homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.205.193.39
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Pubcon Platinum Sponsor 2014
Visit PubCon.com
Home / Forums Index / Google / Google AdWords
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: buckworks & eWhisper & skibum

Google AdWords Forum

This 471 message thread spans 16 pages: < < 471 ( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 > >     
Open letter to Google Regarding Changes to The Ad Words Program
kingfish




msg:3003368
 12:33 am on Jul 12, 2006 (gmt 0)

As someone whose companies spend in excess of $300k per year on your Ad Words Program, I thought I would write you this open letter in hopes that someone would respond to it, as I have been unable to get a response from my assigned rep or anyone else at Google. I mentioned my own projects in addition to my own projects I serve as a consultant for several smaller companies which bring addition sums to Google. Why is it that Google treats me like an unwashed vagrant trying to buy a $.10 cup of coffee at Mc Donald’s rather than someone who spends $300k a year with them?

The issue I would like for you to address is of course is the radical rise in the minim bid costs that many of us are seeing. To get at this problem, I spoke to one rep on the phone today as my personal rep is “unavailable” and has been all day. I sent a lengthy email to support early this morning (my rep) and left a voice mail for my rep to contact me immediately. So far the only response I have gotten was from the lower the level rep when I declined to leave another voice mail for my personal rep. She was very apologetic and nice, but didn’t know what was going on. She told me all the reps were told was to expect some changes, but that they were not told what the changes would encompass or whom the changes would affect. She said she had spoken to some customers today that had similar issues, but simply put she doesn’t know what to advise them as she doesn’t know what the new quality system looks for other than the generic stuff from the Google Ad Words page. She looked at my account, and I had her note the same ad had been running in excess of 2 years and had produced a click through rate of 26% in those 2 years, and she agreed it wasn’t really possible to increase the quality the ad itself. She had no idea how often the bot looks at the pages so you can see if changes you make actually improve your quality score.

Your employees have been uninformed and left in the dark about these major changes to your program, and perhaps more importantly your paying customers have been left in the dark as well. The smart thing would have been to come to the community months ago and said hey we are thinking about some major changes, these are how these changes are going to affect you, and here is what you can do to bring your landing pages up to snuff. That way your business partners would not be left holding the bag when they are hit with overnight radical price increases, and are forced to seek immediate answers from your employees who have also been left in the dark, and have no useful information to provide your customers. I would suggest as good business etiquette and professionalism would dictate you roll these changes back immediately and evaluate what you have learned from this. Then come forward and announce what changes you plan to make, describe in detail what accounts it will have a negative impact on, and provide in detail guidelines for producing the type of landing pages that you want. That way your business partners can make a business decision as to if they want to continue to do business with you under the new system.

Sincerely

Mark A. Libbert
Attorney At Law

P.S. If any Overture/Yahoo rep is lurking I have 10-12k a month buy for you.

 

holyearth




msg:3010520
 4:24 pm on Jul 16, 2006 (gmt 0)

if the media mentions this anywhere, I guarantee you google will revert.

europeforvisitors




msg:3010530
 4:33 pm on Jul 16, 2006 (gmt 0)

As it stands, Google is an interested party and cannot claim neutrality (well, they try, by using algos to determine quality, pricing, placment, etc. - they think they can shift blame to the 'objective' algorithm - as you can see, people aren't buying this.)

The algorithm isn't needed for objectivity, but for scalability.

If both sides had proper control over their respective domains, then Google would be nothing more than a facilitator linking a buyer (AdWords advertiser) to a seller (AdSense publisher

Sure, and any big ad agency or media-buying service could do the same thing. Technology--and the things that Google can do with that technology--are Google's "value add."

ipohopper




msg:3010531
 4:38 pm on Jul 16, 2006 (gmt 0)

So I clicked the ebay ad and saw 79 items such as books on Heroin. How is that not relevant? Maybe it wasn't relevant to someone searching for actual heroin but maybe relevant for someone looking for a book on heroin.

What you are saying is that you are opposing Adwords broadmatch feature because sometimes an irrelevant ad shows up during someones search. I guarantee you that your ad showed many times for someone searching for something completely different. That is unless you are NOT using broadmatch.

MrCritic




msg:3010540
 4:46 pm on Jul 16, 2006 (gmt 0)

Well, I did post an interaction I had with Google here...removing all of the identifying information. But the editors saw fit to delete it so that you couldn't see it. How sad. Guess I'll go try another forum that doesn't feel the need to censor.

MrCritic




msg:3010550
 4:59 pm on Jul 16, 2006 (gmt 0)

Well, my posts don't seem to be making it past the censors, for unknown reasons, but here's my last try:

Why are we all arguing? If you're affected, the only question is: What are we going to do about it?

Options:

1. Provide better content on our landing pages...this means that, if you're retailer selling products, you're now expected to be in the info business; just promoting, stocking, and shipping products isn't enough any longer.

2. Find a class action attorney to launch a class action suit, claiming it's anti-competitive since large businesses don't seem affected.

3. Band together and take out ads in USA Today, SF Chronicle, NY Times...Dear Google:

4. Complain, complain, complain to G. Make them go look at your landing pages, as they say in the blog entry they will do.

At a minimum, we should all be doing #4. And, a lot of us will do #1. My guess is, being we're posters who never really actually DO anything but post, we won't do #2 or #3.

inactivist




msg:3010556
 5:07 pm on Jul 16, 2006 (gmt 0)


As it stands, Google is an interested party and cannot claim neutrality (well, they try, by using algos to determine quality, pricing, placement, etc. - they think they can shift blame to the 'objective' algorithm - as you can see, people aren't buying this.)

The algorithm isn't needed for objectivity, but for scalability.

Good point.

No doubt about that, and I never said that it was only useful as a way to avoid responsibility -- I think that you can't deny that the reliance on algos is quite helpful to Google as a means of avoiding responsibility (because it allows them to claim impartiality and neutrality, when, in fact, they created the algos and one must assume that the algos do Google's bidding else they'd scrap them PDQ.)

dmerton




msg:3010560
 5:13 pm on Jul 16, 2006 (gmt 0)

if the media mentions this anywhere, I guarantee you google will revert.

I have an idea, and I apologize if this has already come up, this thread is getting so long it is becoming hard for me to remember what I have and haven’t read yet. Perhaps if all of us who were affected by these changes could come up with some well written, well thought out, legitimate press releases detailing the situation and it’s effects. We post first on our own sites and blogs, then submit to every article submission and PR submission site on the net (or as many as we can find). We’re bound to get some coverage.

europeforvisitors




msg:3010563
 5:13 pm on Jul 16, 2006 (gmt 0)

Well, I did post an interaction I had with Google here...removing all of the identifying information. But the editors saw fit to delete it so that you couldn't see it. How sad. Guess I'll go try another forum that doesn't feel the need to censor.

As I recall, the Webmaster World TOS don't allow direct quoting or posting of e-mails, but you can paraphrase.

If your AdWord rep said:

"The rain in Spain stays mainly in the plain"

Simply post:

"My AdWords rep said the rain in Spain stays mainly in the plain."

or:

"According to my AdWords rep, the rain in Spain stays mainly in the plain."

In other words, to flip an old saying around, "Tell, don't show."

jtara




msg:3010570
 5:25 pm on Jul 16, 2006 (gmt 0)

if the media mentions this anywhere, I guarantee you google will revert.

Actually, the "heroin" ad is a bit peripheral to the QP issue. That ad has been there since before the change. I think it was being used as an example of the QP change not addressing a couple of the main detractors to quality - such as over-use of broad-match and keyword substitution.

That ad is particularly inappropriate on a page that is otherwise filled with ads and natural search results for addiction treatment. It's an embarassment for both Google and eBay that this ad has been running for months and hasn't been caught. This ad is a particularly good example of the shortcomings of Google's algorithmic approach and largely "hands-off" attitude with regard to human review.

Yes, there are books on heroin listed on eBay, as well as posters, videos, etc. Why doesn't the ad mention this? The ad states unequivocaly that heroin is available for sale on eBay, and a "great deal", to boot. That's just not true. (Or if it is, presumably quickly dealt-with by law enforcement agencies...) While it may be good for a chuckle, and perhaps a cute and perhaps effective way to sell books and posters, it certainly isn't an example of Google's algos facilitating quality and honesty in advertising.

It's a good example of an overly-broad match combined with keyword substitution - and, unfortunately is the kind of advertising that Google often actively steers advertisers to - apparently because of a lack of resources to deliver truly-targeted advertising.

[edited by: jtara at 5:31 pm (utc) on July 16, 2006]

inactivist




msg:3010572
 5:31 pm on Jul 16, 2006 (gmt 0)

Googling for "fungus" shows a nice AdWords for search listing for <no specifics> at slot # 2:

<ads removed>

This is just too funny! I wasn't really 'looking for fungus'.

No doubt there are interesting fungus-related items for sale on eBay...

[edited by: eWhisper at 6:34 pm (utc) on July 16, 2006]
[edit reason]
[1][edit reason] Please don't copy ads - See TOS. [/edit]
[/edit][/1]

idolw




msg:3010583
 5:39 pm on Jul 16, 2006 (gmt 0)

Many are upset with Google, and now we see people attacking the other side of the transaction

I am not attacking the other side of transaction.
I can pay more for the clicks if I get proper ROI. The price increase stems not only from these strange changes, but from lack of advertising space advertisers want to buy.
I do AdWords only on Google search and sometimes on Google Search Network. I bet all my competitors do the same. So we all fight for these 3 blue spots above organic listings as they give us incredibly larger converting traffic than any other positions anywhere. Lack of supply usually leads to price growth.

But if there was a good (good not large) content network that could send traffic converting at the right ratio, myself and my competitors would send their money there as well. The total demand for advertising space sold by Google would spread into search and content network.

LET'S MAKE A POLL! Who of present here ladies and gentlemen uses Google Content Network for advertising?
May be I am wrong, but my opinion is that I will see relatively few of us will admit they do.

europeforvisitors




msg:3010589
 5:44 pm on Jul 16, 2006 (gmt 0)

No doubt about that, and I never said that it was only useful as a way to avoid responsibility -- I think that you can't deny that the reliance on algos is quite helpful to Google as a means of avoiding responsibility (because it allows them to claim impartiality and neutrality, when, in fact, they created the algos and one must assume that the algos do Google's bidding else they'd scrap them PDQ.)

Sure, and could claim that the post office's reliance on airlines is "quite useful as a means of avoiding responsibility" if letters arrive late. But that isn't why the post office uses airlines.

Google has never pretended that its algorithms were created without humans defining the objectives and rules. In the case that we're discussing here, Google has made it very clear that its landing-page "quality score" was devised to "do Google's bidding," as you put it.

hdpt00




msg:3010596
 5:50 pm on Jul 16, 2006 (gmt 0)

I don't know how algorithmic something is when this is in it:

if(AdFromEbay()) {
//ignore all other factors, 5 cents is fine.
}

else {
...
}

Took a lot of PhD's to come up with that, huh?

luke175




msg:3010604
 5:57 pm on Jul 16, 2006 (gmt 0)

I would bet that ebay pays less than .05

I have no doubt they are locked in at .01 on some less competitive terms. Heck, maybe even lower bulk pricing.

vphoner




msg:3010634
 6:31 pm on Jul 16, 2006 (gmt 0)

Some people are going to the FTC on this google thread.

[edited by: eWhisper at 6:35 pm (utc) on July 16, 2006]
[edit reason]
[1][edit reason] Please don't drop links. See TOS. [/edit]
[/edit][/1]

netmeg




msg:3010775
 9:26 pm on Jul 16, 2006 (gmt 0)

It never ceases to amaze me at how many people think they're somehow owed something from Google, or that for some reason Google should care more about our (as advertisers and publishers) profits than they do their own. Or that Google should not be allowed to determine its own priorities as far as what shows up on their search and content network (just as most of us would want to do with our own sites) The more I read these threads and realize what the posters' business philosophies and ideas of quality actually are, the more I think maybe Google IS on the right track, and the more I lose sympathy for some (but not all) of the ones hit hard.

aeiouy has it right - many of you just don't get it. This is a different advertising model; it's not based solely on converting sales and your own bottom line. It's not even based on Google's short term bottom line. You want a fixed price for a fixed length of time to post an advertisement of your choice for a business of your choice - you don't want Google PPC, you want the Yellow Pages. Even if AdWords was like that before - it obviously isn't now, and it's Google's right to change the model anytime they want. I agree they didn't go about it the best way, but I actually don't know how logistically they could have done it otherwise, and unfortunately for those hit hard, Google's under no obligation to do it differently.

You can bitch about it all you want, you can threaten to leave or boycott (that part always kills me - people who have effectively been shown the door threatening to boycott? I got news for you - Google has already come to terms with losing your money) you can make vague threats about the media or lawyers or the FTC (I would be willing to bet you this move was entirely vetted by a good sized TEAM of legal experts before it went into effect) OR you can screw your head back on, take a good OBJECTIVE look at your business model and your website, maybe get some OBJECTIVE third party opinions, and make a decision as to whether or not you will be able to either hone your site into something that Google thinks more highly of, or else determine that the Google Business Model doesn't fit your particular niche, and go find something that works better.

The arrogance I've seen in the past week hasn't been on Google's part, that's for sure.

rehabguy




msg:3010788
 10:00 pm on Jul 16, 2006 (gmt 0)

I don't think it's arrogant to be upset when someone blindsides you.

People / businesses tend to be pissed off when someone pulls the rug out from under them.

It's not just our money that's been invested in Google's Adwords system (even though I've spent thousands of dollars on my employee's labor to build our ad campaigns - all gone now) - it's our TIME - time tweaking our "quality" (BS), time tweaking our ad text, time betting our future profitability on the STABILITY of a system, which is the cornerstone of all free market trade!

Time and stability are important business factors, and in one day, Google said - your time and stability doesn't matter! And we're not going to tell you the (real) rules!

I'm as capitalist / conservative as it gets, but I don't like having business rugs pulled out from under me, regardless.

Uncertainty crashes markets - ask any stock market person.

Stability builds a solid foundation. My trust in Google as a company has been completely shaken.

Of course I can take my dollars elsewhere. Thanks for the suggestion. Didn't think of that. :)

wildbest




msg:3010803
 10:27 pm on Jul 16, 2006 (gmt 0)

The arrogance I've seen in the past week hasn't been on Google's part, that's for sure.

?!

These are your own words:

It never ceases to amaze me at how many people think they're somehow owed something from Google, or that for some reason Google should care more about our (as advertisers and publishers) profits than they do their own... and it's Google's right to change the model anytime they want...

It amazes me how you say that Google are doing whatever they want, whenever they want, caring only about their profits, and owing no explanation to anyone! If what Google is doing is not a classic example of arrogance, what is it?

Alex_Miles




msg:3010812
 10:43 pm on Jul 16, 2006 (gmt 0)

The ad states unequivocaly that heroin is available for sale on eBay, and a "great deal", to boot. That's just not true.

Which is a shame. After the week I just had, I was planning on buying some.

spander




msg:3010819
 10:47 pm on Jul 16, 2006 (gmt 0)

Move to Canada. You can get it for free

www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/02/10/heroin-050210.html

netmeg




msg:3010855
 11:50 pm on Jul 16, 2006 (gmt 0)

It amazes me how you say that Google are doing whatever they want, whenever they want, caring only about their profits, and owing no explanation to anyone! If what Google is doing is not a classic example of arrogance, what is it?

Business. That's the way it works. That's the way it has ALWAYS worked.

BTW, you are misquoting me in a minor way - I'm not saying Google cares ONLY about their profits - I'm saying they (naturally enough) care more about their profits than they care about my profits, or your profits.

chief72




msg:3010857
 11:53 pm on Jul 16, 2006 (gmt 0)

It never ceases to amaze me at how many people think they're somehow owed something from Google, or that for some reason Google should care more about our (as advertisers and publishers) profits than they do their own.

Why is it amazing that people who pay for a service should expect some level of consistency and transparency from the service provider.

Google should care (not more but equally) about our profits. We are their partners not competitors and if the truth be told, the foundations upon which their empire was built. If we profit Google profits.

The arrogance I've seen in the past week hasn't been on Google's part, that's for sure.

Who are you to be telling people how they should respond to these changes. Sure there is some venting taking place (bitching as you call it) but why shouldn't there be, it's cathartic and probably generally justified. Perhaps some of the arrogance on display is your own.

Quantam Goose




msg:3010863
 11:56 pm on Jul 16, 2006 (gmt 0)

I hate to admit it....but...the totally fraudulent ads that used the prime keyword pair I use for my commerce site have been reduced by at least 50%. Even ebay "affilliates" were running ads with my site specific keyword pair and those have gone away. (And Ebay does not have anything remotely close to my services - it was straight fraud)

I have not seen an increase in CTR yet, but it is inevitable since 70% of the ads that used my keyword pair basically "did no such thing", but were just trying to loop people in. Dell did it too, and those have diminsihed some.

So they just may be doing something right.

(BTW the greatest KWD increases for me were in the march/april changes. Some increases now, but the absolute "dead ON" kwds that reflect my site are at the same price or actually lower.

They got rid of a lot of adword fraud.

netmeg




msg:3010898
 12:52 am on Jul 17, 2006 (gmt 0)

Why is it amazing that people who pay for a service should expect some level of consistency and transparency from the service provider.

I don't think AdWords qualifies as a "service"; it's more of a product (i.e. each click). The T&C doesn't imply any kind of a contract; it's essentially "at will" on both sides - either party can walk away from the relationship for any reason or for no reason. They specifically claim they can modify any of their advertising programs (or for that matter, their terms and conditions) "any any time without liability." We all signed up under those terms (and in fact had to re-agree to them recently when they had some changes to the T&C.)

Yep, it was lousy the way they did it. No argument there. But we're essentially playing in Google's backyard, so they get to call the shots - even when we're PAYING to be there, they still call the shots. If we don't like the shots, then we have to find a new backyard (or make one of our own)

rbacal




msg:3010945
 1:36 am on Jul 17, 2006 (gmt 0)


I don't think it's arrogant to be upset when someone blindsides you.

I understand these things happen, and I've been "blindsided" a whole bunch of times in Internet commerce over almost 10 years.

But I'm telling you, if you got blindsided, you needed glasses in the first place. And if you (or more generally, anyone) thought the trains they were riding would go indefinitely, I'd call that exceedingly stupid thinking.

And, then to moan, wail, and attack google for doing what it deems in its own business interest(ok, that's debatable), and to take such HUGE offense at a business doing that, is, in my mind, arrogant, and reflects a lack of understanding of business in general.

Heck, I understand the venting. But I swear, some of this talk sounds like a bunch of 12 yr. olds p****ed off because their girlfriends wouldn't put out for em.

(sorry for the weird age juxupostion)

chief72




msg:3010947
 1:40 am on Jul 17, 2006 (gmt 0)

But we're essentially playing in Google's backyard, so they get to call the shots - even when we're PAYING to be there, they still call the shots. If we don't like the shots, then we have to find a new backyard (or make one of our own)

Well put!

We'll probably maintain the rage for a while yet though, just for the hell of it. Hey, and speaking of backyard's what is it that one should not do in their own backyard :D

aleksl




msg:3010987
 2:33 am on Jul 17, 2006 (gmt 0)

netmeg: If we don't like the [Google] shots, then we have to find a new backyard

and we do - we (as advertisers) diversify into MSN and Overture; MySpace is now #1 site, so guess what, we (as general internet audience) are creating our own backyards. A good part of my business does not depend on SE. Life goes on.

But read the topic title, maybe you'll start respecting other people's opinions more.

rbacal




msg:3011014
 3:00 am on Jul 17, 2006 (gmt 0)

and we do - we (as advertisers) diversify into MSN and Overture

Paraphrase.

Google is the worst PPC system on the planet, except for all of the other ones.

I'm afraid that some people relying on moving to overture/yahoo and particularly MSN are going to get one hell of a shock when the realize that although they have real concerns about google, they are going to go nuts dealing with the others.

vphoner




msg:3011066
 4:14 am on Jul 17, 2006 (gmt 0)

Why would anyone RISK making new web pages and campaigns and put thousands of dollars or man hours doing so, if they don't even know whether they will get any advertising with google?
Google has built in unpredictability and uncertainty. Killers to getting customers. Why should they take the risk? Google has made investing in campaigns risky. Its a major mistake in my opinion. It has serious ripples and repercussions.

Those google experts that signed up as google experts who give advice, cannot do so without risk to themselves. They could be sued if they advise a client to build a campaign and spend the money on new web sites, only to fall flat on their face as google disables the words after a couple of days. Its a farce. Its the NEW COKE all over again.

What a blunder by google!

venrooy




msg:3011169
 6:35 am on Jul 17, 2006 (gmt 0)

and to take such HUGE offense at a business doing that, is, in my mind, arrogant, and reflects a lack of understanding of business in general.

Wow - have you even been reading the amounts being lost here? If you don't think losing 400k a year is worth taking a "HUGE" offense, then I'd like to know what it does take to make you offended.

I've also been doing business online for over a decade, so I know about being well diversified, and I am. However google is the biggest game in town right now, so it has (had) the largest chunk of my online investment.

The advertisers that were hurt by this change, are also the very means by which google made its' existence. At the very least we should have been consulted and/ or have a little say in any major changes made.

wildbest




msg:3011170
 6:40 am on Jul 17, 2006 (gmt 0)

Google has built in unpredictability and uncertainty.

Exactly.

The conclusion: If you plan to develop your web-based business, plan without Google!

There is no point in trying to please Google. Ad space is limited. The one that pays most, gets most. This is the only rule. Do not waste your time in optimizing your AdWords campaigns and in learning what Google wants. Unpredictability factor is increasing in a geometric progression. Too often recently, all your efforts are flashed down the toilet!

This 471 message thread spans 16 pages: < < 471 ( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 > >
Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Google / Google AdWords
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