| 10:41 am on Jul 13, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|So when Google suddenly deactivates and raises the price of keywords by 1,000% or more in a single day (.05 to $5/click or more), wouldn't the Drudge Report or Fox News or somebody want to pick that story up? |
Probably not since only a very small percentage of the population is affected. Just about everyone uses petrol (sorry gas :o) and goes to Walmart. The other thing to consider is that very few people know that Adwords exists so it is not big news.
| 2:00 pm on Jul 13, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Be careful what you wish for. A reporter might very well see the "It's just about over for porn affiliates" thread and cover the story from a different angle than you'd like.
| 2:08 pm on Jul 13, 2006 (gmt 0)|
It'll never make the news because:
1.) reporters have no clue what it means and who it affects
2.) the general population has no clue and wouldn't care
Ever try to tell someone what you do for a living? (If you're a full time webmaster...)
| 4:29 pm on Jul 13, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I think it could make the news, if someone, one of us, took the time to compile an indepth article/press release and sent it out through the proper channels. People do this for business promotion all the time.
Problem is, Im not sure I want this in the so called mainstream media just yet. I have hope things are gonna work out, just gotta be persistant.
Bad news coverage for Google could cause big drop in stock prices, which could hurt google and thats not what we want.
We all want to get things rolling again, not hurt google, but...
Maybe that is the only way to get the mess fixed. It's really to early to tell at this point.
| 4:49 pm on Jul 13, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|Bad news coverage for Google could cause big drop in stock prices, which could hurt google and thats not what we want. |
Why do you assume that coverage in the mainstream media would be negative?
You've got to look at the bigger picture, and the overarching theme here (whether you agree with it or not) is "tighter ad standards = greater long-term revenues."
| 4:58 pm on Jul 13, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|Why do you assume that coverage in the mainstream media would be negative? |
That's true, I guess it depends on who writes the article. This didn't hurt everyone, and if someone has a site that relies on adsense, they're probably pretty excited about it. Sure, until things settle down, their amount per click may be bouncing around, but they know in the long run this is a move to do what they've wanted for awhile which is to start eliminating MFA's.
| 5:05 pm on Jul 13, 2006 (gmt 0)|
It will never make the national news because for the most part the general public is really dumb on maketing and advertising.
Most all non-internet people I have spoken to regarding website advertising was surprised to hear the ads were not free, assuming all the ads they see on sites were freebies to give free information to the public.
| 5:09 pm on Jul 13, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Im not sure why, but I assume the stories would say things like "google increases bids on their PPC ads as much as 5000% forcing thousands of small business to stop running their ads, early estimates suggest at least $70 million in PPC revenue may be lost to competing companies"
I do not think the stories would say "Google cleans up PPC ads and provides better user experience, thanks google!", not when adsense only sites and lower quality sites are still running, and quality affiliate sites and direct merchants have been hit.
If it was a move to eliminate MFAs they are insane! They can do that with a few lines of code that wouldn't instantly destroy the campaigns of thousands of legit advertisers who believe they really are providing a great user experience.
| 6:07 pm on Jul 13, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|I assume the stories would say things like "google increases bids on their PPC ads as much as 5000% forcing thousands of small business to stop running their ads, early estimates suggest at least $70 million in PPC revenue may be lost to competing companies" |
That's how your press release might read. It isn't necessarily how a news story or column would read. A reporter might ask, for example:
1) Why were the changes made? (I'm sure that Google's AdWords managers and PR people can make a strong argument for the changes, whether or not some advertisers agree with Google's decision.)
2) What kinds of small businesses are being hurt by the changes? More to the point, how many of those businesses are MFA sites, pure affiliate sites, adult sites, and other types of Internet businesses that the mainstream press and advertising community might regard as marginal?
3) Are small businesses really being forced to "stop running ads"? If I were a reporter and saw that phrase, my hype detector would start ringing.
I'm not defending Google (I don't have a strong opinion on the changes), but I think it's only fair to point out that the story isn't as simple, as one-sided, or as easy to spin to your own advantage as you seem to believe.
| 6:13 pm on Jul 13, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Exactly why I suggested someone else, who is a good writer and has connections to other big advertisers (the $100K-$400K a month people) do it, not me lol. Also saying even if it was spun the way described, I might not be for doing that at this point anyway.
| 6:54 pm on Jul 13, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Aside to my earlier post:
A number of months ago, I was being interviewed by a reporter for a national newspaper in the U.S., and the guy brought up (completely on his own) the issue of junk AdSense ads. He obviously had a low opinion of "Ads by Google," based on his own observations as a Web user. That's the kind of perception that Google has to worry about. The quality of the nework (both search and "content") is likely to be a bigger issue with the media and mainstream advertisers than who's being hurt by new requirements for AdWords landing pages.
| 7:15 pm on Jul 13, 2006 (gmt 0)|
As best I can tell people hate 1)tv ads 2) radio ads 3)junk mail 4) telephone sales 5)door to door sales 6)banner ads 7)pop up ads 8)internet interstial ads 9) flash doorway ads 10) billboards on the highway 10)pretty much all other advertising.
Its virtually impossible for me to believe that Google is going to change the dynamic of advertising so much that people will come to enjoy "ads by google". I think that fact that some mainstream media reporter, who makes his living selling ads in a competing medium doesn't care for "ads by google" is not at surprising. As long as Goolgle makes sure the ads are not misleading, and that the websites they go to are not fraudelent then they will be fine.
Trying to police editorial quality of the landing pages seems like a long run fruitless exercise too me. I am not sure it will hurt them greatly (I doubt that if there are 14 advertisers for a keyword instead of 16, that CTR or bid prices are dramatically different). I do think that an organization that describes itself as do no evil (I read somewhere else that google does no evil, but does do gevil),that they should at least consider some sort of grandfathering of ads for people that have supported them for 2 or more years. Shutting down those customers with no warning and then telling them "you are low quality" may not be gevil, but it is kind of rude.
| 8:23 pm on Jul 13, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|What kinds of small businesses are being hurt by the changes? More to the point, how many of those businesses are MFA sites, pure affiliate sites, adult sites, and other types of Internet businesses that the mainstream press and advertising community might regard as marginal? |
I sell medical equipment. I make $150 on a particular product that sells for $700. I convert 1 out of 75 or so, because there's alot of competition in my area, and relatively low search volume.
At my original bid of .75/click, I would spend $56 per sell. Google now wants $15.00 per click? The highest bid prior to this was approx $4.50 per click!
I can't spend $1,125 to make a $150 profit on a $700 item.
There is absolutely no logic to this type of change.
During the Hurricane Katrina crises, the US Govt brought charges against gas stations that performed "price gouging" - raising the price $1 to $2 higher than the norm based on fear perception vs. supply/demand.
Therefore, I would put this Google situation into the price gouging category...
| 9:40 pm on Jul 13, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Jim, Around 2000 when the web went belly up for advertising especially adult, I spent about 3 years+ doing nothing but try to write good ad copy with banners, FPAs, text, ect ect ect. I tried everything. You are right. An ad is an ad, Folks hate them. You sell by giving folks what they want. Not by giving them a "perfect ad experience".
My goodness I want to scream when I hear that "quality landing page" BS. They no nothing about selling. I do. You do. We sell and then pass our profit back to them. That is the business model at work here.
Pretty ad pages will get you no further in sales. In the early days of adult, 1996-1998, everyone who was in the know, knew ugly pages sold. Pretty pages wasted your time and did not sell.
Surfers could care less about how much you stroke em. Believe me I have tried every way of stroking a surfer there is. Either you have what they want or you dont. Grant it your stuff must look professional and courtious ect but beyond that you can not persuade an American to buy something they don't want. Americans have seen, and are experts in avoiding every pitch there is. They grow up watching commercials on TV all day long. They are experts at sensing a pitch.
| 8:50 pm on Jul 21, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Returning for a moment to the original question posed by rehabguy, I've noticed a growing (albeit slowly) amount of attention to this issue by a number of sites, including: Platinax, TechSpot, WebProNews, Search Engine Roundtable, Search Engine Watch and eWeek.
In yesterday's "Daily Searchcast" (WebMasterRadio.FM) Danny Sullivan briefly mentions the AdWords chaos in the opening segment, suggesting that Google's Q3 numbers could be affected. Very brief, but notable.
This may only become a major news story if, indeed, it impacts Googles bottom line and/or the bottom lines of well-known merchants or affiliate networks.
While I wouldn't bet on Katie Couric delivering this story at her debut, I suspect this story will continue its growth.
| 9:43 pm on Jul 21, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Addendum: "Daily Searchcast" also covered adcat's post, "Is Google trying to get rid of affiliates?" (http://www.webmasterworld.com/google_adwords/3013448.htm) in some detail in 7/29 broadcast.
| 5:39 am on Jul 22, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Probably won't make news because what you described as happening did not actually happen. All keywords for all people did not go up by 1000%. Some keywords for some people went up for people judged to be providing an inferior level of quality.
Yawn. Not an interesting story at all.
| 5:51 am on Jul 22, 2006 (gmt 0)|
The next version of the algorithm could affect others that now are unaffected. This is something we ALL need to address before that happens and reverse what has been happening.
| 7:49 am on Jul 22, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Oh, I think It would, could be an interesting topic if it was put in a certain perspective. If you could have the article written by someone who has been feeding their family for the last several years by way of their profits from Google advertisements. Then, Google turns the tables on them and completely changes the way that they value said advertisements and therefore banishes the advertiser (breadwinner for a family of 6, 7 or 9.....) for no apparent reason than to change-up their results pages.
The results pages insinuated that the bread-winners websites were good enough to be in the results for certain keywords and then all of a sudden,......... those sites.... pages... were no longer relevant. at all....
Google makes these changes and they affect everyone. For some, the effects can be completely devastating. I think that they need to show some kind of responsibilty for the changes that they make. And, I believe that it is their responsibility to warn affiliates and people who have websites that could drop in rankings.
Google should be responsible for helping these people to somehow recover their lost earnings.
I vote for a Google insurance program.. You submit your sites and if they are originally accepted and ranked then you are eligible for the Google insurance program..... The insurance program keeps you ranked for a limited amount of time.
I'd also like to win the lottery.. and go on TV.. and rule the world... so don't take anything that I have to say to heart...
| 7:57 am on Jul 22, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Yawn. Not an interesting story at all.
Seems to fascinate you, for some reason.
| 12:22 pm on Jul 22, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I don't know if anyone else saw this, but google was talked about on MSNBC yesterday. They suggested that the level of secrecy at google would eventually bring them down. They said that not only would the level of secrecy at google eventually scare away big advertisers, but it would also reap many lawsuits.
I thought it was interesting that they would say that without even mentioning adwords and the secret algo changes always going on.
| 12:49 pm on Jul 22, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Google is the next LTCM.
| 2:00 pm on Jul 22, 2006 (gmt 0)|
They suggested that the level of secrecy at google would eventually bring them down.
I've seen the secrecy thing mentioned a few times in various articles over the past year. Google has been engaged in geek vs. geek warfare on the SERP side for so long that perhaps it has become difficult for them to distinguish who is friend and who is foe. A lot of mainstream businesses have a hard time understanding how you can pay a company a million bucks a year and still be their enemy.
Randomly (at least from our vista) sticking bullets in your customers is a dangerous game.
| 2:03 pm on Jul 22, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Their profits are up - that'll make the news
Annoying a few of their customers - well who doesn't
| 2:04 pm on Jul 22, 2006 (gmt 0)|
| 2:08 pm on Jul 22, 2006 (gmt 0)|
It's not about annoying a few customers, it's about giving ALL of your customers a reason to diversify.
| 2:11 pm on Jul 22, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Set up a website that professionally describes the issue then send polite emails to the high dollar Google partners, sponsors, advertisers stating that you are no longer using their products or services due to Google's recent moneygrab. If enough of Google's partners, sponsors, advertisers ask Google about it, Google will have to address the issue.
| 2:16 pm on Jul 22, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Are all their customers Adwords advertisers? I think not!
| 2:33 pm on Jul 22, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|It's not about annoying a few customers, it's about giving ALL of your customers a reason to diversify. |
Are all their customers unhappy? We'll know three months from now, when the next quarterly earnings report is released.
| This 39 message thread spans 2 pages: 39 (  2 ) > > |