[dmnews.com ]
I was intrigued by the AdWords manager's comment that only 5 percent of page views on the Internet are from search sites.
Yeah, that one kind of stopped me in my tracks the first time I heard it.
I do know that many on this Forum are way less than happy with the content network - having seen posts to that effect every week. And I completely respect that: if it hasn't worked in your account, well, it hasn't worked. Still, I think it is worth keeping an open mind, because over the years, capturing that other percentage will probably become increasingly important.
AWA
Irrelevant statistic. Completely irrelevant to adwords.
How many product views are from search or search + 1 (affiliate / reviews etc) site?
Raw page views consist of chat rooms, forums, porn, webmail, intranet, blogs, affiliates checking their adsense stats....
Search Total * 13 * 8,172
Content Total * 268 * 280,706
And that's just a snapshot total of a short period. By the way, divide those clicks by the conversion costs, and you'll find you're paying only $0.00 for each conversion!
Not a single sale, my cash pissed away on companies that show my result when adult-oriented domain names fail in Turkey. Affliate links in the query strings of the referrers to MY AdWords clicks. ROI indeed.
It works like this. Adwords content goes up. At first everyone is involved in it. Average ROI is at X amount.
It doesn't work for everyone. You give it a year. Over that year, people who are losing money on it stop using it. Either stop using Adwords entirely or pull out of the content network.
Those who are left are those who either are making money, or who don't know what they're doing enough to realise they're losing money. So, average ROI goes up.
That's not surprising. It's just basic math.
By the same token another adgroup focused on the same sector and also appearing via content, achieves minimal results.
In the past I've had adgroups doing around 5%ctr via content - outstripping the search networks considerably.
There is value in content for some, without a doubt. As it's all so vague as to the 'what's' and 'where's' though, it is impossible to determine the 'why's' of success through this particular avenue of adwords advertising...
Syzygy
I would be surprised if any fortune 1000s are using this tool.
However, I have heard many skeptics of the system admit they are getting a better ROI with AdSense. This doesn't mean it's profitable - just that they are getting a higher ROI than in the past.
Domain parking is still a worse ROI than AdSense, but it flies well under the radar as it's much more difficult to become a domain parking publisher, and thus, not as many people are familiar with the system.
One of the assumed reasons (to my knowledge, Google has never publicly commented on this), that the list of advertisers isn't made public was because Google didn't want websites to bypass Google as the ad broker and deal directly with the websites.
There are now several different companies who specialize in software packages that capture the referring website address for AdSense ads.
In addition, one can just search for: keyword + "ads by Google" and find a list of relevant sites anyway.
So, this argument really doesn't hold any weight these days - it's not too difficult to find out exactly where your content clicks are coming from - and to find publishers using AdSense.
For most clients, I don't really want to bypass Google and deal with 100s of small publishers, it is much easier to go through AdSense.
However, it's the control which is still an issue - and why so many companies opt out of AdSense (and some opt out of Google completely if they get too many Domain Parking hits).
The simple use of including negative keywords to include website URLs would go far in people starting to trust the AdSense system. A simple -example.com would bring many people back to the AdSense program, and my guess is, it would make more money for Google, more money for advertisers, and also give Google an idea of what sites are poor AdSense quality. If a website is opted out over and over again by advertisers - doesn't that alone say something about the publisher?
The whole content thing is kinda like ODP - it is what it is, use it or don't, and while ROI on the content for some advertisers has apparently gone up, still gotta make your own decision as to whether or not it is worth doing. With ODP you only have somethign to gain (a good link to your site), with content syndication you could make more $$$ but you could also lose. If the goal is sales and conversion events, the safest bet is probably to stick with search & search syndication partners.
There are lies, damn lies, and statistics and any group of numbers can be "proven" to show a desired outcome, just depends what conclusion you want to reach.
If you meant content search part of Adwords then, yes, I agree with you. It would help weed out the many rubbish made-for-Adsense type websites.
For most clients, I don't really want to bypass Google and deal with 100s of small publishers, it is much easier to go through AdSense.
It works the other way around, too: A publisher with a travel site might have an article on Elbonian kayak cruises that gets a lot of traffic, but not enough traffic to justify the hassle of selling and serving ads for that specialized topic.
However, it's the control which is still an issue - and why so many companies opt out of AdSense (and some opt out of Google completely if they get too many Domain Parking hits).
Yes, and Google (of all companies) should know that all "content" is not the same.
The simple use of including negative keywords to include website URLs would go far in people starting to trust the AdSense system. A simple -example.com would bring many people back to the AdSense program, and my guess is, it would make more money for Google, more money for advertisers, and also give Google an idea of what sites are poor AdSense quality. If a website is opted out over and over again by advertisers - doesn't that alone say something about the publisher?
That's a really interesting idea--kind of like the smiley- and frowney-face buttons in the Google toolbar. And if publishers ban block advertisers, why shouldn't advertisers be able to block publishers?
The simple use of including negative keywords to include website URLs would go far in people starting to trust the AdSense system. A simple -example.com would bring many people back to the AdSense program, and my guess is, it would make more money for Google, more money for advertisers, and also give Google an idea of what sites are poor AdSense quality. If a website is opted out over and over again by advertisers - doesn't that alone say something about the publisher?
Wearing my publishers hat, I love this concept. The good publishers are as frustrated at all the junk "made for AdSense" sites as the advertisers. Google must address the perception (right or wrong) that the context network is full of nothing but junk sites and not worth pursuing.
I'm an adwords advertiser; I've made my feelings known about 'content'. It can work for me. Is there not an adsense forum here, (of course there is...) or, can there not be created a new forum for those seeking both sides of the coin?
Syzygy
