andrewg - 2:49 am on Mar 3, 2003 (gmt 0)

Think, people.

Look around at the types of sites that Google is likely to add to its publisher network for content targeting. This will soon become clearer, but you can bet it will be tightly controlled.

Take a look at high quality known print magazines in their online versions. Look at what Primedia can do - show contextual Sprinks on dozens of its trade mags - and make a better profit than it might have with

Google's product is like this, but more powerful.

There are about 10,000 topical mags online right now (forget "web sites" - I mean existing offline publications with online versions that get a ton of traffic from targeted readerships) that are covered with low-yielding skyscraper crap. Replace a bunch of that with Google Contextual Advertising, and we actually have a more usable (for the user) and more profitable (for the publisher) online experience.

Does it suck for the advertiser? Easy enough to find out. And if it turns out to suck for some advertisers, they can OPT OUT! and only show ads on Google plus their search syndication partner's sites!

For now, I am willing to take Google's word that the conversion rates will be comparable if the right kinds of sites are included in the network. Certainly there are dangers, but the convenience of being able to reach all of those little sites without separately negotiating (or going through one of the dinosaur online ad rep firms) makes up for it, IMHO.

If conversion rates on clicks weren't about the same - if they were much worse - this would be very bad news indeed, because topical/niche/trade sites would be forced to admit that their ad space is worthless or that it only confers "branding" benefits. I am willing to accept that the right offer does convert about the same from clicks on a particularly targeted page.