| 2:38 am on Aug 26, 2009 (gmt 0)|
ASA, thank you for the heads up on this.
Should we publishers expect a higher income from having more ad inventory available?
Do these other ad networks pay the same as the AdWords advertisers for the same keywords?
| 8:15 am on Aug 26, 2009 (gmt 0)|
|We're rolling this out slowly in coming months |
Thanks ASA. What do you mean by slowly? Is this being rolled out in different markets first and if so may I ask which and how etc?
Also, can you explain the below a little better? Do I understand I cannot block one advertiser only the whole ad network?
|What happens if I allow or block a single ad or advertiser from a Google certified network?Print |
Ad networks serve multiple advertisers' ads from a single tag. As a result:
If you allow or block an ad or advertiser from a Google certified ad network, the entire ad network will be allowed or blocked.
If you use category filtering, all Google certified ad network tags that include ads from the filtered category will be blocked.
If you use the Competitive Ad Filter, all Google certified agency or ad network tags with URLs that you're filtering will be blocked.
Note: When you block ads or advertisers from an ad network, competition for your ad inventory is reduced, and you may miss out on additional revenue.
[edited by: martinibuster at 6:57 pm (utc) on Aug. 26, 2009]
[edit reason] Fixed URL [/edit]
| 8:45 am on Aug 26, 2009 (gmt 0)|
What are Google-certified ad networks?
| 9:27 am on Aug 26, 2009 (gmt 0)|
Interesting is that you can control which of those 3rd party ad networks are allowed through the ad review center page.
I'm currently seeing 9 of them that I could block. Pity I don't see a way to know *what* these networks are/would be advertising to base such a decision on.
| 9:35 am on Aug 26, 2009 (gmt 0)|
Thank god. Google finally did something what I was waiting for. I think this will be a great thing for publishers in the future.
God bless Google.
| 10:33 am on Aug 26, 2009 (gmt 0)|
| 1:59 pm on Aug 26, 2009 (gmt 0)|
I see this is being announced at the top of the report page when I login to G Adsence - unfortunately when I click the link for more info it tells me that page does not exist!
| 2:25 pm on Aug 26, 2009 (gmt 0)|
|This is great news for you because it means the auction for your image-ad-enabled ad blocks will be getting more competitive. |
My first thought upon reading the above, and it's based on my own experiences, is that it's good the auction for image ads will be getting more competitive as image ads need some sort of boost so they will get a little bit closer to achieving the performance as enjoyed by text ads.
This doesn't motivate me to again allow image ads on my sites, but like I wrote above, that's based on my own experiences and may not be applicable to the sites of others.
| 2:27 pm on Aug 26, 2009 (gmt 0)|
Well I'm willing to give it a shot; this is far and away the worst AdSense month I've had since 2004. Can only go up from here.
| 3:14 pm on Aug 26, 2009 (gmt 0)|
I've always wanted an image-only block for some of my hi-quality pages, but have always been deterred by absolutely pathetic performance whenever I experimented (tons and tons of impressions, zero clicks!) Which is a shame because there's so much advertiser-brand exposure my visitors get just from those impressions. Then, of course, I remove the block shortly after because am too scared to keep that nonperforming block up to hurt my overall eCPM since there are no clicks and revenue for me from it - just a lot of free brand exposure for the advertiser.
I feel AdSense needs to implement a better pure-branding-based pay-per-impression option like other display networks. Could this be a step in that direction?
| 3:14 pm on Aug 26, 2009 (gmt 0)|
This is potentially a very good thing. There are some independent companies that try to do the same thing but my experience with them has been quite disappointing. Google should have the technical prowess and the accumulated data to make it work.
| 3:22 pm on Aug 26, 2009 (gmt 0)|
The shortterm fluctuations are bad enough to experiment with blocking the lot of them just to see what happens.
| 3:28 pm on Aug 26, 2009 (gmt 0)|
Until I see some posts from others bragging about how well this has worked out for them, meaning they post about how much more money this is making them, I'm not taking part.
I blocked all the networks and set it to automatically block any new networks that get added.
Also, what was the bit about "interest based ads"? More agencies etc tracking our readers as they move around the net?
| 4:20 pm on Aug 26, 2009 (gmt 0)|
|I feel AdSense needs to implement a better pure-branding-based pay-per-impression option ... |
If image ads are going to be offered up on a PPC basis, certainly something needs to change. A requirement the ad include some response fundamentals would be a good start - a Call to Action for example.
| 5:52 pm on Aug 26, 2009 (gmt 0)|
|If image ads are going to be offered up on a PPC basis, certainly something needs to change. A requirement the ad include some response fundamentals would be a good start - a Call to Action for example. |
That's exactly my point. A new response measuring mechanism based on the quality score of a given page (discussed on this forum some time earlier I recall). PageRank would be a good measure for Google, since they have this in form of a quality-score anyway.
Let's face it, traditional pay-per-click is good for action-based advertisers needing people to visit their traffic-hungry sites or e-commerce stores. Big traditional 'brand' conscious advertisers who are more interested in brand-building rather than shopping carts or website visitors must be needing a successful model too, I'd assume. Why not give them a new model where brand recognition through video or interactive flash based animations is more important? The 'action' would not necessarily redirect a clicker to an advertiser's 'for more information' page but offers something within the adbox itself, hence the action within the ad, rewarding the publisher and the ad network while doing it.
| 8:02 pm on Aug 26, 2009 (gmt 0)|
|PageRank would be a good measure for Google, since they have this in form of a quality-score anyway. |
It wouldn't be a good measure for Google.
Take my site for example...
No paid links,
99.99% pages validate.
No broken links [approx 500,000]
Authoritive and Government Inbound links.
My site is now PR3
Still no paid links, broken links etc.
The site hasn't altered or diverted from what it was when it was a PR6.
The site is still #1 or high up in the SERPS as before.
What has altered are the inbound links.
So, if a number of sites that were linking to me have decided to fold, then why should I be penalized by that ?
Sorry, your theory does not make any sense.
| 11:40 pm on Aug 26, 2009 (gmt 0)|
as long as the google team does not realize that text ads and image ads are two completely different types of advertising media because they serve a different purpose (information vs branding) they can come up with whatever stuff they like - it won't pan out.
instead of letting them compete in one and the same ad space, it is absolutely necessary to seperate the bidding process for the two ad types, each with its own accounting method.
| 12:01 am on Aug 27, 2009 (gmt 0)|
moTi, you touch on something interesting that may be troubling some publishers, which is the question of the accuracy of Google's calculations for a base CPM to charge for inventory. Google is doing it and I sense that some publishers are anxious about the process of comparing apples and oranges in an equitable manner.
| 12:44 am on Aug 27, 2009 (gmt 0)|
I received an email from Google announcing the same thing as the OP of this thread, EXCEPT the email, unless I missed it, didn't mention the term "image ads".
So does this apply just to image ads only or does it apply to text ads also?
| 12:56 am on Aug 27, 2009 (gmt 0)|
How will this work with foreign ads? Some companies are for it, others want only English.
| 12:58 am on Aug 27, 2009 (gmt 0)|
|So does this apply just to image ads only or does it apply to text ads also? |
The only thing I see in either email I've received from G about this says the ad formats will be the same as for AdWords ads.
| 1:57 am on Aug 27, 2009 (gmt 0)|
I'm really puzzled by the responses in this thread. Please correct me if I am wrong, but:
Advertisers are already subject to quality scores, so it simply means google applying this same system to ads from adnetworks.
SInce google is supposed to optimize revenue for publishers, and it's known that ctr and bid are taken into account, what issue is there about this? Ads set up so people don't click on them will end up costing much more for advertisers, yes? Or they won't show when competing against ads with higher ctr.
The branding/buying thing is old school. It doesn't make sense anymore, because of the way google serves ads. It may still apply to other agencies and cpm/cpc ads.
I'm assuming some things here that google will continue to operate as in the past, and simply apply its current practices to the new ads from the adnetworks. It would make sense to do that if it is technically possible.
| 2:01 am on Aug 27, 2009 (gmt 0)|
|moTi, you touch on something interesting that may be troubling some publishers, which is the question of the accuracy of Google's calculations for a base CPM to charge for inventory. Google is doing it and I sense that some publishers are anxious about the process of comparing apples and oranges in an equitable manner. |
But this is the thing that underlies so much of the "complaints" about adsense over the last years. We "trust" google to make the correct decisions about what ads to display, because, in a sense, we have no option except to leave adsense. There is no reason now to trust them any less or any more than before.
I don't see anything different than before, provided google continues as before, thus rendering apples and oranges into the same fruity mix.
Now, as for their inability to communicate what the heck this means? Bad on them. They seem to be handling this whole thing with classic bad communication.
| 2:04 am on Aug 27, 2009 (gmt 0)|
|it's known that ctr and bid are taken into account, what issue is there about this? Ads set up so people don't click on them will end up costing much more for advertisers, yes? |
- CTR from what time period?
- What time period would be the most accurate for a baseline, year over year, month over month, week to week? You know, we all know, that last years CTR may be significantly different from this year, as well as month to month. What is a fair and accurate baseline for clicks or even earnings to use as a starting point for calculating a competitive rate for a CPM ad?
- CTR from which ads? Some are clicked more, some are more relevant. What about diet ads from last month, year, week?
Coach, those are just some of the issues about CTR and Bids. Yes, CTR and bids are taken into account, but which ones? That's a rhetorical question, it would be unreasonable to expect Google to state explicitly what data points they are using. I'm just pointing out where the issue becomes opaque, which is giving rise to questions in some minds as to Google's ability make this calculation. Some webmasters are skeptical.
| 2:13 am on Aug 27, 2009 (gmt 0)|
How are any of the issues you mention different from those of ANY new advertiser, particularly those with large inventories?
Why would they simply handle these issues the same way they have always done it?
Or am I missing something. APart from the fact we don't have enough information, what's so different about today than two weeks ago?
We've had cpc, cpm, site targeted, and pretty much everything under the sun for a long time. What is different with this new breed?
(which reminds me, has anyone HEARD of any of these ad networks before today?)
| 2:41 am on Aug 27, 2009 (gmt 0)|
Too early to be jumping with joy. Time will tell. I'm guessing Google is doing this to fill empty ad spaces. Better to run 3rd party ads from another network than serve public service announcements. Space will probably be filled with low paying 10 cent cpms. I'm not overly optimistic.
| 3:10 am on Aug 27, 2009 (gmt 0)|
>>>How are any of the issues you mention different from those of ANY new advertiser, particularly those with large inventories?
CPC and CPM are different, right? But most importantly they are different because Google calculates how much you earn via CPC per thousand visitors, then compares that to the CPM bid. Comparing CPC to CPC is a no-brainer. Comparing CPM to CPM is similarly a no-brainer. Comparing CPC to CPM is not straightforward for the reasons outlined above and won't repeat.
I am allowing these ads. I like more competition and think this development is a good thing. However, some webmasters have reasonable doubts. There is a lot that Google cannot tell us, and reasonably so. When a publisher does not have all the information to make an informed decision, in this case if the CPC to CPM calculation is equitable, then it's a matter of faith. Do you trust that Google knows what it is doing? Personally I do trust Google. But it is a matter of trust and faith and webmasters who doubt have valid reasons for doubting. It's up to Google to persuade them or ignore them.
| 5:41 am on Aug 27, 2009 (gmt 0)|
|Space will probably be filled with low paying 10 cent cpms |
Some of us would LOVE 10 cent cpms.
| 5:53 am on Aug 27, 2009 (gmt 0)|
|worst AdSense month I've had since 2004. Can only go up from here |
Netmeg, never, ever say that! Trust me.
| This 70 message thread spans 3 pages: 70 (  2 3 ) > > |