I propose Google would allow us to bid any amount we choose each month. Based on the amount we bid, Google will use an algorithm to decide the positioning of our ads, and how often they appear. We could even bid on the amount we want to spend per day, and change that amount throughout the month.
We would not be charged when people clicked on our ads, or by the number of impressions, but we would receive the same reports about ad performance. The way to do better than other advertisers would be simply to spend more. This new system would make what we are buying be a little less tangible, but it would eliminate click fraud completely.
Google would use algorithms based on overall performance to determine costs, so cheaters could click away, but it would not punish the good paying advertisers.
I could be spending a lot more on PPC right now, but I have diverted my $$$ to places where the cost is fixed.
The reason I think my idea would work is advertisers would still be competing against each other, but they would be assured of zero click fraud.
I still fancy myself smarter than the Algo at determining what is good ROI and a good ad spend.
Actually, now you say "Here is my money", and fraudsters can click away. We all know this happening, and I have a presented a way to put an end to this once and for all.
As far as detecting click fraud, they either can or they can't. The business model change will not improve their ability to detect click fraud. But it would shift the expense of not detecting it to Google. In turn, that would impact honest AdSense publishers in the form of reduced payments. That in turn will drive publishers to alternate ad networks.
So, until Google is better at detecting click fraud, they have little incentive to do something like this. And when/if they do get better at detecting click fraud, then they have eliminated your primary motive for using the different model.
I'd prefer to stick to the current PPC model.
Not a bad Idea dvduval but what about publishers how do you determine what to pay content publishers for hosting your advertisements?
There would still be an amount of money that would be split among publishers just as we have now (with publishers competing the spend that money as we have now), and it would not need to change the current model for adsense all that much (if at all).
____
I don't think it would be anything like the affiliate model. Advertisers would still be paying based on performance, but an algorithm would be in place to determine the success level among all advertisers first, thereby eliminating click fraud.
In some industries, click fraud is extremely rampant, and it is the fraudsters that are doing the squeezing. If I had to choose between Google and fraudsters squeezing me, I would certainly choose Google!
... but an algorithm would be in place to determine the success level among all advertisers first, thereby eliminating click fraud.
It doesn't "eliminate" click fraud. The bulk of that is done by AdSense publishers (a very small number) to line their pockets.
So who pays for the click fraud with this new model? Right now, each individual AdWords publisher pays for undetected (or unacknowledged) click fraud. So individual AdWords customers are left to police this. That arrangement effectively gives Google thousands of people to manually monitor for click fraud. If some fraud is missed, it doesn't cost Google a dime. Why would they shift to a model that removes incentive for AdWords publishers to monitor for click fraud?
[edited by: john_k at 7:56 pm (utc) on April 14, 2005]
Not blaming you ; you guys need to do what you need to do .
I've said it before I think Googles plan is simply saturation of adsense plastered on as many millions of sites as possible and what that means is lack of quality control and even lower EPC for publishers ..so those of us playing by the rules on both sides get burnt (less EPC for publishers and more cost /fraud for advertisers as the "plastering" without quality control continues.)
If click fraud were completely eliminated from Google SERPS, it would certainly give them a benchmark to rate the "few" adsense fraudsters you are talking about.
For us to be place ads in the content network again, Google would have to:
(1) Allow us to block placement on some sites.
(2) Have some kind of manually or algo vetted "tiers" of site quality. We should be able to say "Don't display my ad on a site which does not produce XX conversions". That is fair because if our ads are bad, then our ads won't get displayed.
But in search network there is much much less incentive for fraud.
1) Allow us to block placement on some sites.
I am all for that for you advertsiors , It dosent have to be anything elaborate, something as basic as the "Competitive Ad Filter " we get on the adsense side. We can eliminate up to 200 URLS from advertising on our sites , I eliminated a ton of second rate garbage websites,cnat get them all but it certainly helps.
Something as basic as that on the advertisers side where you could check off a few hundred sites that you absolutely do not want to pay to be listed on . Sites you know dont convert well or that you suspect of fraudulent clicks .
But this blanket plastering of adsense wil be the downfall of G if they continue..short term it will pay off huge ..but long run it will be their downfall
Google assign indices:
1. Clicks/Impressions
2. Clicks/Conversions
3. I'm sure there are others that could be created.
You would be compared with all other sites for keywords, and you would be told if your indices were:
At Risk
Below Average
Average
Above Average
Excellent
So in effect, you would have incentive to score well. If your score was lower than average for the indices, then your clicks would be discounted. This is very similar to the system they have in place now on Adwords, and there is no reason they couldn't do it on Adsense.
Google could actually encourage ethical behaviour!
and discourage sites that are "made for adsense".
I prefer my idea of Pay per conversion.
I stand behaind my post on SEW:
[I don't like your idea for many reasons. First, there would be no benefit to being relevant and getting great CTRs. I get it, its like buying a semi-fixed placement. So you want to get as many clicks as possible to lower the CPC. So you would be bidding more on the keywords search volume than anything else. Conversion rate would be de-emphasized big time.
This would also benefit lazy people with small keyword lists. You would only want to put your brand on highly targeted keywords or ones that were super cheap. Only a branding campaign like a network would buy "television". You would no longer find the direct responce big screen tv advertisers because it would be cost prohibitive and extremely risky.
At worst this could totally end the ROI advantages of search advertising over banner ads. Clients could then argue that 'sure search is user initiated but it's not cheaper and banners are better for branding, image, etc. Also, your making it so easy to run that a monkey could do PPC. Only bidding once a month, nothing to optimize, etc. I could be out of a job! There is no competing, the deeper pocket wins every time.
When its all said and done avoiding click fraud might be the least of your worries. By the way, why are you so afraid of click fraud that you spend your money elsewhere? I have never had an entire campaign fail because of it. You may be a little paranoid, a control freak, or both.]
I think this is the biggie from the advertiser-point-of-view right now.
With adsense publisher/website base growing at 2,000 per week (read that somewhere), and with a quality control that could be vastly improved, I can foresee that the adwords campaigns with content network are going to revert to the 80/20 rule, where 20 % of publishers in the adsense network account for 80% of conversions for most advertisers.
With Google buying Urchin (the web analytics company) lately, I have a hunch they will be releasing
1) a new set of tools for adwords advertisers to better track conversions per referring content network publisher
AND
2) a set of tools for the advertisers to use that data to block the badly converting websites on the publisher base or better target those websites whose referrals convert at an excellent rate.
These improvements could mean a vastly improved ROI for many from the (targeted) content network.
In fact, one of the stated reasons why Google bought Urchin was to "make Urchin tools available to web site owners and marketers to better enable them to increase their advertising return on investment and make their web sites more effective. "
"Allow us to block placement on some sites."
So it is settled then and everyone is in agreement ..
Now someone go inform Google of the changes we have made for them ;)
