homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.204.77.26
register, free tools, login, search, subscribe, 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

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




msg:3784944
 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

 

jetteroheller




msg:3789582
 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.

Green_Grass




msg:3789604
 2:13 pm on Nov 19, 2008 (gmt 0)

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

As Erma Bombeck says "Grass is Greener over the Septic Tank"..

Well , if we get the tool, it should be interesting..Not holding my breath..or maybe I should..

netmeg




msg:3789662
 3:34 pm on Nov 19, 2008 (gmt 0)

It will never happen. The closest you will get to it is using the AdManager.

signor_john




msg:3789667
 3:35 pm on Nov 19, 2008 (gmt 0)

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

"Market balance" and "eliminating some of the market participants" sounds like a good argument for not implementing publisher-set minimums: Using that argument, publishers who are awash in with penny ads for "fight belly fat" will leave the network, creating more competition among advertisers for the remaining impressions and clicks. Ad quality will rise, making the content network more attractive to niche advertisers who are willing to bid decent amounts for true "contextual" clicks from targeted audiences.

One thing that hasn't been mentioned here is the fact that many types of sites or content aren't ideal venues for contextual ads. As time goes by, Google and advertisers will continue to refine their techniques for buying and allocating ads, blocking publishers whose traffic doesn't convert, etc. We've come a long way from the days before smart pricing or separate bidding for the search and content networks, and the evolutionary process isn't over yet.

farmboy




msg:3789696
 4:01 pm on Nov 19, 2008 (gmt 0)

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

I believe "scum" is being defined as low-paying.

Thus the no-ethics ambulance-chasing personal-injury attorney who pays $15 per click becomes royalty and the grandma who is selling her handmade pot holders to raise money to buy seeing-eye dogs for blind children and pays $.02 per click becomes scum - even if that wasn't the publisher's intended outcome.

FarmBoy

zett




msg:3789702
 4:10 pm on Nov 19, 2008 (gmt 0)

"Market balance" and "eliminating some of the market participants" sounds like a good argument for not implementing publisher-set minimums: Using that argument, publishers who are awash in with penny ads for "fight belly fat" will leave the network, creating more competition among advertisers for the remaining impressions and clicks. Ad quality will rise, making the content network more attractive to niche advertisers who are willing to bid decent amounts for true "contextual" clicks from targeted audiences.

Sorry, you've lost me here.

What's wrong with improved ad quality, a more attractive content network, and decent amounts for true contextual clicks?

HuskyPup




msg:3789710
 4:16 pm on Nov 19, 2008 (gmt 0)

and the evolutionary process isn't over yet.

And the very nature of any evolution usually means that those who take the lead win.

s_j you know that the Elbonian Free Press daily does not attract the same type of advertiser nor make the same profit levels of the Elbonian Premium Press monthly. They are completely different markets and AdSense needs to address those issues.

If ALL sales were solely about price then Ikea would not exist and be in such demand meanwhile B&Q (similar to Homebase in the US I believe) would not be in such a mess.

Pile it high and sell crap supposedly at competitive prices has been seen for what it is...

I do not want "ebay type" ads on my sites, it is that simple and if I were to be given the option of filtering out those advertisers surely that is MY choice.

There is no option but a "one size fits all" with AdSense at present, surely publishers should be allowed to have the choice of bespoke tailoring, after all, the advertisers do have fairly comprehensive options in comparison?

And I would bet that there are those sites with squillions of page impressions per day that would be quite happy to have the low EPC advertisers since they are catering to the undecided masses for whatever widget genre they target.

There is no right or wrong AdSense fit, and let's be clear that this programme has only been running a few years with absolutely no precedent therefore there are bound to be cock-ups from all sides, however Google will have to listen to the concerns of all publishers and advertisers alike to develop the best (yes I wrote that) and easily implementable advertising scheme ever.

The AdWords/AdSense programme will be a completely different animal in 2-3 years than it is now without a doubt and (compliments again!) it is quite possible that this ASA is the person to kick some butt and get our concerned voices heard.

So far this ASA has contributed more in one week than all others ASAs put together.

Purr......:-)

signor_john




msg:3789711
 4:21 pm on Nov 19, 2008 (gmt 0)

Nothing is wrong with improved ad quality, a more attractive content network, and decent amounts for true contextual clicks. But some of us question whether allowing publishers to set minimum bids will make those things happen.

Still, if Google wants to let publishers set minimum bids, it's welcome to do so. Any such decision will be based on Google's view of the bigger picture, not just on what recipients of "fight belly fat" ads want.

celgins




msg:3789733
 4:47 pm on Nov 19, 2008 (gmt 0)

From Martinibuster:
The solution isn't increasing minimum bids, it's increasing advertisers (and competition).

I agree with martinibuster's observation and I've felt this way for years.

Adwords advertisers, who are not unlike most banner network advertisers (e.g. CJ, Linkshare, Google/Doubleclick), probably don't care to have their ads displayed on certain sites (for fear of low ROI).

For those of you who opt out of placement-targeting, this may be something worth considering when thinking about how Google can offer better incentives to Adwords advertisers in an effort to draw them into the content network.

If more enter the content network, more competition will create higher bidding.

signor_john




msg:3789763
 5:24 pm on Nov 19, 2008 (gmt 0)

Adwords advertisers, who are not unlike most banner network advertisers (e.g. CJ, Linkshare, Google/Doubleclick), probably don't care to have their ads displayed on certain sites (for fear of low ROI).

This may be a bit off-topic (like much of this thread), but it ties in with what you just said. ComScore has been publicizing a concept called "view-through" (DoubleClick uses the term "post-impression"), a relatively new metric that measures the impact of display ads on visits to advertisers' sites. The idea is to drop a cookie when a reader sees an ad. If the reader later visits the advertiser's site independently (as opposed to via a clickthrough), the cookie is recognized and the visitor is registered as someone who's seen the advertiser's ad.

The "view-through" concept may not be directly relevant to CPC contextual ads, but it's easy to imagine it being harnessed by AdSense for CPM placement-targeted ads down the road. If and when that occurs, placement-targeted ads could become much more valuable for publishers who deliver quality "view-through" traffic to advertisers.

"View-through" is just one example of new metrics and tools that are becoming available to advertisers--and that are bound to help some publishers while hurting others.

StoutFiles




msg:3789788
 6:17 pm on Nov 19, 2008 (gmt 0)

The ASA's spirit will be broken soon enough, just give it some time. One can only take so much Adsense whining from this forum before they run away.

netmeg




msg:3789952
 9:14 pm on Nov 19, 2008 (gmt 0)

Yea well, I'll toss a match into the haystack and say that if people spent as much time working on their sites, their niches, their alternate sources for monetization, their organics, their linkbuilding - as they spend complaining about AdSense in this forum, they'd probably be doing better than they are. But oh no - that would be work.

Hop on the reality bus - if you want more control, you do not want to limit yourself to the easiest ad system on the planet to implement. THAT is what you give up in return for not having to do any work other than designing how your ad block looks and where to put it. THAT is the contract.

In the grand scheme of things, there's a pretty long advertiser wishlist in the other forum, and I'd be willing to bet that that list gets implemented first. That's where the money comes from. (And spare me about how Google can't live without the Content Network or our individual sites - 95% of the Content Network never heard of WebmasterWorld and probably 85% of it is perfectly happy to let AdSense do all the work and collect that check every month. ) As was said above - the advertisers are driving this boat.

Hobbs




msg:3789981
 9:55 pm on Nov 19, 2008 (gmt 0)

>ASA's spirit will be broken soon

There was slow motion stabbing and Carmina Burana playing in the background a couple of pages back.. But he's still here, not sure if being a guy has anything to do with it ..

netmeg, while agree with you about the complaining extremes, the lack of viable alternatives is very real.

martinibuster




msg:3789997
 10:25 pm on Nov 19, 2008 (gmt 0)

Viable alternatives depends on the quality of your site visitors and how many of them you receive. Many webmasters do well selling advertising from their site. What makes it viable is the quality of the visitors and the quantity. Quality of the content, while important, isn't as important as visitor quality and quantity.

At pubcon a guy with a video site asked about organic link building. Sugarrae took a look at his rankings and backlinks and told him links aren't his problem. The video guy has over 3 million unique users every month and Rae told him something along the lines of, "Why are you trying to monetize your site with webmaster welfare? Get a publicist in Los Angeles who can hook your site up with the right people in Hollywood who would be more than happy to throw a lot of money at you for those 3 million sets of eyeballs every month. Your problem is that you're under-monetized. You need to get out and make some deals."

netmeg




msg:3790054
 11:46 pm on Nov 19, 2008 (gmt 0)

Right. Work.

dcheney




msg:3790087
 12:45 am on Nov 20, 2008 (gmt 0)

Howdy latest incarnation of AdSenseAdvisor!

Reading through this thread you'd think things were horrible out there. Let me take a moment for a different point of view.

I had websites long before AdSense appeared. Mostly very niche informational sites - not selling anything - just providing a resource.

I starting using AdSense as an experiment - hoping to cover the basic costs of the site (domain name, hosting, etc.) - and it has exceeding all my expectations.

I'm not saying its perfect - but its covered my basic costs with lots of extras (new/better hardware and software) with plenty leftover.

So I just want to say: Thank You!

ArtistMike




msg:3790093
 12:52 am on Nov 20, 2008 (gmt 0)

the advertisers are driving this boat.
===================

The publishers are the "river" that the boat is driving on.

":^)

netmeg




msg:3790114
 1:27 am on Nov 20, 2008 (gmt 0)

Not really. Most of my clients aren't even fully opted into Content. I'm very cautiously putting some of them back in, but they're only staying if it converts.

AdSenseAdvisor




msg:3790129
 2:05 am on Nov 20, 2008 (gmt 0)

It seems like some of you have concerns that could be served equally well by having better filtering capabilities, while others of you want the option of leaving the slot ad-free for other reasons.

Either way, a lot of you have a good handle on the ads ecosystem. I'm impressed.

Here's another question for you: If you were able to set a minimum CPC/CPM bid for an ad slot, would that reserve price be private or public? In other words, would an advertiser be able to see the minimum bid you set?

From an auction theory perspective, whether the reserve price is public or private makes a difference in the way the auction plays out, both in the behavior of the buyer (the advertiser) and in the final price for the seller (the publisher).

I'm going to share your feedback either way, but it's an interesting thing to think about.

ASA

farmboy




msg:3790168
 3:25 am on Nov 20, 2008 (gmt 0)

Here's another question for you: If you were able to set a minimum CPC/CPM bid for an ad slot, would that reserve price be private or public? In other words, would an advertiser be able to see the minimum bid you set?

I'd say public. I'd want an advertiser to know up front the amount he would need to bid for his ad to show up in my slot - no need for him to offer a bid only to find out it isn't enough and not know how much is enough.

FarmBoy

ArtistMike




msg:3790275
 7:11 am on Nov 20, 2008 (gmt 0)

It is going to be "public" knowledge soon enough if the ad does not run on the ad slot, or if it does run. The advertiser will know if his ad is being shown or not at some point and he will know what he paid.

So I say make it public at the start and let's "get it on", as they say in Ultimate Fighting.

icedowl




msg:3790314
 8:49 am on Nov 20, 2008 (gmt 0)

Here's another question for you: If you were able to set a minimum CPC/CPM bid for an ad slot, would that reserve price be private or public? In other words, would an advertiser be able to see the minimum bid you set?

If that ability were to be made available I might try it to see if it works and if it works well. My feeling is that I'd want the reserve price to be private.

OutdoorWebcams




msg:3790336
 9:39 am on Nov 20, 2008 (gmt 0)

I'd want an advertiser to know up front the amount he would need to bid for his ad to show up in my slot - no need for him to offer a bid only to find out it isn't enough and not know how much is enough.

Yes, I think there is no reason to not let the advertizer know the 'entrance fee' for a certain site.
If his ads show up is still a realtime result of the auction, but he knows the minimum bid to take part and thus more transparency for the advertizer.

Bddmed




msg:3790361
 10:36 am on Nov 20, 2008 (gmt 0)

Especially for CPM ads the advertiser should know what he's bidding for. Size, position and minimum bid should be available. All other CPM selling parties also have rate cards.

We should know someone is bidding on our ad slots (something I can't see in the Ad control center now)

Hobbs




msg:3790428
 1:48 pm on Nov 20, 2008 (gmt 0)

ASA, advertiser should see the minimum bid, but publishers too should be able to easily opt in and out of this feature.

martinibuster,
Talking about site traffic quality & volume being a factor as well as acquiring direct advertisers has nothing to do with there being no other contextual PPC player that can contend with AdSense, but I digress in favor of the features & wish lists being discussed now.

swa66




msg:3790438
 2:03 pm on Nov 20, 2008 (gmt 0)

Wow, I'm impressed by this incarnation of the ASA!

From an auction theory perspective, whether the reserve price is public or private makes a difference in the way the auction plays out, both in the behavior of the buyer (the advertiser) and in the final price for the seller (the publisher).

Since the advertiser now knows the only possible reserve we could set is "0", letting them know what we have as a (slightly) higher reserve doesn't make much difference and in the interest of transparency: sure let them know it.

HuskyPup




msg:3790479
 2:41 pm on Nov 20, 2008 (gmt 0)

ASA, advertiser should see the minimum bid, but publishers too should be able to easily opt in and out of this feature.

Seconded...

signor_john




msg:3790588
 4:39 pm on Nov 20, 2008 (gmt 0)

Two things:

1) Advertisers can't do placement (a.k.a. site-specific) bidding for CPC ads, can they? Until they can, displaying a minimum bid for the publisher's ad slot won't accomplish much unless the publisher is getting a significant number of non-contextual CPM ads.

2) A demand for publisher-set minimums isn't likely to be met by Google for a simple reason: It goes against one of AdSense's fundamental principles, which is the use of automation to sell, allocate, and assign value to CPC ads. I can't see Google being willing to let rank-and-file publishers override its "black box." To borrow a phrase from netmeg, AdSense "is what it is," and ceding control over pricing to publishers would turn it into a different product.

Bddmed




msg:3790617
 5:13 pm on Nov 20, 2008 (gmt 0)

A demand for publisher-set minimums isn't likely to be met by Google for a simple reason: It goes against one of AdSense's fundamental principles, which is the use of automation to sell, allocate, and assign value to CPC ads. I can't see Google being willing to let rank-and-file publishers override its "black box." To borrow a phrase from netmeg, AdSense "is what it is," and ceding control over pricing to publishers would turn it into a different product.

I think implementation is rather simple. The complete algo as is stays in place. The algo decides which ads to show for a particular site/page. After the algo decided, it's matched against the min. bid from the publisher. If the publisher decided it's too low either no or an alternative (house) ad is shown. It won't give the better ads to publishers that want higher bids they just loose bottom line earnings as requested (not wanting to loose a visitor for less than $X).

[edited by: Bddmed at 5:16 pm (utc) on Nov. 20, 2008]

zett




msg:3790704
 7:01 pm on Nov 20, 2008 (gmt 0)

signor_john:

with all due respect, don't you think we should let the ideas flow towards ASA (who appears to be finally listening) instead of discussing why Google might NOT implement certain features? Shouldn't we show Google ways how to implement things (like Bddmed does) instead of saying "it goes against one of AdSense's fundamental principles"?

I understand that ASA is listening. Google will know what to make of this information.

signor_john




msg:3790725
 7:30 pm on Nov 20, 2008 (gmt 0)

Zett, this thread went off topic a long time ago (see the original post). Still, why don't we let the moderators do the moderating?

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