Is it a patent issue?
Is it an issue that Google is trying to get AdSense off the ground before it goes out on its own?
Or does Google think it's not a priority?
I really do believe that there is a lot of money being pulled off the table because people would rather simply shut it off rather than bid on the traffic.
I also think (and pay attention Google) that the people who do keep content targetting on bid LESS for regular search listings because they don't want to end up paying a lot for the poorer AdSense traffic.
Can we get a roundtable with Google going and discuss this?
It seems like it's a huge gaping hole in the whole Google AdWords program.
In other words, the default setting will be bidding for the AdSense traffic at the same bid rate for the regular SERP traffic.
This way, not everyone will do it and people will still be forced to bid against the people who have the same bid.
It would let me bid more for my regular traffic and less for the content traffic.
Maybe when the AdWords system was built AdSense wasn't even a pipe dream
Or maybe they understand that allowing separate bidding would cause the house of cards to come tumbling down.
Most advertisers don't know about content ads since they are "on" by default. For those of us that DO know about content ads, the chances are that we will opt-out of them until there is an option to set separate bids from the search results.
I too am at a loss as to why G don't offer this - it wouldn't make any difference to their base revenue (since most users don't change the default settings) & it would encourage those of us here to give content ads a test at the very least.
G new technology that measures the "quality" of a site and then links it into a formula that determines the value to the marketer is their attempt to address this. The thinking at G, it seems, it that you only care about the bottom line.
I applaud G efforts. But those who produce the ads are frustrated by G not doing what you ask. What you say in the ad that appears with search results should often be different from an ad that is with news or information. What you say can make a big difference in the response to the ad.
There are some people on this board who have set up different campaigns and skewed their preferences and bids on G so as to force most of their contextual ads into contextual placement. But, I haven't studied that since I work on the publishing side (I do oversee a few Adword campaigns but they're just favors for associates). It would make for a very useful discussion, but you'd have to get specific in your examples and the TOS of this board wouldn't allow that.
But, you're right: Google should offer it upfront.
Now that content ads are well-established, that strategy may not be necessary, but there's another good reason for not breaking the bidding structure down into "search ads" and "content ads": The term "content ads" is so broad that the ROI differences between types of "content ads" (niche sites, general news & entertainment sites, DomainPark, gmail, forums, etc.) would be greater than any ROI disparity between "search ads" and "content ads." If Google were to allow separate bidding, logic would suggest that the "content ads" category would have to be broken down into separate elements.
Google's new variable-pricing scheme is designed to address the issue of uneven click value by providing discounts on "content" pages which, in Google's estimation, aren't likely to produce as many conversions as AdWords do. The accuracy of the algorithm is open to question, and some advertisers may feel that a worthless click at a discount is still a worthless click. (See the recent thread by an AdWords advertiser who was getting a 0% conversion rate for clicks from a high-traffic "premium partner" weather site.)
Some advertisers might prefer a system that would let them pick and choose content media via inclusion or exclusion filters. Others (the ones Google appears to be targeting now) may prefer to let Google calculate click value instead of relying on their own data or instincts. Maybe Google will someday offer a choice, with advertisers being able to buy content ads selectively or rely on Google's variable pricing as they see fit. In the meantime, the new variable-pricing scheme is an attempt, however imperfect, to match click price with click value.
I'm thinking the answer to the original question of why no separate bidding market, and all these questions is the same.
Hmmmm, along the same lines - why does Google make content targetting opt-out instead of opt-in?
That's easy:
1) To encourage trial.
2) To maximize impressions, clicks, and revenues.
Its these types of sites, I just don't see the new system being able to calculate a 'quality' vs 'nonquality' click.
Different bidding systems, and the ability to add a particular as a negative site have been on the wishlists for G upgrades for a long time.
For now, using different campaigns for content vs search and a little bid manipulation is the only way to use content effectively.
In Campaign 1, turn on search matching and turn off content matching. Put your ads in, at a bid you think is good.
In Campaign 2, turn off search matching and turn on content matching. Put in the same ads and words from Campaign 1, and separate (probably lower) bids. I typcially bid about 25% as high on content ads as search ones.
Put in the same ads and words from Campaign 1, and separate (probably lower) bids.
You must put in lower bids. If you bid the same amount, then its possible for your ads meant for content targeting to appear on search sites. You want this campaign to lose the compeition battle between your ads.
Different bidding systems, and the ability to add a particular as a negative site have been on the wishlists for G upgrades for a long time.
eWhisper is quite correct, this has been on the wish list for some time. And while I am not in a postion to know the decision-making process behind the present model, I am certainly in a position to pass your feedback on. And this I will do, as always.
So, you may rest assured that your voices will continue to be heard, by a large group of Googlers who are thoroughly involved in the design and direction of AdWords. Decision makers, in other words.
I'll also say that I truly feel that the smart pricing feature is a substantial step in the direction that you all are pointing, and I hope you'll give it a couple of weeks before making up your minds if this is so or not.
I'll even jump on a soapbox for a moment, and make a wild prediction that as contextual advertising evolves, many of you will find it to be an increasingly valuable part of your advertising mix. Perhaps not today, but quite likely in the future.
As a tool it is in its infancy, and the technology behind it is improving daily. So it is worth keeping an open mind, IMO. After all, search reaches a small portion of the Internet (maybe 5%? Just guessing.) But what about the other 95%?
Now stepping off soapbox, and rushing to 11:30 meeting. ;)
AWA
I'll also say that I truly feel that the smart pricing feature is a substantial step in the direction that you all are pointing, and I hope you'll give it a couple of weeks before making up your minds if this is so or not.
I think one of the problems with smart pricing is we can't acually see the difference. We might see a lower CPC for content advertising, however, we might just think the prices have dropped some. And if there is increased compeition for the KW, then its possible that the average CPC will go up, even though many clicks we get from content sites will be lower due to smart pricing - I don't think there is a way to tell.
It's not like I can look at a website where my ads appear and then know I'm paying less for those compared to some other site that runs AdSense.
The fact the forumlas are locked up at G, and we are lacking for substantial data is where a lot of the problem stems from.
Give a man a fish and he eats only for today, teach him how to fish...
and make a wild prediction that as contextual advertising evolves, many of you will find it to be an increasingly valuable part of your advertising mix. Perhaps not today, but quite likely in the future.
This I totally agree with 100%. Its currently very valuable for some advertisers, and I think its value will only get better. Diversifing traffic sources (and although G is technically supplying the traffic, it is reaching a different audience through content vs search) should be one of the goals of any website.
By what you said can we assume that content targeting will converge to have the same cost per conversion that regular search has?
By what you said can we assume that content targeting will converge to have the same cost per conversion that regular search has?
Good question blaze, but also quite sweeping - and not exactly what I was hoping to get at.
Here are some bullet points by way of clarification, now that I am not rushing off to a meeting:
* Our data shows just what one might expect in the real (read: unpredictable) world: that some Ad Groups do better in content than search, while others do worse.
* For this reason, I wouldn't expect contextual advertising to "converge to have same cost per conversion as regular search". Rather, in some cases it'll probably be more, while in others it'll be less.
* The intent of smart pricing is to improve cost per conversion, automatically, without constant monitoring on the part of the advertiser. And when one has thousands of keywords - in hundreds (if not thousands) of Ad Groups - well, this automation might seem like a very good thing.
* The goal is to ensure more advertisers have Ad Groups that are profitable, regardless of the CPA.
Hope that makes sense.
AWA
Because content targeting has a higher CPA, I end up bidding less for regular search because that's used as my bid for the content targeting.
So instead of Google getting me to increase the bid rate for content targeting, they are really just getting me to decrease the bid rate for regular Google search.
My Content targetting CPA(cost per aquisition) is reverting back to very high CPA since April 1st.
The regular search has a CPA which is 50% of the content targetting CPA.
I am going to turn content targetting off very soon because of this.
Google, please take note - this is very frustrating. All this traffic which I have to completely ignore because I can't bid for it seperately.
I could lower my bid rate but, while that maintains my ROI it will decrease my over all profit.
Why don't more people complain about this instead of just turning content targetting off?
My theory is that AdSense people were complaining so Google decided to up the CPC, which once again has made content targetting useless.
Option 3 and 1 now in place as easiest to manage
Please provide functionallity to bid seperately on content!
I am sure part of the problem could be fraud by webmasters as on doing some tests to pages from a campaign with content on
campaign with content off
reveals some scary stats re visitor time on site
and i am sure there is some fraud by webmasters effecting this
steve
