homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.226.136.179
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member
Home / Forums Index / Google / Google AdSense
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: incrediBILL & jatar k & martinibuster

Google AdSense Forum

This 220 message thread spans 8 pages: < < 220 ( 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 > >     
New AdSense Advisor
AdSenseAdvisor

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3784942 posted 5:29 pm on Nov 12, 2008 (gmt 0)

Hi All,

Our previous ASA is transitioning to a new role within Google, so I'm thrilled to announce that I'll be your new ASA.

I really look forward to working with you.

Fire away!

ASA

 

netmeg

WebmasterWorld Senior Member netmeg us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 5+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month



 
Msg#: 3784942 posted 6:20 pm on Nov 18, 2008 (gmt 0)

Interesting. Would you mind telling us your niche? (I think it really depends on the niche.)

If it depends on the niche, it's hardly an AdSense problem.

AdSenseAdvisor

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3784942 posted 7:33 pm on Nov 18, 2008 (gmt 0)

icedowl, I appreciate the well-thought-out feedback. Iím compiling a list of general feedback. In the future, I hope to get the help of this group to prioritize these requests so I can be as clear as possible with our product team.

zett, I definitely appreciate all the help I can get as I focus on getting up to speed.

Scurramunga, I donít think itís the fault of my superiors. We get tons of feedback on a daily basis from tons of sources. The challenge is prioritizing it according to importance, scope, urgency, business need, and feasibility. Our resources are not unlimited, so itís important to choose wisely what we spend our time on.

night707, I really appreciate the clarification. We at Google take our responsibility to users, to business partners, and to the population at large very seriously. I would challenge your idea that Google decides traffic to websites. If anything I think both Google search and AdSense are pretty democratic in the way sites are ranked and the way ads are served. But I agree that we need to be more open in our communications.

HuskyPup, thank you for making that clear. Iím happy to pass that feedback along, but I have a follow-up question. Even if ads donít show, youíll still have an ad slot on the page. What would you want to show in that space? Would you rather have PSAs than low-paying ads? Would you want to leave the space blank?

There seems to be some confusion about Google Ad Manager. Would it be useful to start a new thread? I would be happy to answer questions and share what I know.

ASA

coachm

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3784942 posted 8:41 pm on Nov 18, 2008 (gmt 0)

There seems to be some confusion about Google Ad Manager. Would it be useful to start a new thread? I would be happy to answer questions and share what I know.

I wish there was a specific area here to support ad manager. I jumped into it whole hog, got absolutely confused as to how to use it properly, hung in there, until openx invited me to their beta, and switched.

Admanager has some features over openx, but I couldn't even figure out how to integrate admanager and adsense channels for stats. The ad manager forums are almost useless.

I know you bought the product (yes?) but it's pretty unusable. Documentation is pretty poor, support worse. We need some help if it's going to get used.

So, a new thread would be good, but a special area would be even better.

HuskyPup



 
Msg#: 3784942 posted 9:21 pm on Nov 18, 2008 (gmt 0)

HuskyPup, thank you for making that clear. Iím happy to pass that feedback along, but I have a follow-up question. Even if ads donít show, youíll still have an ad slot on the page. What would you want to show in that space? Would you rather have PSAs than low-paying ads? Would you want to leave the space blank?

Many thanks for the quick response.

Like many others my sites were constructed years before the launch of AdSense and I implemented it to fit in neatly with my existing header and navigation template design, consequently if there is no AdSense it is not noticeable, there is no space, simply a vertical tightening of the design.

My attitude is quite simply this, if AdSense has no ad for me at my minimum EPC price then do not serve anything, it will not affect my page design etc. and my visitors would probably not even notice.

signor_john



 
Msg#: 3784942 posted 10:00 pm on Nov 18, 2008 (gmt 0)

Would you mind telling us your niche?

What? And get the moderators upset?

(I think it really depends on the niche.)

It can depend on other things, too, such as traffic and who's selling your ads. My point was that Google does have competition, and AdSense isn't the only form of advertising--or the only source of ad revenue--in the universe. Publishers who can't see beyond AdSense need to get out more. :-)

koan

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3784942 posted 10:33 pm on Nov 18, 2008 (gmt 0)

My attitude is quite simply this, if AdSense has no ad for me at my minimum EPC price then do not serve anything, it will not affect my page design etc. and my visitors would probably not even notice.

No ads or the use of the alternative ads link would both be a good option to serving ads with an EPC under our set minimum for a site. No ads just help build the site's reputation, and the alternative ads link would allow us to explore other monetizing options while we can't get the Adsense ads that we want.

The fact that very low EPC ads are often from low quality MFA sites would also help us filter a good portion of them automatically instead of adding them in the competitive filter (which I don't do anymore as it is too much management).

But it would be important that this set minimum would be associated on a site basis (or channel) as different topics brings radically different performance.

Those who set this minimum too high (out of ignorance) would simply not receive many ads and their income would drop, so this whole system should balance itself out.

swa66

WebmasterWorld Senior Member swa66 us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3784942 posted 10:55 pm on Nov 18, 2008 (gmt 0)


HuskyPup, thank you for making that clear. Iím happy to pass that feedback along, but I have a follow-up question. Even if ads donít show, youíll still have an ad slot on the page. What would you want to show in that space? Would you rather have PSAs than low-paying ads? Would you want to leave the space blank?

Many thanks for the quick response.

Like many others my sites were constructed years before the launch of AdSense and I implemented it to fit in neatly with my existing header and navigation template design, consequently if there is no AdSense it is not noticeable, there is no space, simply a vertical tightening of the design.

My attitude is quite simply this, if AdSense has no ad for me at my minimum EPC price then do not serve anything, it will not affect my page design etc. and my visitors would probably not even notice.


First congrats to the new ASA, and sorry for all the flak you get from past experiences by members out here. I guess it's safe to call it frustration.

It seems the easiest is to let it happen as it goes when you have no ads: either alternate ads (if configured) or PSAs. The third option of collapsing
would be a nice alternative for some I guess.

Filtering out unwanted ads is my #1 request. But it needs to be done *far* more intelligently than it is currently.

  • negative keywords: if the ad copy contains a word I don't like, please don't show the ad. Words like "free", "screensaver", etc would go into it without much hesitation.
  • negative keywords in urls: on a site about things you cannot possibly own (think e.g. "dead religious leaders") there often are ads to buy that what cannot be owned on ebay. Fine throw in ebay in the competitive filter: but there is also a ebay.at, ebay.be, ebay.ca, ebay.de, ebay.es, ebay.fr, ebay.gr ... (guess you see why the poor competitive filter is full before we got through all of them)
  • keywords -> regexp: Far better at matching things more specific for advanced users. Your python, perl etc. geeks will understand why it's better. If you fear the non-techie user might be afraid of it, give it as an advanced option
  • discrepancy between shown URL and redirected URL: A lot of the ads I'd rather not have don't match the page the url they display with the to be blocked URL. This is very frustrating esp as that poor excuse for a tool to see what ads show is hardly usable: IE only (come on, that's the enemy's browser, we use macs) and needs a zillion clicks to get any single page covered somewhat in all geo locations. I do understand the need to have short URLs, but I absolute do not want ads that go to a redirection service.
  • certain advertisers: I never want ads from them ever again. I've been given a pedophile ad in the past in a far away geolocation. After I got a complaint from a user, I got an apology from you guys. And a promise it would be dealt with. Still I'd feel *far* better if I could say I made sure that scumbag will never ever be able to show any ad on my site. Think belt and suspenders. Basically if they send ads to us we don't want, what's to stop them to register 400 domains ... we can at the very best block half of them. That's why we need an ability to say this ads' advertiser: no thanks. It doesn't have to be an idea that unique to anybody but the specific publisher, so I'm not asking to be able to share lists, to identify the advertiser or the like. Just being allowed to say "no thanks, I don't sell space to you anymore"
  • When the good ads are exhausted in our respective niches we get the bottom feeders that kick in instead of proper ads. Aside of the economics of not wanting to participate to that. A simple setting: don't publish ads below 0.0x$ in cost per click [think of it as a reserve in ebay: don't sell if it's not getting enough] (I don't care much about the odds it'll get clicked) If I can't keep these bottom feeders out, it means my site is looking bad by association with them by displaying they stuff.
    I'll try again with that admanager, but the thing is weird to say the least.

As currently affiliate blocks are outperforming some of my advertising blocks I guess I'll rotate out advertising slowly but surely.

signor_john



 
Msg#: 3784942 posted 11:11 pm on Nov 18, 2008 (gmt 0)

My attitude is quite simply this, if AdSense has no ad for me at my minimum EPC price then do not serve anything

How would that benefit Google or its lower-bidding advertisers who need impressions and clicks?

netmeg

WebmasterWorld Senior Member netmeg us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 5+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month



 
Msg#: 3784942 posted 11:44 pm on Nov 18, 2008 (gmt 0)

Except for the occasional ad-bombing, like we've seen recently with the weight loss ads, my ad blocking issues are not so much tied to eCPM, but with appropriateness for the site. I have many sites. Some are family-oriented, some aren't. Sure there are occasionally ads I'd like to block completely, but more often it's a case where it may not be appropriate on one site, but it's perfectly fine on others. So in order to keep the ads off my family-oriented sites, I need to block them from everything.

I have the same issue with channels. When AdSense started, most people had (at most) a handful of sites. That is not necessarily the case now. Even a handful of sites with plenty of placements require more channels than we have now.

swa66

WebmasterWorld Senior Member swa66 us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3784942 posted 11:47 pm on Nov 18, 2008 (gmt 0)

How would that benefit Google or its lower-bidding advertisers who need impressions and clicks?

The scum advertiser go elsewhere.
The genuine advertisers: pay more.

It's basically supply-demand. Now the premise is an endless supply of ad space, some of us are willing to offer less in exchange for better advertisers, less schemes, lees clearly scams, less middlemen, ...

martinibuster

WebmasterWorld Administrator martinibuster us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month



 
Msg#: 3784942 posted 12:19 am on Nov 19, 2008 (gmt 0)

>>>The genuine advertisers: pay more.

R...
O...
I...

It's hard enough for advertisers to grapple with the content network without having to deal with wish-based minimum bids. If publishers start setting minimum bids based on their mortgage costs don't you think it's possible there will be a stampede out of the content network?

Scumbag advertisers are an artifact of not having enough advertisers so that's the ideal direction for finding a solution. The solution isn't increasing minimum bids, it's increasing advertisers (and competition). Google's challenge and their greatest area of growth is in the content network. To grow revenue Google must continue promoting the content network as they have for the last few months and bring more competition for ads on the network. Increase competition and the minimum bid will rise.

There are many advertisers who haven't come to terms with how to manage a content network campaign. It's very different from search based advertising. Google needs to develop more bidding strategies appropriate for a content network campaign and push them out more aggressively to the many advertisers who are avoiding it.

ArtistMike



 
Msg#: 3784942 posted 12:28 am on Nov 19, 2008 (gmt 0)

How would that benefit Google or its lower-bidding advertisers who need impressions and clicks?
=========================

It would benefit Google by driving out the scum and villainy that infest Google at this point, and that same scum and villainy would not have a place on my site. Maybe YOU want them on your site, so you can have my share, ok?

martinibuster

WebmasterWorld Administrator martinibuster us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month



 
Msg#: 3784942 posted 12:32 am on Nov 19, 2008 (gmt 0)

Mike, you would drive out the legit low bidding advertisers along with the scumbags. I want to see the funky advertisers off my sites as much as anyone else. However raising minimum bids through any means other than supply and demand is not going to work. As I posted before you, Scumbag advertisers are an artifact of not having enough advertisers so that's the ideal direction for finding a solution.

sonjay

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3784942 posted 12:58 am on Nov 19, 2008 (gmt 0)

Scumbag advertisers are an artifact of not having enough advertisers so that's the ideal direction for finding a solution.

Scumbag advertisers make our sites, and Google's AdSense program, look scummy.

If we're given the tools to block the scumbag advertisers, our sites look better and AdSense looks better, and more legitimate non-scummy advertisers will be willing to jump into the content network. Allowing us to block the scumbag advertisers will actually help increase the supply of advertisers.

martinibuster

WebmasterWorld Administrator martinibuster us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month



 
Msg#: 3784942 posted 1:24 am on Nov 19, 2008 (gmt 0)

If we're given the tools to block the scumbag advertisers, our sites look better and AdSense looks better...

That does not solve the problem of low barriers to entry because more scumbag advertisers will appear to replace the ones you already blocked. We've been through this before, blocking doesn't work. Think it through please. The problem is a lack of advertisers which creates a window of opportunity for scumbag advertisers. The answer lies in closing the window, not whacking the moles crawling through the window. Your solution treats the symptom but not the underlying illness. Remember what happened when they booted the scrapers? The window was still open and the ringtone advertisers started crawling through it.

The solution lies in closing the window by attacking the low barrier of entry. The only viable way of doing that is introducing more advertisers and increasing competition so that it's no longer profitable for scumbag advertisers to place an ad on your site.

Allowing us to block the scumbag advertisers will actually help increase the supply of advertisers.

There is no cause and effect there. There is no link between a publisher blocking an advertiser and another advertiser suddenly feeling the urge to try the content network. How does blocking advertisers cause other advertisers to get the big idea to suddenly take a second look at the content network?There is no connection between the two actions. The burden belongs to Google to promote the content network.

farmboy

WebmasterWorld Senior Member farmboy us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 5+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month



 
Msg#: 3784942 posted 2:00 am on Nov 19, 2008 (gmt 0)

How would that benefit Google or its lower-bidding advertisers who need impressions and clicks?

I'm assuming all publishers wouldn't enable a minimum bid amount requirement and/or all those who set a minimum wouldn't set a premium price.

Therefore, there would still be space for advertisers who bid low.

FarmBoy

Swanson

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3784942 posted 2:24 am on Nov 19, 2008 (gmt 0)

I totally agree, getting more advertisers to enter the auction increases competition and raises bids.

The more genuine advertisers there are, the more competition and the higher the bids - this is because the "scumbag" advertisers can not bid high enough against real businesses as their slice of the pie is too low (they have an ROI as well).

That is ironically the problem - by trying to raise minimum bids by using quality score technology they are actually forcing new genuine advertisers out. They do this because new advertisers are just that - new - i.e. probably novice users that don't understand adwords.

The result - they have to pay high cpcs to start, don't understand account and keyword "history" and how your cpcs will drop etc. They don't have control of their website so can't make the landing page better, they don't even understand that concept anyway.

Net result. They make a loss, spend their budget and then stop.

These people probably did better with the old Overture model where they could understand the bid model and control their spend albeit simplistically.

That is the key for the next generation of advertisers - keep it simple.

For Google to really make the next leap they need to attract the multi-millions of small businesses by making their system far far far far far simpler and transparent.

Think of the existing users as being similar to "early adopters" of internet technology - they see the benefit and jump through any hoops necessary to reap the rewards.

Those users have now adopted - Google now needs to now re-invent their system and service for the next lot.

That could be as simple as say setting a standard low minimum bid (e.g. $0.03) and if you match it you definately show for that keyword (even if it is 500). You then expand the support team and offer a freephone support number so any advertiser can call and get advice there and then. Why not give them all the help on the phone about choosing the correct keywords etc. - why not pop them an email with the basics of choosing good keywords relevant to their business etc. The end result is they will continue to use adwords and up their bid.

As it is slapping a $0.30 minimum bid and letting them burn through $50 by choosing the wrong keywords and wrong ad text is not going to grow their business or Google's advertiser base and keyword fill level.

But it is going to favour the big agencies and big advertisers that are specialists in how to game the system. Problem.... only so many big advertisers and agencies - in a bad recession 30-50% of Google's biggest could be wiped out.

signor_john



 
Msg#: 3784942 posted 2:37 am on Nov 19, 2008 (gmt 0)

Therefore, there would still be space for advertisers who bid low.

Maybe, but having publishers who didn't play the minimum-amount game subsidize those who did wouldn't be in Google's best interests--or the Web's, for that matter. Among other things, it would tend to encourage AdSense experimentation at the expense of content.

I agree with Martinibuster: Create enough advertiser demand, and pricing will take care of itself.

night707

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3784942 posted 2:44 am on Nov 19, 2008 (gmt 0)

I think both Google search and AdSense are pretty democratic in the way sites are ranked and the way ads are served.

ASA, thanks a lot for understanding publisher`s wishes for a better communication. With Google openly aiming to present the the most relevant and useful content on top it would truly make sense to start talking to those publishers, who generate this type of prime content just in order to keep them on the the top.

With the current "democratic" system there are way too many low quality results messing up the top 30 though the vast majority of search phrases can not even produce more than only 30 to 50 first class results. Try to find for example 50 great sites for some well known countries or cities.

With the vast majority you will have a hard time to compile 50 and you may check where they rank at Google.

Adsense should support quality publishers with quality ads and search should reward quality content with top ranks.

swa66

WebmasterWorld Senior Member swa66 us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3784942 posted 3:50 am on Nov 19, 2008 (gmt 0)

FWIW: when I want to raise my minimum pay per click: I'm not asking to be given better paying ads, I'm asking to have *no* ads (alternate ads actually) instead of stuff I don't want to show.

I already limit the number of impressions I send over to adsense in order to offer less inventory of ad space in my niche.

I'm not trying to get more money out of the advertisers, I want the crap ads to go away (and hence am ready to take a reduction in gains). When checking your site: check different geo targets: I'm sure you'll find some that simply seem to have no decent advertisers.

farmboy

WebmasterWorld Senior Member farmboy us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 5+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month



 
Msg#: 3784942 posted 4:46 am on Nov 19, 2008 (gmt 0)

Create enough advertiser demand, and pricing will take care of itself.

I'm not convinced of that.

Suppose you and I are widget experts. We each have an authoritative site about widgets - the only two such sites on the web.

There are 10 manufacturers of widget wheels that want to advertise on our sites via AdSense.

Google goes out and finds 5 more manufacturers of widget wheels that want to advertise. Now there are 15 advertisers who want our ad space - which in theory means you and I should earn more per click since there is more competition for our space.

But now that the bid price has increased, there are people who don't know anything about the widget industry who put together sites with AdSense ads. Some of these people simply steal content, some hire writers at $10 per article (often using stolen content also), some build sites based on news feeds about widget news, etc.

Suddenly there are a lot more "publishers" providing space for the advertisers. This would seem to drive the bid amount back down or at least prevent it from growing.

FarmBoy

Green_Grass

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3784942 posted 5:10 am on Nov 19, 2008 (gmt 0)

As an adWords advertiser,

For my cheap widgets on my e comm site, I pay typically 2-3 cents per click on the content network and still sometimes struggle to get enough conversions.. Most content sites where my sites appear are very 'authoritative'..but that means **** to me if I cannot get people to buy.

If I had to pay a high minimum, I would be running away.

Also on Search, most keywords have high enough QS to show at 5 cents and the site is not scammy or anything..

farmboy

WebmasterWorld Senior Member farmboy us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 5+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month



 
Msg#: 3784942 posted 5:11 am on Nov 19, 2008 (gmt 0)

That is the key for the next generation of advertisers - keep it simple.

I agree. The AdWords side is complex. I signed up for an AdWords account a while back and found out.

And I had just enough knowledge beforehand to make me wonder if there wasn't a certain tweak or trick here or there that would have let me get my traffic much cheaper rather than blowing through my advertising budget so fast.

Sure advertising on AdSense allows a small business to track response better than an ad in a newspaper or magazine, but advertisng in that newspaper or magazine is much less time consuming. And time is money.

FarmBoy

Green_Grass

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3784942 posted 5:13 am on Nov 19, 2008 (gmt 0)

Also must thank ASA for so much communication.. In the last 2 + years on this board, I think, this ASA has communicated more than all the other ASA's combined.. ( in terms of somewhat useful info..)

zett

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3784942 posted 6:37 am on Nov 19, 2008 (gmt 0)

Minimum bids is a very simple concept.

Example from the (struggling, I agree) real world. Why doesn't every manufacturer of widgets buy a full page ad in the New York Times on a Saturday? Simple: IT IS TOO EXPENSIVE. How did the NYT implement this minimum bid strategy? Simple: they have a price list. They say: "on Saturdays, a full-page color ad in the NYT is $X. You don't wanna pay that much? Sorry, mate, but then we don't have a deal."

By the way, minimum bids would go unnoticed by advertisers. There would still be enough inventory in the Adsense universe that would be willing to accept their lower bids. Just the publisher who sets the minimum too high will not see their ads on their sites.

What's in for Google?

The scum advertiser go elsewhere, or to other sites. Trust in the program rises.
The publishers stay with Adsense, instead of looking for better alternatives.

Green_Grass

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3784942 posted 9:34 am on Nov 19, 2008 (gmt 0)

How can you guys assume that any advertiser who pays low is scum?

He may have a legitimate low priced product to sell !

or is it only monetary considerations..and the advertiser be dammed?

I don't think adWords / adSense was created to make the publishers rich.. It was created to make the advertisers rich..The whole focus is on Advertisers.. and to an extent I agree..

Some more tools to give a little more control are welcome.. but wholesale blocking of all low paying advertisers..is not o.k.

swa66

WebmasterWorld Senior Member swa66 us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3784942 posted 10:05 am on Nov 19, 2008 (gmt 0)

How can you guys assume that any advertiser who pays low is scum? or is it only monetary considerations..and the advertiser be dammed?

Both.

Much of the crap ads on my site that make me and the entire program look bad (sometimes really *bad*) are bottom feeders that can't be paying all that much per click. I really do want them out.

Add in those doing "arbitrage": buy some cheap keyword and republish other better paying ads instead: why would I ever want to participate in such a scheme ? It's at the very best a bad experience for the visitor, and you're cheating both publishers, google, and the real advertisers.

Finally there might indeed be genuine advertisers who cannot afford higher prices. Well if you see an object on ebay and you "win" the bidding but it's reserve is not met ... who's problem is that? Both yours: you didn't get what you want but you're not cheated out of your money. And the sellers: they did want to sell, but just not at that low price. They put in effort for no result.
This is basic supply-demand, a system that the current algorithm breaks completely. I simply don't want to give you a visitor in exchange of (lass than) 0.01$, even the most accidental ones are worth more to me than that.

zett

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3784942 posted 10:29 am on Nov 19, 2008 (gmt 0)

How can you guys assume that any advertiser who pays low is scum?

swa66 has mentioned all the points, crystal clear.

I just want to add that there may be low paying advertisers, but they may just not be able to afford to buy advertising on a specific site. See my example with the NYT: they'd love to sell a full-page ad to a low-paying advertiser, as long as the advertiser is willing to pay the list price. :-) In fact, the NYT does not care whether the advertiser is a scumbag or not (unless certain content guidelines are met). Their filter is the PRICE TAG. I think that's a very efficient filter.

This would also acknowledge the fact that some sites have higher production cost for the content than others. Some sites just can not give away a visitor at $0.01 (or less).

Green_Grass

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3784942 posted 12:56 pm on Nov 19, 2008 (gmt 0)

I really hope adSense allows a minimum CPC for publishers to set.

This will open the eyes of the publishers to the value of their sites. Perceived value will be very diffn. to actual value from the advertisers perspective.

But I never see that happening. Not practical from the adWords side of the business..

But you never know.. with the new ASA and all....

zett

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3784942 posted 1:17 pm on Nov 19, 2008 (gmt 0)

Green_Grass:

This will open the eyes of the publishers to the value of their sites. Perceived value will be very diffn. to actual value from the advertisers perspective.

Why so negative towards new optional features?

What will happen is this:

1. Publishers frantically set minimum CPC.
2. "Low paying" ads drop out of their ad mix.
3. Publishers realize that their eCPM goes up, but their total revenue goes down.
4. Publishers decrease their minimum CPC.
5. Go to step 2.

The market will react VERY fast, believe me. The result will be another market balance, possibly eliminating some of the market participants.

BTW, if a publisher opts to set no minimum CPC (or $0.001) then fine. Maybe something is in for him as well? All the ads that once were displayed elsewhere (generating $0.01 per click) now show on his sites? He will be part of the value chain.

But heck, the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence, eh? ;-)

jetteroheller

WebmasterWorld Senior Member jetteroheller us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3784942 posted 1:32 pm on Nov 19, 2008 (gmt 0)

Bottomline, give us more power to combat low quality and low paying ads.

My filter is filled with maybe 50 times the same content on different domains, quick money and have soon Your yacht, luxury villa and luxury car.

Today I checked ads on my sites, again the same #*$!.

It's like the fight against the Hydra, whe You put one domain in the filter, they bring 2 new domains.

I could replace 50 entries in my filter just with one entry of a typical phrase on the landing page.

This 220 message thread spans 8 pages: < < 220 ( 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 > >
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