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.
Isn't that going to make for some really ugly URL's if you are not sending the link to the index page.
"WebMasterWorld.com" displayed but the landing page is "http://www.webmasterworld.com/forum81/4222-5-20.htm" looks better than "http://www.webmasterworld.com/forum81/4222-5-20.htm" displayed.
Thanks for the clarification. So I will still be able to display "MySite.com" and regardless of the destination link I use, as long as the link lands on any page on "MySite.com" I'll be within the new TOS.
I still didn't receive the email with the new terms, am I alone?
In the past I got use to watch google implement major changes awkwardly but I figured once they grew up (i.e. post IPO) they would handle this better.
If it is ONE ADVERTISER PER SEARCH TERM would these count as one search term or two different search terms:
'Brand Name' - broad match
'Brand Name Really Specific Product' - exact match
ie. if I was the only advertiser with 'Brand Name Really Specific Product' in my campaign would I appear for that search or could someone bidding on 'Brand Name' using broad match push me out?
In your example you and your competitor would both have ads triggered...him for the general, you for the specific term.
If you are both directly linking to an affiliate site, only one of you will be shown for that search by a customer....and then we return to who is bidding more plus CTR factors.
Dear AdWordsAdvisor, can you clarify my point further up thread please?
If it is ONE ADVERTISER PER SEARCH TERM would these count as one search term or two different search terms:'Brand Name' - broad match
'Brand Name Really Specific Product' - exact matchie. if I was the only advertiser with 'Brand Name Really Specific Product' in my campaign would I appear for that search or could someone bidding on 'Brand Name' using broad match push me out?
I think we misunderstand the term here. From the AdWords e-mail, it says "one ad per search query" not as "one ad per search term" as we keep mentioned.
There are some differences between "search term" and "search query"
You're correct on the search terms.
'Brand Name' - broad match
'Brand Name Really Specific Product' - exact match
and here are the search queries:
Query 1:
Brand Name (broad search)-> Brand Name ad shows
Query 2:
[Brand Name] (exact search) -> Brand Name shows
Query 3:
Brand Name Really Specific Product (phrase or exact search) ->'Brand Name Really Specific Product' ad shows
Query 4:
Brand Name Really Specific Product (broad search) ->both 'Brand Name' and 'Brand Name Really Specific Product' ads show. The ad position for each ad will be based on their AdRank at the time of search.
.....
I think that muppets:) has a point here that is bad for a browsers experience and hence for google.
Let me paint a scenario and maybe adwords advisor can explain what would happen.
Large plc, like hotels.com, want to bid broad on the word hotel, they have deep pockets and dont care, they will pay more than anyone. They just send the traffic into the front door of the site and let the punter work it out. They utilise {keywords} in the advert and hence the ad served is exactly the same as the search term, becuase of brand awareness many punters click on ad, but arrive at the front door page and then spend ages searching for correct hotel.
Clever affiliate does "johns 3 star hotel in havana for july 9th" and sends the visitor direct to the correct hotel page on hotels.com with the form filled in already, via aff tracking code. Punter experience here is really good.
Scenario 2 is obviously the better for a punter browsing.
So what do google want to happen? Scenario 1 makes them more cash, scenario 2 makes the punter experience better.
DougS
So what do google want to happen? Scenario 1 makes them more cash, scenario 2 makes the punter experience better.
If Scenario 2 makes the punter experience better, then the conversion rate would be better and consequently the affiliate should be be able to pay a higher CPC for "johns 3 star hotel in havana for july 9th" or the CTR for the affiliate would be higher if the affiliate is able to make a more relevant ad copy. Both of these would lead to the affiliate moving above the merchant.
The exception would be if the merchant pays an unreasonably high CPC and thus looses money on "johns 3 star hotel in havana for july 9th" In such cases there is nothing much one can do with such foolish merchants.
With all due respect I don't reckon you have played lots of adwords stuff. Large copanies generally only pay out about 30% of the revenue they make from an online booking, hence the "wise" companies have 3 times as much money to play with if bidding.
The second and more major point is that most large companies have limited tracking in place that is analysed. If the results are analysed then roi is only one factor in the pricing of bids, brand building value is also taken into account.
Hence a large company with money to spend and a vague understanding of ppc will always be able to outbid any affiliate. Affiliates need to get conversions immediately, plc's etc don't. But going back to a user experience google wants buyers to find what they want asap, not be shunted round.
DougS
That sounds like something for the affiliate to sort out with the merchant.
Just the same as manufacturers having to be careful not to undermine their distribution channels when they have a direct route to market also.
It isn't AdWords' problem to sort out bad affiliate/merchant commercial relationships, IMHO.
Rgds
DHD
Now I will have to revert to landing pages, but I will have to lower my Max. CPC because of the lower conversion rate. And eventually, Google will probably eliminate affiliate landing pages also. That will only leave me with my content sites. In the end, I think they did it for money though. Now, they will be serving up more higher priced ads.
If your an (Aff) bidding against another (Aff) then your in with half a chance at getting your Ads shown at a competative/profitable bid price. But if your unknowingly bidding against the merchant or site/product owner you may as well be flushing your money down the toilet as far as I can see.
In our accounts we all have the Ad optimisation feature which shows only one Ad at a time per search based on it's CTR with the higher CTR Ad being shown more often. Why couldn't Google have done something similar to solve this problem with the Highest bid ranking Ads getting shown more often than the Lower bid ranking Ads. (Problem solved). Everyone carries on as before but without the competing Ads.
Sure as an Aff you would recieve fewer impressions but without the competing Ads and accidental second clicks from searchers that don't bother to look at the display URL's everything would probably have worked out pretty much "Line Ball"
New people could still have entered the market without having to bid an arm and a leg, and would still be able to test and optimise their Ads in the usual maner before raising their bids. Result more competition = more money for Google. Now it's an all or nothing scenario many Affs will probably choose the nothing as oppossed to possibly loosing money promoting a new site/product they have no stats for. Result a smaller pool of advertisers (less competition) = less money for Google.
That's what Google have done.
As far as I'm aware in reality and for all practical purposes what will happen is that the Ad with the highest bid ranking will get shown 100% of the time under the new system. So unless you can out-rank the other person your Ad won't get shown at all.
[edited by: Chernelle at 2:26 am (utc) on Jan. 9, 2005]
I had very few impressions and almost no clicks! (for the ones i switched over).
Down from thousands % thousands of impressions per day for those particular affiliate ads.
Hopefully they get shown like they did before i switched them over. Those keywords returned great results for me.
The ones who just check their campaigns once a week...
And don't browse forums...
And don't read Google e-mails...
I wonder how many advertisers out there (affiliate wise) don't even know about the new change that is about to be implemented.
For any of you that got at least a heads up to this ahead of time (from WW), if you are not a supporter here, you should be.
When OV upped their minimum a very long while back, I heard about it here before hand and it save my company well more than the supporter's fee.
If you were paying attention to this when it first came out, you had enough time to plan for it and make some changes. Remember who told you first...
Thats is, would ads for www.example.com/page1.html compete with ads for www.example.com/page2.html or will they be treated as unique?
[edited by: eWhisper at 1:48 pm (utc) on Jan. 10, 2005]
[edit reason] Please use example.com for sample links. [/edit]
e.g. a highstreet supermarket that also sells loan products:
www.example.com/ - home shopping supermarket site
www.example.com/loans (via different aff programme)
If domain will be the all-important thing, then both those ads would be competing under the new policy, but that does seem unfair, as the two products are quite dissimilar.
If a user types in the merchant name, they will want to see an ad for both loans and insurance services - not just whichever one brings in the most revenue (-->the highest ppc fee).
[edited by: eWhisper at 1:49 pm (utc) on Jan. 10, 2005]
[edit reason] Please use example.com for sample links. [/edit]
The best way to tell if it has been switched over is to do a search for overture
ameriquest is also good to watch. Quite a bit more creativity in dispaly URL also.
The domain/url question is an important issue because some companies sell two different types of product through the same domain name, but with different affiliate programmes.
e.g. a highstreet supermarket that also sells loan products:
www.example.com/ - home shopping supermarket site
www.example.com/loans (via different aff programme)If domain will be the all-important thing, then both those ads would be competing under the new policy, but that does seem unfair, as the two products are quite dissimilar.
If a user types in the merchant name, they will want to see an ad for both loans and insurance services - not just whichever one brings in the most revenue (-->the highest ppc fee).
If they are two very different products, then they
wouldn't show up under the same keyword search. It
is only one ad per domain per keyword search. Each product would be using different keywords. If
someone is going to search for the domain name, they
could just go to the domain and see what they have
to offer.
