I haven't seen any obvious effect, either, probably because I don't blend my ads into content and anyone who'd click on one of my ads by accident would have to be really, really clueless.
I do think the change will be a good thing, although it isn't that big a deal. (There's a thread on the AdWords forum where several advertisers have said they don't expect to see much of an effect from the change.)
On Saturday and Sunday my CTR was 35% lower than usual, but Cost Per Click is a bit higher. We'll have to wait at least 1 week before we can say that it is the direct effect of the recent changes.
Anyway, I do hope that Cost Per Click will compensate for any drop in CTR if it occurs.
|Anyway, I do hope that Cost Per Click will compensate for any drop in CTR if it occurs. |
I wouldn't count on any immediate or significant increase in earnings per click as a result of fewer accidental clicks. The change in what constitutes a chargeable click may help Google to attract and retain more advertisers over the long term (which would be good for publishers), but it's hard to imagine advertisers raising their bids if they don't have to.
Fewer accidental clicks should mean ad budgets for ads with high rates will last longer, therefore:
1) Ads on any given site should have higher cost per click
2) Advertisers should need to spend more per click to get the same number of click throughs, and they should be willing to spend it as conversions should rise (pretty much immediately).
I am not saying everything will carry on as normal, but there are some positives that will help offset the damage from the start.
I would have thought that this will affect different site to different extents: site design must have a significant effect on the number of accidental clicks.
yeah, this is a sad situation
The revenue is down big time, CTR is down 70% on some sites.
So, how does it feel to make less revenue overnight everyone?
I've not seen any drop here; I imagine that those who are seeing big drops were having large number of accidental clicks rather than clickers who specifically wished to visit those adverts.
I have not seen a drop from the change of the clickable area.
The ads on my sites are (mostly) not blended (quite the contrary - it is very clear to anyone that these are ads), so that accidental clicks should not have been generated at all. I also stick to my design rule that links should be blue (like in the good old days of Netscape Navigator). Thus ad Titles and URLs are blue, the ad copy is black. Simple. Effective.
Then again, I noticed a while back that Google apparently is not counting all clicks as valid clicks any longer. But that's an entirely different story.
It has been a positive change for me. CTR is down by about 25%, but eCPM is a tiny bit better than before - which looks to me as if advertisers are willing to pay more for ads that actually convert.
I'm earning more money with less clicks (and less visitors leaving my site) - i can't complain.
It might be a lot different for sites which relied on accidential clicks.
I haven't seen any change at all. Traffic is down for the holiday but everything else looks pretty much the same.
I'll have to admit I've been holding my breath on this one. Preliminary results seem to indicate my visitors know how to click.
Not seeing huge changes (CTR slightly down, but not horrible) - but it still doesn't seem to be fully implemented:
I'm still seeing some old-style click anywhere ads as well as some new-style ones.
Till this is implemented 100%, we're all going to be holding our breath, because we don't know just how big an effect it will have.
New format about 2/3 implemented on my site. So far positive results. CTR down only slightly but eCPM up by about 20-30%. Is it time for the naysayers to eat crow?
Ok, maybe the jury is still out, but I'm holding my breath and hoping that the changes remain so positive.
Here's a theory for all you gloom-and-doom, conspiracy theorists: What if Google heard your grumbling and decided to temporarily yield higher rates or clear all smart pricing for a short time to allow the grumbling to die down. Then, when the connection can no longer be made to this change, they will gradually reduce our rates and leave us all wondering what has happened and what to blame... Then the aliens will abduct and anally probe you, but thats ok because the polar ice will melt and everyone else will be screwed too. Never say I never warned ya.
I've actually had a slight increase in CTR in recent days, though I'd be reluctant to extrapolate anything from that.
On the AdWords forum, the change has attracted very little attention or interest, so I'm guessing it will have very little impact on most current publishers and advertisers. What it will do is offer reassurance to prospective advertisers.
Well it must have some effect on publishers else they would not be doing it. I would assume it will impact those who follow Google's advise on blending.
I have not seen any change, but then our ads are bold. However, there should be an increase in CPC since a higher percentage of clicks should now convert for advertisers...assuming accidental clicks were a problem.
If publishers had input into the 'market' then this could be reflected in the cost per click.
[edited by: FattyB at 7:32 pm (utc) on Nov. 19, 2007]
Am I right to think that it will decrease MFA a little bit? My reasoning is that MFA usually have very attractive body of ads and many people are often driven by a sudden willingness to click on it. If it's not clickable they might have another look and change their minds:) Just a thought
I am dropping in from the adwords forum, don't post much but thought i would give you my 2 cents on this issue.
I am a user of the content network, and since the 15th I have seen a 55% drop in impressions, an increase in my ctr, and about a 40% drop in clicks.
I have spoken to my adwords rep and as far as he knows ( or letting on ) there has been no change to the algo, only the change to the clickable area on the ads.
From what he has told me so far it seems to be a technical issue which the engineers are now investigating. I sincerely hope so because this is as damaging to us advertisers as it is to you publishers.
I don't see why a drop in impressions would be related to this particular change.
I'm still seeing no particular change in CTR or EPC (or impressions). However it occurs to me that I have a fairly low CTR website - one block per page, not particularly blended, less than 2% CTR. Anyone who's up there with say a 20% CTR or higher, I'll bet they are affected. It's the idle/effortless/accidental clicks that will tend to be lost.
Your comment is interesting given the problems people are having described in this thread: [webmasterworld.com ]
Looking at the ads on my site it looks to me as though I am seeing very poor quality ads at the moment. May be the problem is with targeting and selection of ads?
That might explain what publishers are experiencing (we are getting poor ads and therefore low rates) and what you are seeing (your ads are not getting the impressions they deserve because they are being pushed out by low quality ads).
The only problem with this explanation is that I would have expected more advertisers to be complaining about it. Then again, maybe advertisers are less likely to complain than publishers, especially about short term problems.
| This 107 message thread spans 4 pages: < < 107 ( 1 2 3  ) |