I checked the recent threads and searched the archives, but it looks like this is a new development. Have we seen this before?
[ed]completed status list, cleaned grammar, and added bullets[/ed]
[edited by: mcguffin at 2:59 am (utc) on Dec. 12, 2003]
Is that some browser setting or is there an alternative display being trialled?
Why all the mystery about the Google CTR?
Only a monopoly can play such a brazen Prisoner's Dilemma against its customers. 'At Risk' Status has precious little to do with Google's CTR, or any CTR, period. All the hand-waving and references to super-complicated metrics we couldn't possibly understand just hides the truth, this comes right out of Game Theory. It is a a non-zero sum game with one purpose, to get CPC as high as it can possibly be by keeping bidders at each other's throats in perpetuity.
I compete in a very small space in which there are only five players and we all know each other. We were bidding on two terms between 0.05 and 0.11 CPC. So we devised a plan. I was at position 5 at 0.05. I bid up the terms to 0.10 and elevated to position 2. Immediately thereafter, all four others in the space were informed their terms were 'At Risk'. They bid up to 0.11 to 0.14. I went back down to position 5, only now I was paying 0.09. Meaning I was now exactly where I started, but my CPC increased by 40%! And the kicker is, without any change whatsoever in my CTR, my status went to 'At Risk', ensuring the game would continue.
Publishing the so-called 'Status' has nothing to do with 'helping' Google's customers, as Mr. AdWords claims, it is a psychological weapon that very successfully maximizes Google's profits. What Google's doing is criminal.
I compete in a very small space in which there are only five players and we all know each other... So we devised a plan. ...
carefull.....couldn't that be construed as price fixing? (which is a crime) And you do not have to play their 'game'. Also the bidding and $$ spent separates the "women from the girls" and focuses the advertiser's intent.
If you don't think EVERYTHING in the Adwords system is built around maximizing profits for Google you must be new to capitalism. They are not doing it just to be nice!
Criminal? pul-eaze.....
All this new Google scramble comes immediately after a VERY unsatisfying experience with Overture, and just when I was about to put most of my advertising on Google. Now I don't feel I can trust them either. Great. Now what?
PS. Thanks Adwordsadviser, for explaining the system to us. But I understood the system from the start. The problem is that I think the system, well..., stinks.
Google Adwords Users! Get your Google crystal ball here! Only 19.95 per magic answer!
sign me up for hell!
I heard that Google has done this and perhaps still does, but I think I got such an e-mail only once or twice a long time ago. And even though keywords have been disabled at least monthly since, I've not gotten any other notification e-mails from Google.
I've had server-side filtering turned off ever since starting with AdWords, and thoroughly check my client-side spam folder every two days.
I do know I've gotten at least a couple of Google "update" e-mails, for instance, about the tax ID issue. I also have successfully gotten e-mails from Google in answer to various AdWords and AdSense queries, as well as e-mails from Google recruiters regarding my Google job search. So I know that my server isn't rejecting Google e-mails 100% :).
Anyway, thanks in advance for letting me know whether I need to be concerned about missing Google notification e-mails.
As far as your contention that it causes bidding wars, I don't see that as valid. A low CTR is not really something that you throw money at to fix. You fix it by making new ad copy or using negatives to reduce the impressions to uninterested searchers.
carefull.....couldn't that be construed as price fixing? (which is a crime)
Nope. Price fixing is when you charge someone else improperly. Nothing wrong with you and your friends agreeing to pay more for something than it's worth if you want to.
But, josebrwn has some valid points. It is a psychological weapon with the wording. If the ads worked before you knew they were 'at risk' and you did nothing then that was that life went on and your ad showed. Now people who don't know the system will panic if they see 'at risk' and bid more.
JAG
[edited by: qfguy at 8:19 pm (utc) on Jan. 11, 2004]
Price fixing is when you charge someone else improperly.
Now people who don't know the system will panic if they see 'at risk' and bid more.
....caveat emptor
It is a psychological weapon with the wording.isn't all advertising?
I am no lawyer but: [usdoj.gov...]My point exactly. You have to fix the prices so you gain something. They all agreed to pay more, not get paid more.
caveat emptorOnly goes so far.
isn't all advertising?As long as it is not deceptive then yes.
JAG
"Confidentiality. During the term of this Agreement and for a period of two years following the termination or expiration of this Agreement, each party agrees not to disclose Confidential Information of the other party to any third party without prior written consent except as provided herein. "Confidential Information" includes (i) ads (including Targets and URLs), prior to publication, (ii) except as provided in subsection (i) above, any other Program informationor access to technology prior to public disclosure provided by Google to You and identified at the time of disclosure in writing as "Confidential." It does not include information that has become publicly known through no breach by a party, or has been (i) independently developed without access to the other party's Confidential Information; (ii) rightfully received from a third party; or (iii) required to be disclosed by law or by a governmental authority. Nothing in this Agreement shall prohibit or limit either party's use or disclosure of the U.S. Federal income tax treatment and U.S. Federal income tax structure of any transaction contemplated by this Agreement and all materials of any kind (including opinions or other tax analyses) that are provided to it relating to such tax treatment or tax structure, except where confidentiality is necessary to comply with applicable federal or state securities laws."
there is also some possibility sharing bid information may also constitute a breach of the GAW terms of service:
Maybe but I don't see it. If it does say it then a lot of bid management companies should not be in business :-)
Come on folks. It's auction. The very nature of an auction is to drive the price up. It's not illegal. That is what an auction is designed for.
JAG
Come on folks. It's auction. The very nature of an auction is to drive the price up. It's not illegal. That is what an auction is designed for.
Sure, I can see that. What leaves a bad taste is the idea that the poorest performing 1/5th of advertisers -from Google's financial perspective- are told they are at risk not only of being at the very bottom position, but of not being allowed to place more ads.
If you meet minimum CTR (and are therefore somwewhat relevant), it should be OK for an advertiser to simply remain at the bottom. Heck, if Google found they made more money by not showing the ad -the clicks on the other ads increased and more than made up for the lost revenue- I would have no problem with that.
This is maybe splitting hairs, but if G is only doing that to scare advertisers and make them spend more, I believe there is an ethical problem.
If you meet minimum CTR (and are therefore somwewhat relevant), it should be OK for an advertiser to simply remain at the bottom. Heck, if Google found they made more money by not showing the ad -the clicks on the other ads increased and more than made up for the lost revenue- I would have no problem with that.
I view the "At Risk" as a warning that the term needs attention to make sure that it continues to meet the minimum requirements. I just went through my campaigns and found that I had one keyword that was listed "At Risk". I can see why, it is a single broad match word that is often used interchangably with the term the ad it targeting. It also gets a very high number of impressions a day, so a couple of bad hours could thow it into the sub 0.5% per last 1000 range.
I really need to break this keywod out into an adgroup that specificly targets the term, since I'd say that 50% of the people that use it think that it is the "Proper" name for the widget, not the more common term that I have the current ad targeted to. I guess that will go on the top of tomorrows To Do list. Interestingly, the CTR is at 1.4%, but I remember reading that Google is is holding broad match terms to a higher standard now, so I'll see what happens after I break it out.
Sure, I can see that. What leaves a bad taste is the idea that the poorest performing 1/5th of advertisers -from Google's financial perspective- are told they are at risk not only of being at the very bottom position, but of not being allowed to place more ads.
You have to read my posts on the previous pages that led up to the one quoted ;-) I also think what Google is doing is borderline wrong.
JAG
Sure, I can see that. What leaves a bad taste is the idea that the poorest performing 1/5th of advertisers -from Google's financial perspective- are told they are at risk not only of being at the very bottom position, but of not being allowed to place more ads.
This is a good business idea if you ask me. Get rid of the chaff. Makes the whole program more credible to the consumer (viewer of the ad) I support it!
p.s. You think it is bad now? Just wait. As more and more larger sized companies discover the value of this type of advertising 'the squeeze' is going to get worse. If there is only room for 5 ads and they go to the highest bidders...........
not to mention profit pressure that will be placed by shareholders on Google when it goes public.
This is maybe splitting hairs, but if G is only doing that to scare advertisers and make them spend more, I believe there is an ethical problem.
"scaring" the customer is not "ethical"?
You have *clearly* never purchased life insurance! (or an infant's car seat)
Besides, one person's "give it to me straight doc." is another person's "scare tactic". Also remember, without the 'status' column you might have words with high CTR (Google searches only) which are just disabled. At least status gives you a little warning.
Courage folks, business is only for the brave of heart.
You have *clearly* never purchased life insurance! (or an infant's car seat)
Actually, I have purchased both.
Now the ethical insurance agent says I will die someday. Maybe tomorrow or maybe in x number of years so think about it. He did nothing wrong because I will die someday.
The unethical insurance agent says he has some magical crystal ball full of algos and it says I will die today so I better buy insurance now at x times the price I should. He did do something wrong. He should be held accountable.
That's what Google is doing. They are saying an ad is in danger of being shut down now when in reality it may, but most likely, will not.
The experiment that was done showed that the only thing that was used to differentiate an ad was price. That's wrong when the algo used uses ctr as well. That's right for an IPO though :-)
JAG
The experiment that was done showed that the only thing that was used to differentiate an ad was price. That's wrong when the algo used uses ctr as well.
Since CTR is for Google searches only and status is related to all performance, How did the 'experiment' show anything conclusive? For all we know the change in bid might trigger the algo for an immeadiate 'review' of Adsense CTR which triggered the status changes. Because all varriables are not decernable the 'experiment' was far from conclusive. Maybe "josebrwn" can clear this up for us....
p.s. when an insurance company ('ethical' or not) has an ad saying 'protect the ones you love' (ie protect those 'at risk') they are selling a product based on fear. I'd say 50% of all advertising is based on fear. Since there is much to be fearful of in life appeling to the customer's level of fear is not the slightest bit 'unethical' IMHO.
Since CTR is for Google searches only and status is related to all performance, How did the 'experiment' show anything conclusive?
Because the status changed when the bid amounts changed and then the status changed again when the bid amounts were reset.
Maybe "josebrwn" can clear this up for us....
Agreed.
p.s. when an insurance company ('ethical' or not) has an ad saying 'protect the ones you love' (ie protect those 'at risk') they are selling a product based on fear.
Right. Everyone will die someday. The question is when. That is what Google is leaving out. Everyone knows a campaign is always in danger from day one. The question is when.
JAG
Because the status changed when the bid amounts changed and then the status changed again when the bid amounts were reset.
Did he say that? *we* don't know his begining 'status' .
Did he say that? *we* don't know his begining 'status' .
We don't know it but we do know he said it changed to at risk.
I was at position 5 at 0.05. I bid up the terms to 0.10 and elevated to position 2. Immediately thereafter, all four others in the space were informed their terms were 'At Risk'. They bid up to 0.11 to 0.14. I went back down to position 5, only now I was paying 0.09. Meaning I was now exactly where I started, but my CPC increased by 40%! And the kicker is, without any change whatsoever in my CTR, my status went to 'At Risk', ensuring the game would continue.
JAG
JAG
