Wow this will be interesting. Smart move by Google to see if they can get even more money out of advertisers by reverting back to CPC models whilst still having the option to bleed advertisers dry via CPM or I could be wrong...
Look forward to hearing advertisers experiences.
I am wary as google sent me a 50 free to get me back in adwords tried it out spent the 50 no sales so 300 clicks no sales.
Just can't make a business work with this kinda results. Good landing pages eveyone went to the specific search the user was doing.
needless to say the ad is paused till they send me another 50 free.
I'm not convinced by the utility of this function for advertisers. If I wanted to be on a specific site, I would simply buy cpm ads. The fact is, Google will not put your ad on a site just based on your bet, but also based on your ad performance. So at the end you will still bet on a cpm basis, but you will only get a fraction of the ad box.
On the other hand, for small publishers will be harder because Google in fact will create a form of Premium Network , and the rest will get the average cpc, on top of a possible smart pricing.
This will be great. I don't like paying CPM to advertise on a specific site - I'd rather pay CPC. I'll give site targeting another try when this comes out.
"If I wanted to be on a specific site, I would simply buy cpm ads"
That's crazy talk. I'd be on many sites if I could CPC.
A lot of times impressions can be of no value (flipping through pages, didn't see the ad, not interested in the ad etc.) A click is a much better qualifier and as we can target the sites if we see low conversions from any site we can drop it.
I think this is a very good method.
This will help out tons for video ads which I'd gladly pay $10 per click as click-throughs are VERY low.
You are still paying cpm. Do you think that Google will show your ad if you don't generate a certain ecpm? So you can pay 50$ cpm, and get 5 cliks (that is only 0.5% ctr) or you can bet 10$ cpc, and if you don't generate 5 clicks/1000 views, you won't be qualified to be present on that site. It's still CPM, don't be fooled by paying cpc, because you aren't. You are paying cpm.
I like it better as an advertiser and a publisher. But as a publisher, I'd like to be able to set a minimum CPC. Then Adsense might sound appealing again. Otherwise, adsense will be completely gone from my sites by next year...
And as an advertiser, I like it because certain sites might deserve a bigger CPC, whereas others are a cheat with CPM because the ad might be on the bottom of the page. Maybe not even viewable at all.
More options are better for advertisers. It may not fill your need, but you have to understand that adwords crosses hundreds of industries and needs. Also, the more options they have, the more opportunities arise to get creative and make money :)
This is just site targeting, right? It seems to me that site-targeted contextual ads would be a lot more useful all around. (On the other hand, if it's combined with Custom Channel Ad Placements, it may be of some utility to advertisers and publishers.)
Of course it will be eCPM but this is the same situation in search as well. You get punished for low CTR and rewarded for high CTR.
Google has a giant network. IMHO, A lot of their display network is currently underserved from an advertising revenue perspective. At least in Canada. So depending on how you bid, and in what categories, your Avg CPC bid may be higher than competing CPM bids in the system and you'll get flighted, despite a low CTR. Google and the publisher will want to have a chance to earn revenue rather than no chance at all.
From an advertising perspective a lot of people would rather be under flighted or have their campaign paused based on not hitting CTR than running a million impressions without a click, no matter what the CPM rate is. It's lower risk - in fact you may get a few thousand free impressions out of it. That's a pretty fail safe "test campaign" in my books.
The part I'm most curious about is what the threshold will be for refusing to run your creative any longer. And I suppose the old click fraud drum will start getting beaten again for the Site Targeting network.
CPA, CPC and CPM are the same thing, just a different way to measure it and different ways to defraud.
You can't CPM my site I opted out because of lowballing in my niche. I have a prime spot at the top of my pages for 728x90 that I have been saving. Now I will be able to set a price per click of at least 25 cents, and yes my site converts. I have a $50 download item that I give away free! People are elated and want to spend the money somewhere else so it is a nice atmosphere.
|I have a prime spot at the top of my pages for 728x90 that I have been saving. Now I will be able to set a price per click of at least 25 cents |
And you will do that on your site how?
I think the more choices that both publishers and advertisers have is a good thing. G is not taking any options away just adding more choice. Win win for all imho.
[edited by: Visit_Thailand at 5:36 am (utc) on Feb. 15, 2007]
as an advertiser, my cpc's roi crushes cpm's every time.
as a publisher, i think what's good for advertisers is also good for legitimate publishers.
good move G, hope the beta works well for all involved.
I'm very excited about this.
It gets around the whole 'where do my ads show' on the content network.
One could run general content targeting, look at what sites work, and then just move them to the site-targeting campaigns.
My question is:
If I built a site-targeting campaign for a site, I might not want it to show on the general content network campaigns. Therefore, if I add the site to my site exclusion list, would it stop my site-targeting campaign from working?
The Traveler: Have you read that Google is planning to allow publishers to set minimum cpc? I hope they do but haven't seen that suggestion anywhere.
It should be that way, Advertisers get all the controls and basically Publishers have to work in the dark with no protection except the filter that fills up quite fast.