Not only the ads will show on google and the search result of their partner, but now the ads can be show on other websites also, such as HowStuffWorks, Weather Underground, and Blogger.
Yes, now we, sort of, know why Google buy Blogger.
What do you think? And have anybody see the ads in other websites? One topic in Google Adwords forum mentioned about the ads showing on Sourceforge.
Yes some content sites sell their content, but most offer it for free - like here.
The subscription / optional subscription based model is good for certain sites but for a lot it isn't appropriate.
I know it's hard to believe, but some of us just want to be able to provide free information and cover our costs without blemishing our sites with banner ads and the like. We don't have anything we can sell.
Assuming targetted content ads can be implemented effectively (ie they are consistently relevant), then it will be great for us.
After all this scheme was developed with bloggers in mind - people who want to make information available to others for free.
In the same respect, there are many people who set up sites for the same purpose. Their choice is to cover the costs themselves or turn to affiliate advertising of some sort.
For the business website, hosting ads really isnt going to be too appropriate - it will show up your competition.
But, it will be a good advertising avenue for people to explore - most likely leading to a market that is relatively untapped (at best the market has been exposed to random banner ads, as GG says).
Actually this is offering quality *paid* results,
I dont see how they are paid results.
No new sponsored listings will be added to the SERPs. Its just highly targetted advertising.
Scott
Only differnce is that using Amazon we get to choose the target ads type - with Googles venture they will be doing that.
=========================
Side point:
Googleguy, seeing your floating about just now, a few questions:
1. Can you give us more info on the criteria for sites to host the ads?
2. Will hosts be able to customise the ads, ala Amazon (colour, font, format)?
3. Will hosting just be publicly available to use, or will applicants be reviewed - basically is everyone gonna be doing this or just a select few?
Cheers
Scott
[edited by: Marketing_Guy at 6:22 pm (utc) on Feb. 27, 2003]
But I wanted to do my Honours dissertation on this subject in 99, but there was noone qualified at my Uni to mark both the technical and marketing side, so I ended up dropping out to go and work! :(
Ive also just redesigned an information site that would lend itself well to this scheme (nice big empty columns down the side just waiting for ads!).
Cheers
Scott :)
So can't the content provider contact the advertiser directly and say... "Listen, you are paying $200/month in clicks from Google PPC on my site, pay me $100/month instead, and I will keep your listing on the top above the other google adwards and in the same visual table format." ... and thus cutting out Google altogether?
I think that would be a valid concern if the 'topics' of the pages were somewhat static.
Look at the pages we now see AdWords on -- Slashdot (All of OSDN?), Blogger... etc...
For the most part these pages are fairly dynamic. The challenge to Google is to be VERY fresh with these pages so the keywords used to generate the ads are relivant. This way the advertisers will want to stay with AdWords because the impressions will 'almost always' be relivant.
Not bad Allergic. Predicted on Feb 17, 2003.
http://pagead.googlesyndication.com/search?output=cahtml&num=0&client=&ca_format=120x600&ca_random=&q=http://www.webmasterworld.com/
<added>
sorry for the duplicate post; I'd seen Johnraphone's comment but hadn't properly understood it
</added>
[1][[b]edited by[/b]: mfagan at 10:42 pm (utc) on Feb. 27, 2003][/1]
Regardless of what one argues this new service is a reactionary mode of marketing, as opposed to a proactive one. Search engine marketing works extrodinarily well because people are seeking you out and are in the "decision making mode". Contextual marketing necessitates that someone do something that they did not otherwise intend (a least in the overwhelming majority of the cases). The CTRs of the new contextual program will be poor and so too will the quality of the user relative to a SERP listing.
In my opinion this is another example of Google now paying more attention to making money (and lots of it) . Build a critical mass, promote market domination by not bowing to the ad world, and once we receive that critical mass figure out all kinds of ways to make money. This is not a positive development for Google. This a corporate decision to increase revenues.
Google has a tremdous amount of opportunity to make a ton of money but you can tell they are afraid of the contradictions between highly relevant search results and making money. Google is now talking out of both sides of there mouth. "we have the best search" but at the same time "click on those little ads on the side" that are one of the marketplaces poorest examples of a Quality Controlled CPC program. The mere fact that I can set up an adwords program in 45 seconds and be live on the SERPs within minutes dictates the lack of control they have over the relevancy of CPC ads on the SERPs. This recent step will only propagate such problem, leading to further abuse and now NON-CONTEXTUAL content ads around other Internet properties because of lack of Quality assurances. I wish Google would stop trying to play both cards, and tell us they are now more interested in making money and listen to us as to how to do this as opposed to coming up with such services. Problem 1: a 2-3% CTR for adwords is POOR. Get rid of the right nav ads, and give us 5 sponsorship ads on the top of the regular listings. Put some QA in place relative to the adwords programs, and continue to strike agreements with the Yahoos and the AOLs of the world- because the search technology is superior. I go back to the thread that Brett started having to do with the diminishing quality of Google from a search standpoint. I am one of the biggest advocates of google that you will find, but this reeks of corporate profits, not better solutions for marketers. I am sorry of the length of this post.
I think the problem here is that the context of the keywords/site are being lost here.
I'm going to look at some more of the sites an AdWords rep sent me in an email earlier today and see how it looks on some other sites. I'm trying to keep an open mind, but of the 2 sites I visit frequently (I'm a dev for an sf project) I haven't seen an appropriate ad yet.
[edited by: Chicago at 2:40 am (utc) on Feb. 28, 2003]
However - I think its brilliant that Overture announced it - and Google delivered it - almost to the day!
That means one is focussed on 'proactive product development & delivery' - and the other is delivering reactive press releases ...........
I know who I'd rather be working with......
Chris_D
I wish Google would stop trying to play both cards, and tell us they are now more interested in making money and listen to us as to how to do this as opposed to coming up with such services. Problem 1: a 2-3% CTR for adwords is POOR. Get rid of the right nav ads, and give us 5 sponsorship ads on the top of the regular listings. Put some QA in place relative to the adwords programs,
I'd have strongly disagree with 2-3% being a bad CTR for AdWords. When they are competing against the search results and the premium sposorships a 2-3% CTR is quite good. It's better than all but the most targeted banner campaigns regardless of site or page placement.
Relevancy? If the ads aren't relevant they come down. There is every incentive to make the ads relevant and f they aren't they can and will change quickly if the advertiser want to keep running a campaign. That just doesn't happen with banner ads, at least not after only 1000 impressions.
5 premium sponsorships on the top? Talk about sell out. If the full (or almost full) above the fold part of the page is going to have premium sponsorhsip, why bother with a search engine? Just go to MSN for that.
Overture, for example, says it's paying nearly 65 percent. AdWords may pay even more since AdWord's average cents per click would be lower than Overture's (so Google may compensate with a higher cut to the "publisher").
In their relationships with Yahoo and AOL, Google is in the weaker position, thus 65 percent (mas o menos) goes to Yahoo and AOL. With content-targeted AdWords, however, Google is in the more powerful position with many smaller publishers.
So, let's imagine Google keeps 65 percent and gives 35 percent to publishers.
With that kind of money going to publishers, the economic viability of online publishing could change dramatically.
Some publications would be developed just to maximize content-targeted AdWords revenue.
Some niche products could take-off by finally being able to reach their niche audiences.
All in all, it should be very good for many small and medium advertisers.
I see Google as bending over backwards to try to protect their SERPs. They are risking significant cash and effort in trying to create a new revenue stream. For the sake of the web, I hope they succeed, and I really wish them the best in this endeavour.
GG, I'm sure you guys have thought of this already, but I thought I would mention it anyway... I imagine that site owners serving your ads will be tempted to pump up the clicks for their own financial gain. But I'm sure you guys have probably developed a slick algorithm to identify any such behaviour.
Keep up the good work, Google. All the best!
I got an email back from Google regarding my enquiry for more information about being a publisher.
They asked me for more information (Sites / URLs, page views and advertising contact details).
From this I would assume that there is going to be a review process or minimum page views (per month? They didnt say) in order to be a publisher.
Personally I think this is got to be good in the long run - it will mean that *every* site out there wont be hosting Adwords (think -> Amazon content ads).
Scott
As many of mentioned you would not let your competitor on for any small amount per click!
Think so? And how to make sure it's that way? How large does you staff have to be to control quality of the sites? It's going to be thousands, possibly hundreds of thousands.
I wouldnt participate in the scheme if I couldnt dictate what ads were shown.
The reason I dont have banner ads is because i think they detract from the site.
Ad words are slightly more subtle - if they are relevant too (and I can ensure this) then I will quite happily take them aboard.
>Think so? And how to make sure it's that way? How large does you staff have to be to control quality of the sites? It's going to be thousands, possibly hundreds of thousands.
Hehe good point! :)
OK, at the very least publishers may go through a brief hand check so we will see less custom built sites to host adwords, like people do with Amazon.
I also want to see some sort of customisation as well - if the adwords can blend in with the theme of your site, then so much the better.
I dont want a column of adwords that are 10 pixels wider than the column I want to put them in.
I dont want them in a different font from the rest of my site.
Surely it cant be to difficult to make them customisable? :)
Scott
