| 6:16 am on Sep 30, 2009 (gmt 0)|
I've not used adwords for some time now, mainly due to the fact that I find it an unstable platform - and having to build sites to pleasr Google and Adwords as opposed to customers - but have been following this with interest.
As far as I can ascertain it appears to be quite a simple to decypher slap. If the main intent of your site is for the visitor to leave and go to another site - then you will be slapped. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding some of you - but is there anyone that got a slap that has a site that doesn't use either affiliate links or adsense? I don't think having one or two products for sale directly from your site, if surrounded by a plethora of affiliate adverts will cut the mustard these days. They want advertisers to be offering something different to every other site out there. Just my thoughts on it.
All that being said - I really do think that adwords should provide further information on account bans - and a lifetime ban is simply ridiculous. All that this results in is underhand activities - ie re-registering under false addresses etc that people have already said that they do, in order to get around the ban. Surely that is bad business practice for adwords. It would be far better to stop offending sites/adverts - and state why.
I also think that those of you who are spending significant amounts of money deserve better treatment than this. I appreciate that adwords, in this recent cull, will certainly have hundreds of very upset people to deal with. But perhaps getting back to those that are on invoiced payment, for example, would give them a better reputation than this very uncommunicative approach.
| 9:05 am on Sep 30, 2009 (gmt 0)|
The problem is, if they actually said what is going on they would leave themselves open to legal action.
So their lawyers tell them to keep quiet, hide behind the proprietary information spin and let the people they want to get rid of just fade away.
The quality score is their weapon, they don't have to do anything but dump your scores in the basement and your done, no accountability.
Oh the banning thing, that's just sticking the knife in and twisting it.
Big Brother is here and Google is it.
AWA is a very interventional and proactive person, his abstinence from this thread is all the proof you need that what I am saying is true.
Without adwords I had a choice, sell my best site or sell my house. Their timing with this is disgusting. Three more months and I would have recovered.
Do no evil. Isn't it funny when people say something and 180 on you and do the opposite.
I don't think the PR department will be able to live this one down.
| 1:53 pm on Sep 30, 2009 (gmt 0)|
So far, vetofunk is the only one who has chimed in to state that his ban was not related to being an affiliate.
Is it safe to assume that everyone else here who got the ban had at least ONE affiliate link on their landing page/site?
Veto, contact your rep, once your account is re-reviewed, you'll get "back in".
| 1:57 pm on Sep 30, 2009 (gmt 0)|
I am working with my rep on my issue and hope to come to some kind of solution today. I will keep everyone updated on the outcome.
| 2:28 pm on Sep 30, 2009 (gmt 0)|
I am not an affiliate, I do not run an affiliate site and I have contact information on my websites. I can honestly say that banning people from adwords went a little too far. I have spent a generous amount of money on adwords but this Google. It just tells me that I need to look at even more advertising venues for me and the many people who count on me for advice.
| 2:34 pm on Sep 30, 2009 (gmt 0)|
Well yes, I'm an affiliate but why should that be viewed so badly? do you know why so many individuals or companies (inc. some of the largest companies out there) have affiliate programs? it's because we are acting as their online, commission based salesmen who can use our expertise to generate sales and revenue in areas that they couldn't possibly think of. Are salesmen in any other part of the free commercial world considered so badly?
ok, you might not like the heavy sales pitch on your doorstep from the uninvited sales guy but unless your sending spam mail, nothing we do online compares to that. We use legitimate online advertising methods and nobody is 'forced' to respond and click the link are they?
If google wants affilites off their search engine, then fine, that's up to them, but clearly, as I've stated before, the big comparison sites, which are just 'super affiliates' remain, so their argument is on tricky ground there I think.
| 2:51 pm on Sep 30, 2009 (gmt 0)|
dougedoug - please don't take it as a personal attack - I'm just saying it as I see it. Some of you may remember a similar thing happening a couple of years back - where overnight our clicks jumped from 3p to £5. Back then I was spending close to $500K a year - wiped me out - totally. That is why I no longer use adwords. Fortunately, I've got fingers in other pies that no longer rely on a business that can basically wipe out a business overnight - without even the courtesy to say why.
However, dougdouge, several years back you did have an affiliate site - if you still have that site, is it in any way linked to your current sites? Did they share adwords accounts? Perhaps on same hosting company? No idea if these things are or could be related - just throwing in some suggestions.
| 3:05 pm on Sep 30, 2009 (gmt 0)|
I like affiliates, they are a necessary part of business. If you are a company that is losing sales to affiliates then maybe you need to evolve. That is what capitalism and free marketplaces are all about. In search people are looking for what affiliates are offering. In the end the customer still gets the product or service if the company had advertised directly so I personally do not see the difference.
I have done affiliate marketing before. Its a good thing.
| 3:57 pm on Sep 30, 2009 (gmt 0)|
At some point in the future, G will regret how they do business. Their arrogance is bewildering. It might be 12 months from now, or more likely 3-4 years, but at some point, the penny will drop and they'll realise that if you treat people like dirt for long enough, those dirty chickens will come home to roost.
If Microsoft get their act together and put together an advertising program similar to how adwords was 4-5 years ago, I think G would lose 15% of their business overnight.
| 4:09 pm on Sep 30, 2009 (gmt 0)|
|If Microsoft get their act together and put together an advertising program similar to how adwords was 4-5 years ago, I think G would lose 15% of their business overnight. |
It's not just the advertising program, but the amount of traffic Bing gets matters as well. I've already shifted my default search engine from Google to Bing.
| 5:07 pm on Sep 30, 2009 (gmt 0)|
Yep, I'm not using google now on principle - not that it will make much difference to them right now! still, I do think Bing and others yet to be conceived, will eventually take market share from google (Bing is starting to make inroads). At some point in time they'll regret the way they have treated us I'm sure. All big businesses eventually go through a cycle of growing, growing.... and eventually the bubble bursts for whatever reason but of course they all think they are immortal at the time - much like the big financial institutions did that went overnight. (Does this sound like the ramblings of an advertiser scorned do you think?)
| 5:28 pm on Sep 30, 2009 (gmt 0)|
flanker, yes perhaps a little bit bitter. :) I haven't been touched by this change and to be honest, would love to see fewer affiliates on the whole system, but that doesn't enter into it: the big issue here for me is their arrogance and obsessive belief in data-over-people automation.
If I'm carrying a sack full of beans, I don't much care that there's a hole in the bottom and a trail of beans behind me. But I'll be hungry one day and I'll think back to that trail of beans I allowed to slip away.
| 5:40 pm on Sep 30, 2009 (gmt 0)|
|If I'm carrying a sack full of beans, I don't much care that there's a hole in the bottom and a trail of beans behind me. But I'll be hungry one day and I'll think back to that trail of beans I allowed to slip away. |
huh? can you explain it with a haiku instead?
| 5:46 pm on Sep 30, 2009 (gmt 0)|
You know Google must really have done something wrong when people are starting to root for Microsoft over them. In fact, these are very similar and likely even worse, than the old strong-armed, heartless tactics of Microsoft.
| 6:10 pm on Sep 30, 2009 (gmt 0)|
|huh? can you explain it with a haiku instead? |
Google Tom, tiger
Jerry spenders, clawed and poor
Microdog sees, comes smiling
| 7:33 pm on Sep 30, 2009 (gmt 0)|
| 10:49 pm on Sep 30, 2009 (gmt 0)|
Try a limerick, you'll get it:
There once was an engine for search,
Which left advertisers all in a lurch,
It sent automated letters,
Placed them all in their fetters,
And soon found itself knocked from its perch.
| 10:52 pm on Sep 30, 2009 (gmt 0)|
Interesting, just as this happens I get a coupon in the mail from Yahoo for $50. (somebody is on the ball)
I had closed my account about a year ago because they were too expensive.
So I said what the heck, I'll give it a try on my #2 site and magic!
Bid $.50 but is giving search clicks for $.10 and position #2.
Ok, there is my knife and I'll stick it in and twist it.
How does it feel Big G ?
Maybe Ill take a look at Microsoft too.
Ah, I smell blood in the streets!
| 11:18 pm on Sep 30, 2009 (gmt 0)|
Under the bridge, there is warmth
Fire is welcome, anytime
Cute haiku, respects
| 11:34 pm on Sep 30, 2009 (gmt 0)|
Folks are talking about going to Yahoo and Bing.
Isn't the bigger concern that all of these folks turn their hands to manipulating the serps? Thanks Google, the last thing I need is some of these crazy smart, knowledgeable, aggresive and experienced affiliate people deciding the easiest path to profit is clubbing my rankings to death like they're a baby Canadian seal.
| 2:16 am on Oct 1, 2009 (gmt 0)|
There was a google bot from Nantucket...
Yeah, yeah I coming right after your baby seal rankings, wheel.
Every site I have/had is page one organic.
That's I think of unusual projects with crazy names and then trademark them.
| 8:34 am on Oct 1, 2009 (gmt 0)|
As others have stated here this is pretty obviously an 'attack' by Google on affiliates - and rightly so in my opinion, but that's off topic - unfortunately the system won't be perfect and there will be unfortunates who get caught. Although I would expect they'll be able to get their accounts back - I'm particularly interested to hear what comes of vetofunk's discussions with his account rep.
>> >>Isn't the bigger concern that all of these folks turn their hands to manipulating the serps? Thanks Google, the last thing I need is some of these crazy smart, knowledgeable, aggresive and experienced affiliate people deciding the easiest path to profit is clubbing my rankings to death like they're a baby Canadian seal.
I wouldn't be surprised if weeding affiliates out of the SERPs is a long term goal. Probably can't implement it yet because the collateral damage would be huge - like this adwords impact times a million - their customer service would be overwhelmed. I would think they're going to learn lessons from this though and it'll be in the pipeline - imagine the day when you don't have to compete with affiliates for SERPS (who in my experience are responsible for most of the worst type of spam)
| 8:37 am on Oct 1, 2009 (gmt 0)|
I can't really see much negative impact for G on this - 99% of those caught in this will be affiliates and if they all turn to Bing / Yahoo then Bing / Yahoo sponsored links will be full of spam. They'll cream the profit for a bit first form all these new advertisers but then they'll have to address it to keep users interested
| 10:48 am on Oct 1, 2009 (gmt 0)|
after banned from adwords, now any one suggest me be any other cheaper content advertising network? and also have a large market share like google Adwords
| 10:54 am on Oct 1, 2009 (gmt 0)|
That last post has just reminded me of why I don't visit here very often.
| 11:32 am on Oct 1, 2009 (gmt 0)|
Take the good with the bad...That is how it is.. anyways a valid question..
| 1:02 pm on Oct 1, 2009 (gmt 0)|
Can't see AWA popping by to share a haiku with us. Someone should start a fresh thread - perhaps focusing on what we can actually do.
To find what triggered the warning, do as Google suggest (well, do as they should have had the decency to suggest in their email, although an email similar to what they send for disapproved ads would be my preference):
Select the Keywords tab.
Click the icon in the Status column next to any keyword.
It should tell you if the landing page quality is poor.
(Do this for every keyword in your account...)
Or - run a Keyword Report from the Reports section, sort it by Quality Score, and then do the above for any rated 4 or less.
| 1:16 pm on Oct 1, 2009 (gmt 0)|
|perhaps focusing on what we can actually do. |
You can't do anything, thats the point. There is no process to get your account back. X strikes, you're out.
| 1:53 pm on Oct 1, 2009 (gmt 0)|
I asked some questions to Adwords support on how to prevent it. I asked if it would help if I first ask for aproval for a specific domain before I create an new ad group. They told me that this method will not guaranty that a site will get a low quality score in the future because a site might get a new quality score each month.
In other words, when you ask for aproval you can still get a ban one month later. Even when the site did not change during that month and the (quality) guidelines also did not change you can still get your a ban or your first and last warning. So there is nothing you can do to prevent it.
In the email I also asked some other questions about this issue. I got a reply to those questions but now I have follow up questions. However, the reply I received ends with (translated):
This is all information I can give you regarding the final warning. Don't contact us any more about this warning. Further communication about this issue will be handled as not received.
I think Google is the first company in the world that can afford to 'communicate' like this with clients that pay them tens of thousands of dollars each month.
| 2:20 pm on Oct 1, 2009 (gmt 0)|
It makes you wonder if the founders, currently two of the richest men in the world, but all the PR pointing to them being rather cool and caring individuals, have any idea that this type of thing is occurring?
If it were me I'd be quite embarrassed.
| 3:16 pm on Oct 1, 2009 (gmt 0)|
Exactly as byron and dlocks have stated - there is nothing you can do do 'get around' this.
>>To find what triggered the warning
This isn't on a keyword level SuperF, this is on a domain / account level, and will have been triggered by the site being one of the following:
1) Data collection sites that offer free gifts, subscription services etc., in order to collect private information
2) Arbitrage sites that are designed for the sole purpose of showing ads
3) Malware sites that knowingly or unknowingly install software on a visitor's computer
4)eBook sites that show frequent ads
5)'Get rich quick' sites
6)Comparison shopping sites
8)Affiliates (especially those who have used multiple domains in the past)