There will be only one ad displayed per serach query per domain.
The ad with the highest Ad Rank will be displayed.
This means affiliates and merchants will compete against each other for positioning.
You no longer have to identify yourself as an affiliate.
Google will not change the ad text, you must do this manually.
If you use a unique URL for your landing page, you will not be affected by this change.
I did NOT get one for several accounts that would be affected, either because they have multiple accounts for the same domain or because the visible url doesn't match the landing page url.
And still no email.
Maybe there are a lot to go out - but I am so used to their servers and pipes being so incredibly fast (like searching at G), that I can't imagine they can't pump out these emails to AdWords account owners very, very quickly.
Also saw someone else's post about the page for AdWords News and Updates - at:
[adwords.google.com...]
- nothing there either.
Poor communicating.
My guess - they only sent to direct-to-merchant folks. Weird because the copy I saw said it was a "mandatory email service announcement"... seems like that would go to all.
That's the actual URL, not the landing page URL. Your display URL must match the landing page URL. Therefore, haveing ashdgag.com as the display URL and trying to sneak it by will not work.Google has said they're going to be paying more attention to the display URL.
The question is, how are they going to enforce subdomains?
myblog.blogspot.com is different than yourblog.blogspot.com.
However, people can set up a website so that blah.example.com is the same as blahblah.example.com
The enforcement and review process for subdomains will be interesting to watch.
Interesting, if the merchants decide to use affiliate ID's for the subdomain.
If you put up affiliate ads now without the Aff designation in them, will they get rejected or will they go through editorial?
so many ebay aff. ads though. how soon before we see googleauctions...hey, someone in NY registered googleauctions.com last year. boy are they asking for trouble.
Each ad is still reviewed manually and this is how they will verify the ultimate destination URL.
So, anyone using Performics or CJ (or other network links) should not have to worry about changing their display URLS to www.qksrv.net (etc.) or clickserve.cc-dt (etc.).
With one ad only, and the merchants therefore directly competing with even their topmost aff's, it changes the situation even more dramatically. Anyone who has been paying attention since pre-Florida knows that G is not just trying to clean up the SERP's. They are flat out trying to kill the aff's. Not that this is news. This step is just more blatantly confirmatory than I suspected.
But I keep wondering...in a true war between aff's/merchants and G, who really has the power? Perhaps it's time for an Adwords Advertisers & Marketers Association. ;-)
If you can't have two ads appear at the same time for the same domain you can't factor ctr to decide the winning ad. Can anyone see how CTR can be in the AdRank equation for ads competing on a domain and kw? Am I missing something?
They'll probably display a different ad periodically to guage its CTR.
-- Roger
How large a daily budget would any affiliate have to cover _all_ the dead cat keywords alone?
Isn't the new Google AFF policy simply a replication of the policy Overture has had in place for 1-2 years?
Interesting that Overture actually beat Google to the punch in one area...
Seeing how merchants obviously have a higher profit margin on traffic sent directly to their site through adwords than their affiliates with the same method, if they do get outbid then they have serious problems with their campaigns.
Basically all google is now saying is that if you don't own the domain and destination page you can't advertise there.
Winners: Merchants getting outbid by OTHER companies (competitors) affiliates.
Losers: Direct-to-Merchant affiliates who figured out the highest converting merchants and knew how to work the Adwords system to outrank lower converting merchants. Also affiliates who targeted thousands of terms to profit from industries where there are few merchants advertising.
In the short term Google will probably lose revenue but in the long term they'll likely come out huge winners.
But were they or did they appear as winners when they prevented links going directly to merchant?
How strict were they on the content of landing pages or was it down to the personal opinion of the editor?
Will other ppc search engines benefit like Findwhat or Overture with increased custom or will everyone just resume business as usual?
I also think this will decimate many affiliates. Short term some will hang on but long term I think this will get rid of this as a cottage industry that anyone can jump in to. Sad.
I also note that as a PPC bottom feeder in a competitive industry I will likely do better as a result of this - but suspect that many of the techniques I use were developed by affiliates.
Thank you Shak for the early warning on this!
So, to make a start...
This probably seems like an odd question. While the email was briefly posted, I noticed that it seemed to specify google.co.uk in its example. Is thier anychance that this is a change that is being tested first in one market? Is it possible that different Googles could have different editorial policies?
Jim2003 - not an odd question at all. An excellent question, actually. ;)
The policy is global, and simultaneous.
Got the email too. Might be wise to get this done fast before everyone starts changing ads at the same time. That might slow down the whole system.
This is a good thought, MarkHutch. On the other hand, you need not change it right away, and maybe could wait out the rush - if there turns out to be one. And FromRocky's msg 18 makes a good point as well.
Another quick thought. What ctrXcost? the one determined right at the moment of switch over?
This is really the same as it ever was. Rank number (Max CPC x CTR) changes with every impression or click, and it is always the rank number in the moment of the search that is considered.
'Ad Rank' is supposed to be calculated from max cpc and ctr. G can not know the ctr without displaying the add (if another ad exists for that domain)...
See just above, kapow.
A "Find and Edit Ad Copy" under Tools > Modify Your Campaigns would be usefull.
Agreed, HitProf, and I'll certainly pass that on.
No e-mail here either. Can somebody please sticky me a copy? It's very hard to follow all the different interpretations in this thread without reading the exact wording.
jimbeetle, and others who did not receive the email: Sorry about that, and please contact AdWords support - they'll bring you up to speed. ;)
So is G going to send out another notification when the change actually happens?
If you put up affiliate ads now without the Aff designation in them, will they get rejected or will they go through editorial?
Excellent questions skibum, and I'll see what I can find out. More later.
AWA
How do you get good AdRank when you can't build up CTR coz your ads don't show?
If you can't have two ads appear at the same time for the same domain you can't factor ctr to decide the winning ad. Can anyone see how CTR can be in the AdRank equation for ads competing on a domain and kw? Am I missing something?
What if they set new keywords to a CTR=0,5% or CTR=1% and calculate from that? Then it's possible to get in the game - you just have to set cpc to 5 to 10 times what the current guy with a ctr of 5% is paying...
So for those affiliates who hold the only vacant position and don't want to loose it - bid 2-3 times more than what was previously necessary (if roi justifies it), then it will be really expensive for new affiliates to get a shot (and if the ctr then turns out to be lower than Googles default, then they will loose it again). In many cases, the actual cpc won't even be much higher.
Speaking as someone who is not an affiliate, but does compete with them, I remain startled that Google would do this. Very generally speaking, I think this actually stifles competition.
On the contrary: It should increase competition by making it easier for users to compare prices from different merchants. (There's no "competition" from a user's or economist's point of view if a dozen ads all point to the same merchant and the same price.)
I also think this will decimate many affiliates. Short term some will hang on but long term I think this will get rid of this as a cottage industry that anyone can jump in to. Sad.
I suspect that Google would like to see affiliate marketing revert to what it was intended to be in the early days--as a form of advertising, not as an end in itself. It isn't in Google's interest to promote "PPC arbitrage," just as it isn't in Google's interest to let networks of boilerplate affiliate sites dominate its SERPs. That should be obvious to anyone who takes the time to read Google's corporate mission statement.
There should be room for affiliates in Google's future, at least for those who supply the type of content that Google thinks its users want to see.
So is G going to send out another notification when the change actually happens?
I've looked into this a bit, and I believe the intent is to announce the change, when it actually happens, on the 'News and Updates' page:
[adwords.google.com...]
I'd be more than happy to post with that information as well, when it occurs. At this point, though, the actual day is not fixed.
If you put up affiliate ads now without the Aff designation in them, will they get rejected or will they go through editorial?
Until the change is announced, probably best to use the Aff designation. And this leads me to clarify my previous post, in which MarkHutch said:
Got the email too. Might be wise to get this done fast before everyone starts changing ads at the same time. That might slow down the whole system.
And I responded:
This is a good thought, MarkHutch. On the other hand, you need not change it right away, and maybe could wait out the rush - if there turns out to be one. And FromRocky's msg 18 makes a good point as well.
When I said this, I didn't make it clear enough that I meant post-policy-change, rather than now.
Sorry not to have been more clear.
AWA
google is an affiliate. it's the biggest affiliate on the block
Really? Who should I have our affiliate manager contact to get them to sign up?
Someone else in the UK needs to do searches to confirm this but I think it may have been turned on here, tonight. My searches on big terms are only bringing up one ad per company.
Really? Who should I have our affiliate manager contact to get them to sign up?
You might want to contact Mr. AdWords. However, I hear he's only working on a pay per click basis.
Really? Who should I have our affiliate manager contact to get them to sign up?
Sign up for AdSense. Does anybody know that AdSense is the biggest affiliate program? However, Google never tells you about your commission's percentage, though.
This has been discussed at length (many times) in the AdSense forum, so suffice it to say that (1) Google has very good reasons for not spelling out the details of its compensation formula, and (2) Google provides detailed reports on the numbers that matter to a publisher: effective CPM and total revenues.
