i'm running several campaigns on AdWords right now, my CTR for search is 7.2% and CTR for content targeting is 3.0%. ok, so the CTR is lower - that's good! since the content CTR is not counted by Google in disabling an account/keyword, that means you're getting more BRANDING for your sites - your URL is showing up more around the world.
comparing my results before enabling content targeting and now, my conversion rate is the SAME. this leads me to believe that advertisers shouldn't worry about pushing their ad campaigns in this direction -> i'm sure you'll be spending your ad dollars wisely :D
[edited by: engine at 4:07 pm (utc) on Nov. 7, 2003]
[edit reason] formatting [/edit]
You're saying that your experience with Adwords content advertising is proof positive that it's a good program for everyone?
I'm glad it works for you but it doesn't for everyone.
Sorry, I really didn't mean to be harsh. I was just responding to this:
i'm sure you'll be spending your ad dollars wisely :D
welcome to webmasterworld.
glad to hear things working out for you.
I am keeping well away from content at present, at least untill the professional content spammers have been BANNED!
Shak
Note to Google :
Please make all of these features opt-IN and not opt-OUT. If we want it we'll ask for it.
If we did a straw poll on advertisers and asked how many actually knew what content matching was and where (typically) their results would show the yes's would be a small number. I know this because we talk to a lot of advertisers and ask how they get on with it and usually they ask what it is, so if they don't know what it is, how can you expect a reasonable decision to be made.
If someone walked up to you and told you to put a tablet in your mouth, your first question would be what it is, followed by what it does. To be told it won't harm you and costs to same as other tablets won't make it any easier to swallow.
Some advertisers will get good results from content matching and good luck to those that do. We won't get results from there, does that make it good or bad?
all i was saying was that:
(1) if given the time, content-targetting with adwords brings almose same conversion rate as search-targetting
(2) even a lower CTR is good because you get free publicity
(3) my results with adwords vs other CPC engines (overture, findwhat, kanoodle) have always been much better
just my personal experiences :) not making a rule for everyone!
This is for a couple reasons:
A good banner buy will be targeted. If content ads from Google are not drawing clicks or conversions they are probably not very targeted.
Irrelevant text ads may be more completely ignored than banners. The second a title or description is read that has nothing to do with what the person is doing or looking for on the site they probably stop reading before they even look at the URL or know wha site it is for.
Since a good banner is visual, appealing, and targeted its probably going to stick in the memory a little more than text ads will.
If that hit the monkey banner campaign - think it was treeloot or some site that ran it - was run as as text ads through on irrelevant sites through AdWords no one would have remembered or even noticed it.
Care to share your definition of content spam, Shak?
Furthermore, you think it's a sales success factor?
*bookmarks this thread*
BTW, it makes more business sense to make adsense opt-out. It would have been unfair not to give advertisers the choice, but the choice is there.
Loanuniverse <= an adsense publisher
So, unfortunately, this was never even an option.
SN
The sites include the largest book and widget commerce site on the net, the largest newspaper in Hong Kong and many more...
Having said that, the ads do show up on what shak calls 'content spammer' websites who are ranked a notch or two above us in the SERPS. At first glance I was upset, primarily because I did not want my money to go to these publishers (ROI is not an issue with us.. as we purchase the lowest $ clicks and fix the daily amounts at pretty low values... its less than my weekly bar tab).
I visted and revisited these websites with several emotions and finally just caved in and left my ads enabled... KNOWING that I'd have out-ranked these sites in the next updates for my major keywords.
I am keeping well away from content at present, at least untill the professional content spammers have been BANNED!
If I were a big adword advertiser instead of having my daily budget set at the price of two beers, my primary consideration for using or not using content ads would be my return on investment, not so much if my ad goes to the pocket of a purveyor of dubious quality content.
If I were a big adword advertiser instead of having my daily budget set at the price of two beers, my primary consideration for using or not using content ads would be my return on investment, not so much if my ad goes to the pocket of a purveyor of dubious quality content.
It may be a little more complicated for big mainstream advertisers who are used to controlling where their ads appear. For example, a Citibank or a Wells Fargo might not feel comfortable in having its ads appear on a site that deals in questionable financial advice or that simply looks like a homegrown quick-buck site.
Ditto for a manufacturer of prescription drugs, which are subject to government regulation. A maker of a painkilling drug might well have a reason to run PPC ads ("If you suffer from chronic back pain, ask for free information on Painodin"), but can it afford to risk having its ads run on a pharmacy affiliate site called lets-play-doctor.com?
The potential of "content ads" won't be fully realized until advertisers have control over where their PPC ads are running. If Google doesn't offer that level of control, a competitor obviously will.
Then, why an advertiser needs the middle man, Google, when s/he can directly negotiate with the publisher?
Advertisers can do that now. If Google were worried about advertisers "going direct," it wouldn't be signing up high-profile sites like the WASHINGTON POST and About.com where an advertiser is likely to see his company's ads while drinking his morning coffee.
But Google doesn't really have too much reason to worry about advertisers going direct, because the whole idea of "contextual advertising" is to target by highly focused subtopic instead of making broad "site buys." If I have two pages on train travel across the English Channel, Eurostar won't find it worthwhile to contact me and negotiate an individual ad purchase. Eurostar is much better off buying "eurostar" or "cross-channel trains" from Google and having its ads appear on relevant pages at a dozen or a hundred different sites. However, its ad manager or its agency's media buyer may prefer to choose which dozen or hundred sites are included on its approved "buy" list instead of taking potluck.
This news item [internetnews.com...] says that advertisers like Overture's interface a lot more than AdWords - so do I - but Overture has had a good 3 years (or so) lead over Google. Also, Overture has always called itself an advertising medium, Google still insists it is a search engine.
Google should allow publishers to select a 'default' category of search terms - that will ensure that sites always get well-paying ads - webmasters will obviously select relevant keywords otherwise they won't get any clicks.
Advertisers should have the ability to target in on specific websites (Google should have a good database of websites sorted by traffic by now - so advertisers can be shown top 50 sites their ads have run on, with relevant CPC and conversions, and then select or ban sites). This way, Google just rakes in the money while advertisers and publishers optimize their respective earnings.
GoogleGuy & co, Overture is coming out to haunt you! Save your b_tt and make Googlites happy by using your (ad)sense and not playing around with (ad)words!
