Leosghost - 12:44 am on Jun 22, 2011 (gmt 0)
@Whitey..it's not that I don't think that G would prefer more adwords spend ( although they did kick out many and lost a lot of revenue "short term" ) and when one sees some of what they allow adsense to run on ( and in particular some of the "premium partner" sites, many of which fell, but some of the "horrors "should have been removed, and were not :( )..But this time around, money does not appear to have been their immediate imperative.
That said, although my niches and those that I watch and touch via searches are well spread out, I cannot by any stretch claim that I see every area, there may be some in which part of the knock on effect may well be that in order to regain lost exposure, some sites will buy ads and thus Google will have a net gain to their finances.
That would gel with what I have always considered to be , ( and have disputed here as to the ethics of it with their PR reps in the past ) the idea that ones quality score can prevent ones ad showing ..but if one bids more ..then a "hitherto not good enough to point an ad at" landing page..suddenly becomes "good enough"..if one pays more for the ad..
That really is saying that some advertisers can pay to be "quality"..priceminister still dominates adwords here with "buy your dead popes, for the biggest and best choice of deceased pontiffs " type ads.. :(