YORK TIMES article:

In the next few months, Google's advertiser reports will begin listing the sites where each ad runs .... advertisers on the Google networks would soon be able to bid on contextual ads on particular Web sites rather than simply buying keywords that appeared across Google's entire network.

IMHO, this has the potential to be:

- Great news for publishers who deliver quality traffic and make a favorable impression on advertisers, and...

- Really, really bad news for the get-rich-quick-by-any-means crowd.

 

Whoa




msg:3265218
 11:23 am on Feb 27, 2007 (gmt 0)


Does this mean that if an Adwords advertiser bids X for an all-Google placement, they can bid, say, 1/10th X on a particular site because there are fewer people bidding on that site?

In other words, is site-specific pricing based on only those competitors who are interested in that particular site?

If so, doesn't it mean that even if you have a high-quality site, you may find yourself earning less Adsense revenue simply because there will usually be less competition for a specific site than for all-Google?

I recognize that some sites may be so popular that they might do better with site-specific bidding but certainly that's the exception and not the rule.

How does it currently work with the "Advertise on this Site" link? Does the Adwords buyer simply say I will pay 5 cents for this site and get away with a much lower cost per click?

jomaxx




msg:3266833
 5:13 pm on Feb 28, 2007 (gmt 0)

I wonder how Google can integrate this with the smart pricing formula.

It's hard to imagine them revealing that site A is charged based on a 10% discount and site B is charged based on a 60% discount. OTOH, if advertisers don't have this information, I don't see how they can bid on sites effectively.

Wonder World




msg:3266841
 5:23 pm on Feb 28, 2007 (gmt 0)

I wonder how Google can integrate this with the smart pricing formula.

I think that in this case the smart pricing will not be applied.
It is the advertiser that choice the site, so he should pay the full price.

[edited by: Wonder_World at 5:26 pm (utc) on Feb. 28, 2007]

alephh




msg:3266873
 5:36 pm on Feb 28, 2007 (gmt 0)

Advertisers will often pay more for ads on sites like ESPN.com than they will for ads on little-known blogs.

So, if there are 1000 publishers/sites about topic X, will advertizers go thru all of them (not very likely) - or just use the top 10, leaving rest of the publishers, 99%, earning scraps?

In the last year and a half, a trickle of large media sites like ESPN.com, FoxNews.com and Cox Newspapers’ 17 sites have stopped using Google and Yahoo and instead signed up with Quigo.

Not good.

Although Quigo remains a small competitor, with less than 10% of the contextual ad business.

Wow, so basically they have beaten the hell out of G in short time.

"Last year was really the year of testing these contextual networks," Mr. Clement said. "We had essentially pulled all of those big advertisers off of the ad networks by the end of the year."

So, nobody likes AdWords and soon quits it...?

So, several million publishers have couple of months time to build site worth of ESPN...?

_

jomaxx




msg:3266877
 5:38 pm on Feb 28, 2007 (gmt 0)

Wonder World: But it's still a bidding-based system. Why would a site-targeting advertiser be charged 5c a click (for example) if the second-highest amount any advertiser would be charged is 1c?

Wonder World




msg:3266914
 6:29 pm on Feb 28, 2007 (gmt 0)

Wonder World: But it's still a bidding-based system

Yes!
But if a advertiser is willing to bid up to $x for that specific site, it is a no sense for Google to smart price his bid

This targeted bid will enter in the bidding, probabily the smart priced bids will raise up to the site-targeted bid (of course not over the real bids of the normal advertisers), for an equal competition

In any case it is probable that this site-targeted ads will influence the smart-price system

martinibuster




msg:3267029
 7:48 pm on Feb 28, 2007 (gmt 0)

Google told me about this last August. But I couldn't talk about it because of the NDA.

Anything that raises the confidence level in the quality of the contextual network is fine by me. I have a feeling there's a lot of money on the sidelines because of the trust/quality factor. I can imagine many advertisers feeling uncomfortable with throwing money at something and not knowing where it's going, so this might open more wallets.

Quality website operators have plenty to cheer about. Everyone else will be pining for the good old of SmartPricing.

martinibuster




msg:3267299
 1:50 am on Mar 1, 2007 (gmt 0)

What I want to know is if Advertisers will be able to create a blacklist.

celgins




msg:3267352
 3:18 am on Mar 1, 2007 (gmt 0)

I will definitely reconsider spending money on Adwords now.

alephh




msg:3267522
 8:33 am on Mar 1, 2007 (gmt 0)

martinibuster:
Quality website operators have plenty to cheer about.

I agree, but not all the quality websites will profit from this - I'm afraid.

Are you positive that advertizers will check all the, say 10,000 sites about gadget X, and hand-pick the best (=quality websites)?

Or maybe they just check those topping the list in terms of conversions/pageviews/CTR/etc. Which would mean that out of 100 quality sites handful (or two handfuls) would get all of the ads.

If you talk to advertizers, or read their interviews, there seems to be pretty consistent theme: they don't want a lot of sites, they want one or two major sites to place their ads on - then they know exactly that their ads are in good company.

In most sectors, there are just too many "quality sites".

I think that best 5-10 quality sites in every sector have plenty to cheer about.

In terms of really big players (amount of money spent in online advertizement) there will be a major shift from advertizing on 1,000-100,000 unknown websites (that's exactly why some major players have left G), to advertizing on 5 (internationally known) quality sites. Not so good news for the 995-99,995 adsense publishers.

But maybe I'm just freaking out here ;-D

Hobbs




msg:3267526
 8:42 am on Mar 1, 2007 (gmt 0)

Contextual network? Targeting takes contextual out of the formula, we need a new name now.
How about Hybrid Contextual that not always works, But Offers Targeting? HCTNAW BOT

No, what I would like to know is if Publishers will have some additional control with this:

It's bad enough we cannot easily turn on and off CPM from the interface, with 200 vermin capacity I am left to choose between adding that "Country s$x" in title ad or the newest "top 15 cr@p" advertiser is my last left slot of the competitive filter, the last thing I want is one of those targeting me when I'm out of filter space.

If they target us, we should have a choice to:

a) approve on by one
b) opt in and out of PPC and CPM targeting in the interface, or be able to set the bottom bid.

And give us a bigger filter while they're at it.

Scurramunga




msg:3267527
 8:42 am on Mar 1, 2007 (gmt 0)

Great news for publishers who deliver quality traffic and make a favorable impression on advertisers, and...

- Really, really bad news for the get-rich-quick-by-any-means crowd.

I agree

<added>
Was going to ad this also, but reading through I see others have beaten me to it:
Whilst this takes the model closer to a true auction, wouldn't it be logical for publishers to have greater control from their end to accept or reject bids in various ways including setting a minimum bid?

[edited by: Scurramunga at 8:51 am (utc) on Mar. 1, 2007]

europeforvisitors




msg:3267768
 2:04 pm on Mar 1, 2007 (gmt 0)

Whilst this takes the model closer to a true auction, wouldn't it be logical for publishers to have greater control from their end to accept or reject bids in various ways including setting a minimum bid?

No, because:

1) Many (most?) publishers think their ad space is worth more than it is; and...

2) Google needs inventory for all ads, not just higher-paying ads.

3) If Google let savvy publishers and AdSense entrepreneurs cherrypick the high-paying ads, other publishers would be left with the dregs. That would't be good for the long-term health of the network.

Hobbs




msg:3267793
 2:24 pm on Mar 1, 2007 (gmt 0)

EFV:

1) Many (most?) publishers think their ad space is worth more than it is; and...

And what exactly is wrong with that? I refuse targeting from certain sites, I get paid less, I learn from my mistake and allow them in or not, it's my choice, I'm pro-choice, and it's time to end the 'publishers are greedy fools' rhetoric.

3) If Google let savvy publishers and AdSense entrepreneurs cherry picking the high-paying ads, other publishers would be left with the dregs. That wouldn't be good for the long-term health of the network

So you are for cherry picking and choice for advertisers and not for publishers? Is that because the majority of advertisers and smarter and know what's good for them? Yes they are the ones carrying the wallet, but we are the ones carrying the goods to be sold, having a choice about who targets us is the least Google can give us against the hoards of opportunistic (yet smart) lice infesting our pages.

And Yes, contextual gets broken and Google's best choice of ads to display algo gets broken too, and no, I am not serving inferior pages that Google deems only appropriate to be filled with lice. And yes, I am happy there will be ppc targeting, but don't want it to be another conduit for MFA.
(just saving this thread 3 or 4 posts)

europeforvisitors




msg:3268186
 7:52 pm on Mar 1, 2007 (gmt 0)

1) Many (most?) publishers think their ad space is worth more than it is; and...

And what exactly is wrong with that? I refuse targeting from certain sites, I get paid less, I learn from my mistake and allow them in or not, it's my choice, I'm pro-choice, and it's time to end the 'publishers are greedy fools' rhetoric.

You're missing the point. Google needs inventory at all price points, and letting publishers set minimums wouldn't be in Google's own interests.

So you are for cherry picking and choice for advertisers and not for publishers?

No, I'm merely pointing out the obvious: It's Google's network, advertisers are the paying customers, and power follows the money.

Yes they [advertisers] are the ones carrying the wallet, but we are the ones carrying the goods to be sold, having a choice about who targets us is the least Google can give us against the hoards of opportunistic (yet smart) lice infesting our pages.

Again, try to think about the bigger picture, not just about what you want. Ask yourself: "Why would Google willingly sacrifice revenue by letting publishers set minimum earnings per click?"

And Yes, contextual gets broken and Google's best choice of ads to display algo gets broken too, and no, I am not serving inferior pages that Google deems only appropriate to be filled with lice. And yes, I am happy there will be ppc targeting, but don't want it to be another conduit for MFA.

It may or may not be "another conduit for MFA," but if it is, at least those MFAs will have to open their pocketbooks a little more if they want their ads displayed on specific sites.

Hobbs




msg:3268214
 8:26 pm on Mar 1, 2007 (gmt 0)

EFV,
To say that our setting minimum bids won't be in Google's own interest is very different than saying that publishers don't know what's good for them and would overshoot their fair rate.

We all do our share of trial and error, most publishers would go with the flow and leave it up to Google, but those that refuse to serve 1 cent MFA are now only left to fight it out with a limited competitive ad filter slots.

As for why would Google sacrifice and allow minimum bids, the answer to quote you is in the long term health of the network.

I am very familiar with the pecking order at Google land, and I am sure it makes sense to them, but as soon as there is a viable contextual alternative to AdSense, they are bound to revisit how they messed up. The big picture you are pointing to repeatedly does not exclude web publishers, small(er) as they are in their contribution to the big GOOG numbers.

All I asking for is the right to say no to an advertiser I don't want on my pages, with a full filter my back is against the wall and am left only with a take it or leave it situation, Google does not want to go this way, "Google's own interests" will suffer.

europeforvisitors




msg:3268252
 9:12 pm on Mar 1, 2007 (gmt 0)

To say that our setting minimum bids won't be in Google's own interest is very different than saying that publishers don't know what's good for them and would overshoot their fair rate.

The former is affected by the latter, and there's no doubt that some publishers have an unrealistic idea of what their traffic is worth (which is determined by supply and demand, not what's fair or unfair).

As for the long-term health of the network, I think that's going to be determined less by what publishers earn than by what advertisers get for their money.

Hobbs




msg:3268274
 9:33 pm on Mar 1, 2007 (gmt 0)

No, let's say that most (not some) publishers are unrealistic, it won't take long for them to realize what their traffic is really worth under AdSense, and come down to reality to go after greener pastures, having a choice is not such a bad thing.

Publishers should be allowed to block an advertiser or refuse to be targeted non contextually if Google still want them around.

martinibuster




msg:3268318
 9:59 pm on Mar 1, 2007 (gmt 0)

...but not all the quality websites will profit from this - I'm afraid.

Oh, good point.

Could this backfire on quality-site publishers?
I can't believe I missed this. This has less to do with quality websites. It should ultimately have more to do with the quality of the traffic.

Conversion data, that is what defines quality
If an advertiser reviews their data and it turns out that junky-mfa-site.info traffic converts like crazy, and that quality site traffic doesn't convert as well, whose site is going to get ticked off the list?

If so-called quality websites don't convert as well, will this lead to advertisers flocking from them?

Hobbs




msg:3268362
 10:23 pm on Mar 1, 2007 (gmt 0)

Why would a seasoned conversion sensitive advertiser target an MFA? They're not too hard to build and managing them can even be outsourced!

You've gone full loop to converting traffc pays best.

Who was it that said that AdSense is for the lazy?

europeforvisitors




msg:3268622
 3:13 am on Mar 2, 2007 (gmt 0)

Could this backfire on quality-site publishers?
I can't believe I missed this. This has less to do with quality websites. It should ultimately have more to do with the quality of the traffic.

I think it really has to do with both.

To maximize growth and revenue for AdSense, Google needs to make AdSense more attractive to two groups:

1) Existing AdWords advertisers to use AdSense, or to try AdSense again if they've bailed out;

2) Mainstream advertisers who are leery of relinquishing control over where (and in what context)V their ads appear.

Some of Group 1 may not care where their ads appear as long as those ads convert. (Of course, some of those advertisers will tell you that content-network traffic doesn't convert.) Others may care a great deal, either because they're worried about fraud or because they fear having their budgets sucked up by sites that use shady design techniques to maximize clickthrough rates, that reach poorly-converting audiences, etc. Others have simply want to reach specific audiences.

Advertisers in Group 2 are likely to demand control over where their ads appear, because they care about the integrity of their brands and because the media buyer's job may depend on protecting the brand image. This is NOT a trivial issue: I've sat in meetings with ad-agency clients where an account supervisor had to placate a client who was angry about where an ad had appeared. In the mainstream advertising world--which Google needs to tap if it wants to expand beyond its core PPC market--advertisers, ad agencies, and media-buying services aren't interested in taking potluck. The New York Times article [nytimes.com] that was mentioned earlier in this thread talks about this. (See the reference to an advertiser that found its ads--presumably for soy milk--appearing "alongside an article that said soy milk might be linked to homosexuality.")

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