|It looks like I'm seeing these changes in my account and they are very welcomed. People need to learn to just be willing to try new things |
This is what ASA wrote in the OP just 3 days ago:
|We're rolling this out slowly in coming months, so please don't read anything into short-term revenue fluctuations (which I can almost guarantee have nothing to do with today's launch). |
I have never heard of any of the certified ad networks listed in my account. Anyone familiar with these?
I had horrible experiences with AdSense display ads--image ads were bad enough--but it was horrendous Flash ads that convinced me to give it up completely.
How are we supposed to expect Third-Party ads are going to be higher quality!? Google is set up to allow block entire networks instead of single bad ads on these Third-Party networks.
Once again, an epic failure by the Google AdSense Filter Dept. Sorry, they don't have one of those yet, do they?
Wack-a-mole is a more serious problem with visual ads than text ads as far as I'm concerned. They can instantly offend your visitors and leave a worse lasting impression.
(Who recently banned another entire network b/c of a single bad ad.)
|I had horrible experiences with AdSense display ads--image ads were bad enough--but it was horrendous Flash ads that convinced me to give it up completely. |
In that case, don't use them. Your comment that "image ads were bad enough" suggests that you don't like display ads, period, so why accept display ads from Google [I]or[/] third-party networks?
Here's some food for thought, though: It's common knowledge in the ad industry that Google has been much more successful with text ads than with display ads. That's obviously the reason why Google is reaching out to third-party ad networks. In theory, tapping into third-party ad sources should increase both the value and quality of AdSense display ads for AdSense publishers who (a) use such ads and (b) deliver audiences that are attractive to advertisers. (That doesn't mean every AdSense publisher should accept AdSense display ads; publishers who have enough high-quality traffic to interest selective vertical display-ad networks may be able to do better elsewhere.)
"I had horrible experiences with AdSense display ads--image ads were bad enough--but it was horrendous Flash ads that convinced me to give it up completely. "
Don't use them. Apparently your traffic can read and comprehend simple text and isn't atracted to shiny-twirly-whirly, brightly colored objects. Who knows what G will display with the excuse that it's a 'third party' ad in order to make a buck.
It's also worth remembering that what's "horrendous" is in the eye of the beholder. I hate ads that induce seizures or that show phony Windows error messages, for example, but I'm happy to see classy-looking animated ads or video ads on my site. (Fortunately, my vertical ad network doesn't run junk ads; it's more interested in the going for the cream on the top.)
People who are skeptical about display ads, or who want to vet every ad before it runs, are probably better off skipping display ads or selling ads direct instead of using a display-ad network or a commissioned ad rep.
I notice that one of the networks that shows up in the list now is the "Google Testing Network" - is that the entity that messes with my font choices and so forth? If I block that, does it mean Google won't test on my sites? Cause I'd be *all* about that.
OK. So it has been established that all these ads are image ads. That does it for me.
What about the other question.
Are these all CPM ads?
Has Google EVER implemented CPC image ads? At one point, didn't they say that they were going to?
I noticed Chitika on the list and they used to serve only CPC ads to their publisher. So unless they made some other deal with Google, we will have CPC ads as well.
It would be so easy for Google to just tell us.
I read through the whole "Certified Ad Networks", and I did not see the word "image" anywhere.
Is that because it is just image ads now, but later it may include text ads, and CPC ads as well? If not, then why don't they just say so? Maybe they are still trying to decide. That's the only thing that makes sense to me.
| This 70 message thread spans 3 pages: < < 70 ( 1 2  ) |