1) I've clearly identified my best performing ads and ensured that they're appearing above all other affs and the merchant.
2) I've written a PHP script to (dynamically) generate an Amazon landing page using AWS.
3) I've created a whole new website focussing on sales of my niche products (bots still to visit) :(
4) Joined additional aff schemes to sell the same products.
Just rememebr there's thousands of merchants out there and millions of products. If you can't get your ads to appear then you're not trying hard enough.
Good luck!
Pete
Even if you are providing some unique content or reviews, etc., in the end, if you are just passing someone along to eBay, Amazon or a merchant who is already doing AdWords and in the SERPS, I'm afraid Google wants you gone!
This has been covered in some other topics but if AWA does reply to this thread then perhaps he/she could also clarify the situation concerning framing.
Pete,
Where exactly did you see these issues covered? I've read every post today and AWA has only made 2 comments about the policy.
One post gave the wrong answer until s/he was corrected by another poster, the other answer contained the vague "I have not heard anything to lead me to believe it will now be different than it ever was" that we've become accustomed to.
However knowledgable some posters here might be, I cannot count their guesses as to how this is being implemented to qualify as answers to the very well thought out questions that posters raised here.
The most major change in Google's TOS in recent years should be handled quite a bit more professionally. An email 4 days before the alleged implementation won't do and even that Jan 12 date is still in the "rumor" category.
Such major changes deserve a well presented set of rules and regulations, spanning several pages, not a couple of paragraphs in a cheery email.
For a moment, let's not work off the assumption that virtually every advertiser on AdWords dutifully reads this purely opinion forum and had the benefit of hearing two months of back and forth rumors so as to prepare. In reality, it works out to less than one week of official notice from Google that a major policy change was taking place.
Why the rush? Unless their own programming staff was similarly rushed to get this into place to increase 1st quarter revenues as much as possible. And when you rush the programming staff, you know what happens. All sorts of mishaps are bound to occur. Maybe no adwords at all will show? We have a computerized system doing perhaps 100 fold the work it had to do before, parsing domains and calculating a brand new system of bidding worldwide. Past experience with virtually any software rollout of this magnitude dictates that it will be fraught with peril if not disaster.
If it was indeed in the works for so long, what possible justification could there be for not giving the high paying customers (not "welfare recipients" as we were called during the initial speculations) virtually no notice that this is happening.
Unfortunately, we've become accustomed to such typical shoddy service in the anonymous world of e-commerce> No one expects to be treated fairly or like they were a genuine customer spending thousands of dollars a week for a service that's rarely run flawlessly even without changes taking place.
Was an official explanation given for the tremendous screwups of a few days ago where long URLs became mangled and their destinations unreachable? Did Google do the research to give umprompted credits or were credits only given to those who complained loudly enough? Was that a "live test" at catching affiliate codes as part of the enforcement of this new implementation?
G_d help if some customer oriented services start up and show us just how shoddily the typical majorly automated e-business behaves as a corporate citizen toward those who generate its revenue. We've come to expect a very low level of service from any business which can continually hide behind email addresses that cannot accept incoming mail to voice messaging systems that rarely yield replies.
Waiting Anxiously for MSN PPC
patient2all
Where exactly did you see these issues covered?
This meant that the questions had been asked elsewhere, not that a reply has been given.
As far as I can recall the main outstanding issues are:-
1) How will CTR be calculated if an ad is never shown?
2) How will actual CPC be calculated?
3) Do google mean duplicate domains or URL's?
4) What exactly does framing mean? Does it include PHP includes? Are multiple domains pointing to the same web space allowed? Are sub-domains counted as unique URL's?
5) If you have two ads in an ad group (one to merchant the other to a landing page) and one is disallowed (being a duplicate). Does the second ad still get a chance?
6) When will all this happen?
Should the changes be implemented before all this is resolved?
Apologies if I've missed any. It's 10pm over here and i'm beat.
Pete
However knowledgable some posters here might be, I cannot count their guesses as to how this is being implemented to qualify as answers to the very well thought out questions that posters raised here.
Why bother to post here? Just ask Google directly.
Why bother to post here? Just ask Google directly.
Because, the most common response from my Google rep to any question as remotely interesting or important as those posted here resembles:
"I don't know. But, let me know if you find out."
So, to get started one essential question was raised by patient2all, way back in msg #10:
Interested in thoughts on this approach:
In each ad group have 2 ads, one going direct to merchant, one going to yourdomain.com landing page.On a given search:
Would Google pick up the direct to merchant ad for more obscure keywords that neither the merchant or any other affiliates for that merchant bid on (or bid too low)?
Conversely, if I were the loser on my direct to merchant URL, is there still a chance Google would show the mydomain.com landing page for that search anyway?
Guess what I'm saying is would both ads in the adgroup be evaluated for a single given search?
The very brief answer to this queston is 'No'
To give this answer a little more detail: after the policy has changed, when there are multiple ads in an Ad Group then the system will pick one of them in exactly the same way it always has. In other words:
* If the ads are set to show evenly, then it will pick the next one in line to show.
* If the ads are set to 'automatically optimize' then it will favor the ad with the higher CTR, although of course it will not always show that one.
Then, in either case, if the ad chosen is the one with the merchant URL, then it will be sent to the 'preliminary' auction to see it will be the one ad shown for that Display URL, based on rank number.
* If the answer is yes, then it moves on to the 'normal' auction, and will be positioned relative to all the other ads that are going to show.
* If the answer is no, then the ad does not show - and the system will not look for another, non-affiliate, ad to show.
AWA
Will the historically shaky "Ads Diagnostic Tool" be capable of reporting the new reasons one's ad has no chance of showing?
Yes - shortly after the new policy is implemented, the "Ads Diagnostic Tool" will display a message that there are multiple ads with the same Display URL competing for the impression.
How will the advertiser know if their well planned campaigns have the chance of a snowball in Hades of actually getting an impression?
Well, this will really amount to a matter of monitoring after the policy change has been implemented.
Is there any chance of current high bids being public knowledge a la Overture?
This is not on the horizon, so far as I am aware.
Will outbid, never shown keywords still retain their active status indefinitely so they have a fighting chance if the winner fails to maintain a sufficient CTR despite their high bid or blows through their budget?
Given that an ad that doesn't get an impression also can't get a click (and thus has a CTR that won't change), then the current status should remain the same.
As an aside, the point about budget is a really good one - since many of your competitors are most likely not budgeted to show 24/7.
AWA, do we have a definite date for this policy's start yet?
No definitive date as yet. As I've mentioned elsewhere, I'll certainly pass on the date as soon as I've heard it myself.
AWA
<edit> fix typo, and improve clarity </edit>
[edited by: AdWordsAdvisor at 2:56 am (utc) on Jan. 11, 2005]
The very brief answer to this queston is 'No'To give this answer a little more detail: after the policy has changed, when there are multiple ads in an Ad Group then the system will pick one of them in exactly the same way it always has. In other words:
* If the ads are set to show evenly, then it will pick the next one in line to show.
* If the ads are set to 'automatically optimize' then it will favor the ad with the higher CTR, although of course it will not always show that one.
Then, in either case, if the ad chosen is the one with the merchant URL, then it will be sent to the 'preliminary' auction to see it will be the one ad shown for that Display URL, based on rank number.
* If the answer is yes, then it moves on to the 'normal' auction, and will be positioned relative to all the other ads that are going to show.
* If the answer is no, then the ad does not show - and the system will not look for another, non-affiliate, ad to show.
AWA
That answer was clear as could be for what Google is going to do(even though I would have preferred a different logic). I could pay the subscription on this forum just for your answers!
The problem with this logic is that if I have an affiliate ad and a non-affiliate ad for a keyword, there is a big probability that neither of my ads will show for that. I could of course open another Adwords account but then I run the risk of showing both my ads for one search.
The logic I would have preferred would have included all the affiliate ads for the initial auction and then decided the one affiliate ad with best Ad Rank. Then include all the other ads including non affiliate ads from people who lost out on the affiliate ad. For Google this would mean more money as there are more Ads competiting for the keyword. For me, I have a chance of showing a non-affiliate ad in case my affiliate ad does not win, thus making sure that atleast one of my ad shows everytime.
The one downside to this logic would be that if the non affiliate ad has a lower CTR it might still be shown more often. But I would prefer that to not showing the Ad at all.
And I'd be willing to take an early guess that this week's report may even be a special edition, mostly focusing on the affiliate policy change, and comments heard in response.
You've made an interesting point, and I'll be happy to forward your comments, along with those of others who've posted on the subject in other threads.
So, your thoughts are invited, and I'll make sure that the right people hear them.
AWA
...if AWA does reply to this thread then perhaps he/she could also clarify the situation concerning framing. We all understand how framing (i.e. iframe) works...
Taking the ever-popular example of example.com as an, ahhh, example, then all of the following would be the same domain (which is 'example'). So adding sub domains doesn't create a new domain.
* example.com
* www.example.com
* example.com/aff
* www.example.com/aff
* deal.example.com
* www.deal.example.com
* deal.example.com/aff
* www.deal.example.com/aff
And as regards 'includes', I guess I'd say that anything done to simply insert the merchants page on your own domain would run counter to the spirit of the policy. As always, there are many judgments of this nature that are literally made on a case by case basis during the review process, and this policy is not likely to be an exception.
AWA
Taking the ever-popular example of example.com as an, ahhh, example, then all of the following would be the same domain (which is 'example'). So adding sub domains doesn't create a new domain.
Will there be a place to ask for an exception to this rule?
Taking blogspot as my earlier example, it's a host with a lot of unique websites, they just happen to be subdomains.
Will there be a place to ask for an exception to this rule?
Good question, eWhisper, and the answer is yes.
I'm not certain as to the details, although I'll certainly post as I learn more.
AWA
But if you force those 5 eBay ads to create landing pages and unique URLs, then the user WILL have a bad experience as he clicks on ALL of those ads, thinking they are unique merchants, only to find they all lead to eBay! The user will NOT be happy with Google for that.
I say, let the market decide the success or failure of these duplicate ads. They must be providing some service to users and to eBay by providing additional, informational and enticing copy leading to buyers finding what they want and making a purchase. Otherwise, the affiliates wouldn't be making money and continuing to run the ads. What's the problem?
Thanks.
As an aside, the point about budget is a really good one - since many of your competitors are most likely not budgeted to show 24/7.
Yes - that is a point that Google would want to emphasize, isn't it?
:)
google is a matter of hours from launching this and what you suggest would take a huge re-write of the programming. In other words....it ain't gonna happen!
What would be the top problems of a landing page that lead to low CTR?
Slow loading landing page that searcher abandons b4 it loads?
Too much content?
Poor quality landing page design leading to a lack of confidence by the searcher?
Unclear or not easy to find links to the merchant site?
Also, I fear landing pages will be the next victims of Google anyway. If they think duplicate direct to merchant ads are a bad user experience, wait until the user now gets fooled into clicking on all 5 eBay ads that are now disguised by unique URLs. Then the user has to wade through the landing page only to get ushered to eBay 5 times. Now THIS will be an even worse user experience and if Google is aware of this, then their plan will be or already is to eliminate landing pages also.
That's why I do not think this elimination of the duplicate direct to merchant ads is a user friendly change. It will make their experience worse! And I fear what they have in mind next. Our only hope is that they will spare the best landing pages - pages with decent content. Or that they will realize that to eliminate landing pages and kill affiliates altogether would be killing the goose that laid the golden egg. Killing off the affiliates will REALLY hurt their revenues. I think they know that, but if they are thinking otherwise, they are thinking wrong, in my humble opinion.
But if you force those 5 eBay ads to create landing pages and unique URLs, then the user WILL have a bad experience as he clicks on ALL of those ads, thinking they are unique merchants, only to find they all lead to eBay! The user will NOT be happy with Google for that.
You're assuming that the eBay affiliates are going to create acceptable landing pages for all of their thousands of dictionary-generated ads. How likely is that to happen?
EFV , you are under-estimating the power of automation ,ebay API and dynamic keyword url's :)
Pull the query from the referrer using regular expressions or the {keyword}, landing page now says Find {keyword} on Ebay now! and simply links through.
How hard is that?
[webmasterworld.com...]
I dont think a simple "click here for KW" is gonna convince the editors ...Require much more work ,but its doable and automatable!.
Do you really think some 500k/month ebay ppc affiliate is just gonna give up :)
my point being, if *I* can think of technical ways of automating it you can bet your arse something better will be done :O)
