| 8:13 am on Mar 10, 2007 (gmt 0)|
"that's why Google pay us only 50 cents per click on Adsense ads. "
Oh , I wish , I wish , I wish.......
Hear my lament ,O Google God.. and make my wish come true..
| 8:17 am on Mar 10, 2007 (gmt 0)|
I don't get it?
You don't make 50 cents per click?
I guess you never heard of this? https://www.google.com/adsense/support/bin/answer.py?answer=23168
I call those my 2 "super tags". You paste the high paying kws between those 2 tags (instead of letting Google's media bot "try" to figure out what you site is about) and watch your CPC go up.
P.s: How about an answer to my question above? Is it 1, 2,or 3? I believe it's #2 but even if that's the case, I still won't get why not letting us display the $50 ads too? They would make a lot more $$ this way too and more $$ means more happy shareholders...right? :-)
[edited by: Mtlinfo at 8:20 am (utc) on Mar. 10, 2007]
| 8:24 am on Mar 10, 2007 (gmt 0)|
I think since google is forced to entertain both, advertisers and publishers, they might be playing the trick to show high value in adwords and then actually charge much lesser.
Also to discourage click fraud, may be they keep the high CTC ads for themselfs and push the low CTCs to content network... just a guess.
| 8:30 am on Mar 10, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Let me quote from the link you pasted .
"In order to properly implement this feature, you'll need to include a significant amount of content within the section targeting tags. Including insufficient content may result in less relevant ads or PSAs. In addition, please keep in mind that this feature should only be used to emphasize significant sections of your site's relevant content. It is against our program policies to manipulate the ad targeting to result in ads that are not relevant to the content of your pages"
Did you get it .
What you are doing is against TOS and you need to be careful. Just a friendly heads up.
No , I donot get 50 cents a click. If I got that over 500 clicks, I would lead a very very comfortable life in my country.
| 8:52 am on Mar 10, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Yes, I get it but you are missing the point here. Let me explain...
The goal is NOT to place high paying keywords that are NOT in alignment with your page content, that will get you ban in no time. No, these tags are there to "help" Google by telling them what your page is talking about.
You see, making a 5% Kw density sometimes makes the article or content on the page unreadable for the viewer so by having a very low KW density (ex: less than 1%) Google's media bot might not "get it" and display ads that are related to your content but may not exactly the keywords that pays the most or the ones that you would like.
Here's an example.
Say you write an article about "golf bags" and you know that you cannot repeat the words golf bags in every line so if Google media bot comes to your page and see a kw density of just 1% or less regarding "golf bags" then you might see Adsense ads talking about garbage bags, or Gucci bags or golf gloves etc...keywords that don't pay as much as "golf bags" for example.
So now all you do is place the keywords "golf bags" between the 2 tags and google media bot will say "...Oooooh so that's what this page is talking about" and now your Adsense ads will contain ads about golf bags...
Get the picture?
I went form 11 cents to 44 cents CPC in less then 10 minutes because of this tip...
P.s: btw if you can answer my question above that would be nice too :-)
[edited by: Mtlinfo at 8:54 am (utc) on Mar. 10, 2007]
| 9:02 am on Mar 10, 2007 (gmt 0)|
In reply to your question.
1- They keep the most CPC ads for themselves (Google Search Network).
Maybe because, those who pay high CPC, decide to disable the content network or bid very low for the content network. Most advertisers have gone smarter over time.
BTW, I still cannot accept your argument for manipulating ad targetting. But who am I to say. Why don't you run this argument with Google and then we can all partake of this super tip.
| 9:21 am on Mar 10, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Ok, see this Quote from Google here...
"...By providing us with your suggestions, you can assist us in improving your ad targeting. We recommend that only those familiar with HTML attempt to implement section targeting."
The goal is NOT to get the highest paying keyword but to target what the article or web page is talking about. Nothing more nothing less.
Now if you are smart, you will write an article talking about a set of keywords that pays the most in CPC (I used golf bags in my example above).
For example, if golf balls pay 5 cents a click, why the heck would you write an article on golf balls and put golf balls between the tags? You will get golf balls ads that pay just 5 cents. Talk about a waste of time.
No, you first find a keyword that pays a lot and THEN you write an article about it and THEN you place your main keyword between those google's tags.
Again if you write an article about golf balls and put golf bags between the tags, now you are playing with fire here.
See the difference here?
Think about it. If you write an article about golf bags and place golf bags between the tags to tell google that your article is about golf bags, what do you think will happen here?
Do you really think Google will say "...hey, you can't place golf bags in the tags since huh..well...the CPC is way too high ok!"
Come on let's be serious here. The article is about golf bags and Google wants me to use these tags to help their little stupid spider to know what my article is talking about golf bags. Why wouldn't I use these tags and take the chance of letting Google place ads that doesn't match with my article. Sorry but I did that mistake in the past and I got tired of these 11 cents untargeted ads so now I use these tags. If you don't wan tto use them, that's fine with me.
After all, i'm doing everyone a favor here. What good does it makes to let google place adsense ads talking about gucci bags when my article is about golf bags...they want relevancy, so i'll give them relevancy here. :-)
[edited by: Mtlinfo at 9:41 am (utc) on Mar. 10, 2007]
| 10:25 am on Mar 10, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Google does not say to place a keyword or two between the tags, it says to include a SIGNIFICATE AMOUNT of content within the section targeting tags.
I will just wait now for your next post. :)
| 10:55 am on Mar 10, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Good point but those to me are more like guidelines and I strongly believe that they are meant to help Google's spider to find the exact terms that the page is talking about.
"...In order to properly implement this feature, you'll need to include a significant amount of content within the section targeting tags. Including insufficient content may result in less relevant ads or PSAs. "
You see, by saying "...to properly implement..." to me that says "...you better insert more text or our spider might have problem figuring out what your site is about" and NOT "...You must do this or you'll get banned!".
I believe they say this because they are afraid that some moron will place 2-3 words like "Welcome to our site" between the tags which will not help their spider in any way.
It's worth asking your Adsense rep about it if you are not sure but I believe that if your article's title is "Golf Bags" and you put the word "Golf Bags" between the tags, that's more than enough info the spider needs to have to figure out what this page is talking about.
[edited by: Mtlinfo at 10:57 am (utc) on Mar. 10, 2007]
| 11:10 am on Mar 10, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|I always wondered why bidding wars were making the CPC explode to $50 or more per click on certain keywords while Google paid us only a few cents per click (ex: 50 cents) on our Adsense ads. |
advertisers may go into bid wars, which do not make sense, but they go into it only on google search or google search network.
If i ever do any content network advertising i cut my bid by 3, 4 or even 5 times.
this is because google puts much work into kicking advertisers' a$$es to improve landing page quality but they don't do much to force publishers to improve their sites. if there were no MFAs I would probably bid higher on content network.
for now I prefer to avoid that part of the adwords game.
it is in your best interest to influence google to stop letting spammers in. to control each and every site added to adsense programme, etc.
| 11:22 am on Mar 10, 2007 (gmt 0)|
as an advertiser it's interesting reading such posts.
the original poster is obviously very very concerned about his earnings, however I see NO reference to ROI for advertisers :)
the competitive $50 KWs you talk about are in 1 of our industries, but we try and hope only to get that traffic from Google or serious search network partners such as AOL and ASK
I now know why our PPC guy refuses to switch on content network on this campaign and posts like this confirm that view point.
As an advertiser we work to ROI and back end conversions, and will only pay X amount if it makes commerical sense, and franly put tests by us (albeit limited) have shown that it simply is not viable to pay the same on search network as it is on the content network.
| 11:29 am on Mar 10, 2007 (gmt 0)|
hhmmm, you have a good point there idolw.
People would freak out to pay $10 and see their ads listed on an ugly site made by some kid out there.
So it's not Google who drops the CPC on the content network but rather the advertisers themselves. It makes sense.
Strange, it's obvious but I never thought of it that way,
| 11:39 am on Mar 10, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|I always wondered why bidding wars were making the CPC explode to $50 or more per click on certain keywords while Google paid us only a few cents per click (ex: 50 cents) on our Adsense ads |
Correct me if I am wrong , but the whole premise of your arguement hinges on your belief that your site generates clicks anywhere near as large as $50?
| 12:34 pm on Mar 10, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Competition is on Google search (primarily), not content network. Some competition currently using CPM ads on site targeted sites by adwords folks.
"Welcome to our site"
Now I know why I'm getting ads for 'welcome mats'.
| 12:39 pm on Mar 10, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|People would freak out to pay $10 and see their ads listed on an ugly site made by some kid out there. |
No, it's all down to conversion. If the ads convert and the advertiser makes money, in most cases they could care less about how ugly or pretty the site is (ads whose purpose is branding are a different animal). Handsome is as handsome does and lots of ugly sites have traffic that converts like crazy.
As Google roll out the ability for advertisers to target sites with CPC campaigns things may change, for good or bad depending on your site. Advertisers will no longer have to contend with the scattergun approach to the content network, but will be able to select sites that do produce results and whose owners take care to create a sitution where relevant ads are placed before an audience likely to convert.
| 12:49 pm on Mar 10, 2007 (gmt 0)|
You are assuming that there are lots of advertisers out there who are bidding $50 or more on the content network this is an incorrect assumption.
1) Although the AdWords QS may impose a high minimum bid, it is rare for it to be as high as $50 - the highest I've seen recently is $10. I should imagine there are relatively few advertisers who bid even that high.
2) The AdWords QS leads to a minimum bid on the Search Network - minimum and actual bids on the Content netword may be much lower. Many Advertisers bid lower on the content network or opt out of it altoghter - many of these opt out because they are not happy with the quality or benefits of some of the sites in the programme. I believe it this perception that Googles TOS tries to address (in part).
Note that if an advertiser opts out of the content network, it is the advertiser, not Google, who is deciding that publishers should have no share
| 1:08 pm on Mar 10, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Hi Scurramunga and Pengi,
Looks like I lost you guys somewhere with my posts. Let me clarify things up here.
First of all, i'm NOT talking about QS $10 Minimum bids or that my site generate $50 clicks (I wish).
What I was talking about is the value that certain keywords can reach in the Traffic Estimator inside our Adwords account and how come we cannot see the color of this money.
Some keywords can go even higher if you have the right software to find them like me here.
Now idolw cleared the fog I had on this. The $50 per click will be split between the Search Network (Google's website, AOL, Netscape, etc..) and the reason why we get only $1 per click on our site when someone clicks our Adsense ads is because the Adsense ads are made for the Content Network.
Over there, people are NOT bidding up high amounts (ex:$50 per click) like they would on the search Network, instead, they are dropping their CPC because the Content Network is not taken too seriously by many advertisers.
We get 50% of $1 because advertisers are bidding just $1 per click on the Content Network while they would get into a bidding war on the search network and bid as high as $50 per click or more on the search network.
Anyway, the case is now close folks. I "get it" now, let's move on
Thank you :-)
| 6:51 pm on Mar 10, 2007 (gmt 0)|
0,50 would be pretty good to me, today the epc is around 0,05 here, which is very low imho.
| 9:35 pm on Mar 10, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Pengi and sailorjwd are basically correct. Nobody is bidding $50 for clicks from the content network.
| 10:02 pm on Mar 10, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Pengi and sailorjwd are not lost, they answered your question correctly.
There are no bidding wars simply because, unlike in the search network, there is no army of advertisers, and they aren't armed to the teeth with loads of cash.
Here is a better question to ask: Why haven't bidding wars broken out on the contextual network?
The system doesn't seem to be set up to encourage bidding wars on the contextual network. Maybe that's something the AdWords people should look into, to encourage that kind of behavior.
| 10:37 pm on Mar 10, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|Pengi and sailorjwd are basically correct. Nobody is bidding $50 for clicks from the content network. |
I never said that there is a bidding war on the Content Network! Where do you see me say that?
|Pengi and sailorjwd are not lost, they answered your question correctly. |
Sorry Martinibuster but you missed the point. They answered a question that I never asked. read again. I was NEVER talking about Google's QS minimum bids of $10 and I was NEVER talking about getting $50 clicks on my website. read again.
Even if the answer they gave me was correct regarding the fact that there are no bidding wars on the content network, I NEVER asked about that since I know that there are no bidding wars on the content network.
Anyway, like I said above, the case is close, please leave this thread alone now ..."Idolw answered to my question correctly, thanks man".