Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 18.104.22.168
Forum Moderators: werty
Although the large partners are the ones people tend to make big noise about, it's often the smaller, lesser known ones that can wreck a campaign totally.
The providers make such a big deal about relevancy of our ads to their syndicatd partners but if you take umbrage to the quality of a syndicated partner's site or traffic delivery methodologies then it's just tough.
I think this applies across the board, but I would have thought the balance of power should rest with the advertiser, after all they are the ones that keep the whole machine going. No advertisers = no service.
Why then do we get treated in such a poor fashion compared to a syndicated partner, when it comes to relevancy, ad quality. I'm all in favour of consistent advertising standards, but when you find hundreds of clicks on a campaign from a site you have never heard of, which looks like a back bedroom Front Page template site and no sales or actions from it, what choice do you have?
I'm not talking about picking and choosing. If that was the case then advertiser would chose only the headline syndicated partners. But in instances where you can see that partners are failing to deliver ROI should you not be able to switch off traffic from that partner?
(My one line reply has become a rant, just trying to get rid of it before the New Year!)
Google AdWords Distribution Partners:
Ah-Ha Distribution Partners:
Kanoodle Distribution Partners:
Sprinks Distribution Partners:
We are getting bits of traffic from some and lots from others. We get 4 times as much traffic in certain campaigns from Updated.com than we do from AJ and others. Admittedly a lot of them fall under the Infospace umbrella, but we still pick them up as deliverers of traffic through tracking.
Conversion rates are pretty good too which surprised me, oftne smaller distribution partners have poor conversion rates.
The headline partners are often there for the kudos rather than to deliver traffic of any great quantity.