Forum Moderators: skibum
1. It has allowed niche sites to demonstrate their value to core sets of advertisers
2. ...and the corollary: it has allowed certain core sets of advertisers to become dependent on the incoming ppc traffic generated by these niche content sites.
Scenario: if yahoo lures away a very successful niche content provider, and the core set of advertisers that used adsense in that case DO NOT USE yahoo overture (I know this is true in many instances), then those advertisers will, overnight, be wondering to themselves
"hey, why did my ppc traffic drop so much so fast".
A content provider who decided to jump to hoosense would only have to email these advertisers and tell them that the site(s) that provided so much of their ppc traffic were now using yahoo's contextual program. Those advertisers might decide to make the switch to Yahoo.
A content provider who decided to jump to hoosense would only have to email these advertisers and tell them that the site(s) that provided so much of their ppc traffic were now using yahoo's contextual program. Those advertisers might decide to make the switch to Yahoo.
Possible. But why would they switch to Yahoo when they can skip the middle man entirely and advertise directly on the site? If I will contact the advertiser directly (and that's a big IF), I will just offer them to advertise directly to my site and skip G or Y entirely since my site has proven to be important to them anyway. That way, I get 100% of the entire bounty, with no sharing with whatever company. I may have to charge lower, but still 100% is 100% (without me getting headaches wondering how much is G or Y's cut of the pie).
But why would they switch to Yahoo when they can skip the middle man entirely and advertise directly on the site?
Because, unless the site can deliver enough targeted impressions for what they're selling, the advertisers are better off dealing with a network like Google or Yahoo that can aggregate impressions from many different sites.
It may be that the publisher likes the comfort level provided by a middleman such as G or Y and would like to avoid the hassles of directly billing the core set of advertisers, etc.
In this scenario, the advertisers have only one content rich site in the adsense network that delivers dead-on relevant content. This same site dominates the niche in all regards. Moreover, nearly every other adsense site serving these advertiser's ads is either a scraper or a minimally-relevant site.
But why would they switch to Yahoo when they can skip the middle man entirely and advertise directly on the site?
Will the average advertiser be prepared to pay the amount required to the publisher if the publisher were to remove the Adsense banner?
There's a big advertising difference between spending $500-1000 per month on Adwords across many sites and $500-1000 per month on one niche site and I for one would not remove an Adsense banner without a direct recompense for loss of Adsense earnings.
OK, so the Advertiser could take a small ad and the publisher not remove Adsense however how much extra credibility factor is there for visitors when veiwing an Adsense ad rather than just a stand alone banner?
I don't know that answer but I do know that a single ad has to be very strategically placed to get a good response.
Interestingly, even though we are the #1 widget niche directory for our trade, we have never had one Adword user contact us to place an ad direct!
Now that must be a significant point by itself.
why can't the publisher's ad look absolutely identical to the adsense ad minus the "ads by google" part? adsonar looks very much the same, overture looks the same, etc, etc. So why can't the publisher's own ads look the same?
"There's a big advertising difference between spending $500-1000 per month on Adwords across many sites and $500-1000 per month on one niche site"
What if the publisher is undeniably at the top of the heap for a particular niche? Not only that, the publiser could point out to the advertiser that their ads appear on hundreds of cruddy scraper sites.
Additionally, the publisher could charge the advertiser less (the publisher would point this out) AND the publisher could STILL make more than what they get from adsense (because of stupid*ss smart pricing)
All you have to do is place the adsense code on the page and forget it once they get the format and location tweaked for their site.
For sites that generate larger Adsense checks, say over $5,000.00 per month, maybe they could go the direct route, if they have the marketing and management skills, and the time needed to do that job right.
Otherwise I doubt the difference between a current Adsense check and the possibly greater direct revenue would be worth it for many smaller publishers.
Example: Let's say you've got a site about baking that gets 1 million page views a month. A mail-order company like Williams-Sonoma might be interested in advertising on all your pages, but there are two problems with that:
1) Ad ad for the the Williams-Sonoma catalog or Web site won't be as compelling on a page about croissant baking as an ad for pastrymaking equipment or croissant cutters, so the clickthrough rate and conversions for the advertiser will be lower.
2) After users have seen the same rotating handful of Williams-Sonoma ads on pages about frying, boiling, cooking ingredients, cooks, celebrity chefs, and all the other topics that you cover, Williams-Sonoma ad blindness may set in.
Plus, if you're relying on Williams-Sonoma to buy ads on all your pages, you're at greater risk than you would be if you were relying on AdSense, Yahoo, AdSonar, or another contextual ad network to serve ads from many different advertisers. Williams-Sonoma may discover that the ROI from its ads on yoursite.com isn't what it was hoping for, or it may get a new ad manager who'd rather spend the budget somewhere else. All of a sudden your one basket has disappeared, taking your all eggs with it.
For me, the greatest benefit of a contextual ad network isn't in earning money from my site (I was doing that before Google's AdSense came along), but in earning money from pages that wouldn't generate revenue directly without contextual ads. As the publisher of an editorial site, I'm happy to know that an article on Elbonian kayak cruises or the Widgetville Jazz Festival can now generate a steady stream of revenue even if it wasn't written for that specific purpose.
why can't the publisher's ad look absolutely identical to the adsense ad minus the "ads by google" part?
None whatsoever and we already do that however I feel that ken_b sums it up nicely:
They don't have to have the time or skills needed to deal with a variety of direct placement advertizers.
Adsense allows many the great and very economical opportunity to be publishers without the expense of an advertising department. No doubt hoosense will do something similar.
the publiser could point out to the advertiser that their ads appear on hundreds of cruddy scraper sites.
I wonder how many Advertisers actually are aware of this? Like many publishers I see regular advertisers on our sites and I personally know several of them, and I know for a fact that they would not use Adwords if they were not making money from them.
But I'm wandering from the original post:
Those advertisers might decide to make the switch to Yahoo.
True...what incentives would hoosense have to give to make advertisers and publishers swap? Surely it's a Catch 22 scenario whereby advertisers may swap for lower costs but surely that would mean lower earnings for the publisher who would not then display hoosense.
Would hoosense say to the advertiser, spend $500 a month and get another $500 worth for free meanwhile still giving the publisher his cut of the $1000?
It would have to be something dramatic and significant to break the mould immediately and encourage both to try it out otherwise there would be relatively no incentive to try it.
It's something we're all going to be faced with sooner rather than later by the looks of it, or am I barking up the wrong tree entirely?
what incentives would hoosense have to give to make advertisers and publishers swap?
Quality of the content network could be a strong selling point, depending on how Yahoo executes its contextual advertising program.
Quality of the content network could be a strong selling point, depending on how Yahoo executes its contextual advertising program.
EFV - if it were you doing this how would you go about it?
Google has become the de facto default SE for many people, they know no other, except for the many women who seem to use Ask Jeeves! No offence intended, I just happen to know a lot of women who do:-)
The task as I see it would be to move both advertisers and searchers (in the broadest of descriptions).
Even though they have roughly equal market search share, Google continues to dominate my results no matter that I am #1 in both for my most important terms.
I do not sell directly via the Net, my sites are totally informative and international trade sales brochure sites and I do not use Adwords, therefore I am in the realm of the unknown but I do use Adsense to offer visitors possible alternatives.
You have a good grasp of what is required, what do you think they could, or ought to, do?
EFV - if it were you doing this how would you go about it?
If I were Yahoo, I'd recognize that Google is already the Amazon.com of contextual ads, and I'd try to carve off the most valuable pieces of the market instead of trying to compete with Google for the mass of low-traffic, low-profit sites.
I'd set higher recruiting standards than AdSense has, and I'd give advertisers more control over where their ads appear (unlike Google's one-size-fits-all, take-it-or-leave-it, lowest-common-denominator "content network").
My objective would be to make Yahoo the content network of choice for advertisers who have had poor experiences with Google's content network or who haven't tried contextual ads because of worries about "brand tainting," low-quality leads, and click fraud.
I'd also realize that Google isn't likely to stand still, and that Yahoo contextual advertising products will almost certainly be upstaged by second-generation AdSense products from Google at some point.
I'd try to carve off the most valuable pieces of the market instead of trying to compete with Google for the mass of low-traffic, low-profit sites.
Yep, my thinking too, the problem is trying to get advertisers and publishers to realise/accept this and try and get the jump on Google.
be upstaged by second-generation AdSense products from Google at some point.
And therein lies Yahoo!'s problem of when and how to do it.
I have no doubt that Google has something else waiting in the wings for when/if they are upstaged. I know I certainly have updates ready for my sites should anyone start to get too close to me!
Of course Google's stall is already set out for everyone to see however this does not mean they do not have alternative/contingency plans ready to go at a few days notice of a rival launching itself.
I've always found it easier being the leader rather than the led, the one who everyone takes shots at, the one who tries new ideas that everyone says is not possible, the industry trend setter.
This is what Google has done and to take the mantle away from them will be extremely difficult to do, however I'm sure if Yahoo! offered you a well paid consultancy fee EFV you'd be more than happy:-))
Anyone else with any thoughts on what Yahoo! could do to succeed?
