It has become clear to me that, in essence, there are four categories of possible advertisers for AdWords.
1. On-topic keyword-RELEVANT providers
2. Off-topic keyword-RELATED websites
3. Affiliates
4. Off-topic websites
When arguing in self-defense for being allowed to still be in AdWords, some have sought to define their ads as being "relevant" when their ads do not actually fall into the first category.
It is, of course, very understandable, that anyone will want to defend their self-interest.
I think I have a way to clear up the confusion and a proposal that could solve the problem. Not only would it best serve the user with clarity, but it could also help people in any of the four aforementioned categories. (Yes, I really am trying to help everyone here.)
First, I need to clear up the issue of RELEVANCE.
It is important not to confuse RELEVANCE with RELATED.
For example, some have argued that when a user searches for a keyword, it is supposedly "relevant" to also display sites which have nothing about the keyword in their sites whatsoever, but which might share some commonality. That is not truly an example of RELEVANCE. It is an example of RELATED. If we were talking about such off-topic sites as appearing in top SERPs, it would be virtually unanimous by all webmasters here that such sites were NOT relevant for SERPs. We might agree that they could be RELATED, but no one would say they were RELEVANT for top SERPs.
For another example, others have also argued that when a user searches for a keyword, it is supposedly "relevant" to also display redirect URLs of affiliates to merchants (or even affiliate-only "sites"). That is not an example of RELEVANCE. It is an example of REDIRECTION -- whether by redirecting URLs or by redirect-link-filled sites. If we were talking about such URLs as appearing in top SERPs, it would be virtually unanimous by all webmasters here that such sites were NOT relevant for SERPs, instead even saying that such URLs are "spam," especially when numerous affiliate URLs would appear next to each other. (I am talking about how we would describe the natural SERPs if we saw affiliate URL after affiliate URL in the SERPs.) We might agree that they could be possibly on-topic, but no one would say they were RELEVANT for top SERPs.
After that, of course, it is wholly unanimous that none of us would say that completely off-topic sites are RELEVANT either.
Now, of course, I understand that we are not talking about SERPs, but Ads. But my point is in showing the true definition of RELEVANCE, and the issue of natural SERPs does inform us of what true RELEVANCE is supposed to mean.
WHY IS ALL THIS IMPORTANT?
It is because the issue of RELEVANCE does matter.
Just like financing sources and banks were eventually required by law to offer "truth in advertising," the day could very well come that laws are created by governments requiring any SE's claim of "RELEVANCE" in its advertising to be backed up by certain standards. For example, like "truth in labeling" laws on food packages, a SE could be required to declare whether it meets a legally-defined standard of real RELEVANCE, or not. Such a new law could then say that any result which does not offer real-domain full-blown dedication to the keyword is not to be called or even implied as being RELEVANT, and the SE must tell the user so. At that situation, then any SE which allowed ads in the other three categories would have to openly say that its ads are "NOT RELEVANT."
Myself, I would like to avoid all of that. But if the issue of RELEVANCE is not solved, then we may very likely see the day when what I would call "truth in RELEVANCE" laws could be forced upon the SEs. I'd like to see that not have to happen.
But the issue of real RELEVANCE is important enough in the growing matter of the internet that it is not far-fetched to see governments taking such kinds of actions.
It must also be said that, while something might be currently legal, that does not necessarily mean that is not shady (even if not intended). Ultimately, it is actually a matter of context. What might be shady in a wrong context would not necessarily be shady in a right context.
For example, most of us would agree that a SE putting paid advertising sites first in listings, but not telling the user that those first listings were "Sponsored Results," would be shady. That would then make paid advertising in a SE appear shady -- in that context.
But in the more accurate context of letting the user know such listings are "Sponsored Results," there is nothing shady whatsoever about such advertising.
Context determines the truthfulness.
Herein lies the problem when a SE allows the other three categories to be advertising in the same adspace with the on-topic keyword-RELEVANT provider sites.
In such a case, the context is not being clarified for the user. They are innocently being confused into thinking it all is supposedly "RELEVANT."
Accordingly, the three not-relevant categories end up diluting the market to the point of uselessness. Doing so makes it unnecessarily harder for the actual keyword-committed on-topic keyword-RELEVANT providers to be "findable" by the users.
This is not to say that a way could not be provided to allow the others to compete as well. (That is the purpose of my post there.)
The thing to remember is that a SE is supposed to be the BRIDGE by which searchers can find the providers. Other capitalistic means are fine for a SE to employ, but any credible SE needs to keep its foremost objective as being that of helping the searcher find those on-topic keyword-RELEVANT providers.
When the natural SERPs prevent the established on-topic keyword-RELEVANT providers from being "findable," an unnatural barrier to serving the user is already created. The BRIDGE has fallen down.
So, when those on-topic keyword-RELEVANT providers are willing to pay for AdWords instead, they should be able to do so and only compete against other on-topic keyword-RELEVANT providers. Making them also compete against anything else only adds yet another unnecessary barrier between the on-topic keyword-RELEVANT providers being "findable" for the users.
It is one thing to compete against one's on-topic competitors. But it is absurd to require "competition" with non-competitors who simply have deeper pockets.
Yet, an argument can indeed be made that the other three categories should have some form of advertising opportunities as well. And the SE could certainly offer a way to capitalize on that too.
So, I propose a solution, and open it for further discussion.
Turn the AdWords column into four segments sequentially. The first group of ads would be On-topic keyword-RELEVANT providers, called "RELEVANT." Under that, in the same column, the second group would be the "RELATED" sites. The third would be labeled "AFFILIATES". And the fourth would be "OTHER" -- for the completely off-topic and unrelated sites that still want to advertise.
In all AdWords advertiser accounts, in each keyword row of their own account, an advertiser would select one of the four categories in which their site qualifies. Then they bid according to sites appearing in that segment. And their ads appear in bidded-position in that segment.
Picture it. Each of the four segments could be backgrounded with a subtle but noticeably different color. They would be placed in the following order, and at the top of each segment would be the following titles by which the user is informed as to what kind of ad it is.
RELEVANT
RELATED
AFFILIATE
OTHER
This could be self-policed by the ongoing advertisers in the keyword reporting abuse when another advertiser is in the wrong category. For example, a site appearing in the RELEVANT segment that offers nothing at all about the keyword, although it does offer some related concepts, could be reported. Then the SE could take corrective action and move the wrongly-placed ad to the appropriate segment. In this case, the ad would be removed to the RELATED segment of advertisers. Etc. The only way a site could be in the top segment would be if it is a real-domain site, with genuine (not just affiliate-linking) on-topic content specifically about the keyword. If not, then they would have to compete with others in one of the other three segments further down the AdWords column.
By having these four segments this way, the truly RELEVANT sites would appear first. And they would only have to compete with other on-topic sites. Indeed, all competitors would only be competing with their own kind.
And the user, seeing the four categories labeled (and perhaps color-coordinated), gets the best benefit of all in thereby having a totally HONEST presentation of all the advertisers from which to make a truly informed choice.
Providing this good context for SE advertising, there would be nothing even appearing near shady or questionable for any advertiser whatsoever. As such, governments would therefore not have a reason to get involved in lawmaking about "truth in RELEVANCE" laws in these matters.
And the SE could make money from all four types of categories instead of banning any of them.
I see it as a true win for everyone all around.
Any thoughts?
Affiliates will pay for the price if the site is unrelated to the keywords. The ROI will be poor and the cost will be much higher. Money talks.
Agree......maybe just replace the word "affiliates" with the word "Any Advertiser".
Where is any there fair trading in segregation? One doesn't define if the other is more relevant or not.
Is it possible for a moderator to merge the three threads on this interesting topic?
Is there a way of measuring relevancy on how quickly a user hits the back button and searches another ad on the same phrase, combined with the copy relevancy on the impression formula in.
[webmasterworld.com...]
Or would conjoining the two be a too complicated task for them to muster, subsequently their only simple approach would be to segregate the bottom feeders by analysing the destination URL. Personally feel the impression forumla will go a long way to sorting good copy from bad in the eyes of the consumer..
Would there be any weight, albeit minimal the the Google toolbar "vote for this page"...or would the usuage of it be too small to apply any weight?
Signed
A New User aka Irrelevant Comments
[edited by: Qui_Gon_Jinn at 11:25 am (utc) on Dec. 23, 2004]
I know there are many who misperceive that I am somehow trying to destroy affiliates and others. Honestly, I am not. Neither do I see myself as being unreasonable or "off my rocker" in offering such a proposal. I ask,
Do AFFILIATES appear in OV?
Do off-topic RELATED sites appear in OV?
Do competely off-topic OTHER sites appear in OV?
How does offering an ALL-WIN proposal that allows all of those to advertise, too, then be anything but a reasonsable (and even diplomatic) idea to at least consider?
