If my page contains the keywords more frequently than competitors but my cpc is lower will i still get good positions or do i need to spend more money?
Embeded keywords on your landing page have nothing to do with ad ranking or CPC.
Is this an adsense question?
If you meant "my ad contains the keywords", then yes, you might get a good position even if the CPC is lower. If your ad contains the keyword, then Google shows the keywords in the ad in Bold. Users then tend to click on them more often and hence increasing the CTR decreasing the CPC required to maintain a position.
1) Max CPC (bid)
You bid, they bid, everybody bids .. but it only affects the highest position you might be placed in.
2) "Relevance" to the search
Keywords in the ads
3) CTR
You have a CTR of 0.6% for your ads showing for "widgets", your competitor has a CTR of 0.8% for their ads ... they go above you (basically)
4) Locality
Someone searches for "wisconsin widgets" and you are located in Idaho, so your Wisconsin competitor gets higher placement than you.
Those are generalities. Here're a couple of hypothetical scenarios:
Scenario 1:
YOU: Max CPC = $1.00, CTR = 0.6%, Locale = Idaho
THEM: Max CPC = $1.50, CTR = 0.4%, Locale = Maine
SEARCH: "widgets"
YOUR POSITION: #1 (CTR rules)
Scenario 2:
YOU: Max CPC = $5.00, CTR = 0.8%, Locale = Idaho
THEM: Max CPC = $1.50, CTR = 0.4%, Locale = Maine
SEARCH: "maine widgets"
YOUR POSITION: #2 (locale rules)
Scenario 3:
YOU: Max CPC = $1.00, CTR = 0.4%, Locale = Maine
THEM: Max CPC = $1.50, CTR = 0.4%, Locale = Maine
SEARCH: "maine widgets"
YOUR POSITION: #2 (Max CPC rules)
Scenario 4:
YOU: Max CPC = $1.50, CTR = 0.4%, Locale = Idaho
THEM: Max CPC = $1.50, CTR = 0.4%, Locale = Maine
SEARCH: "blue widgets"
YOUR AD: "Love the Widgets! Get 'em here."
THEIR AD: "Widgets Rock! We have red and blue ones."
YOUR POSITION: #2 (ad relevancy rules)
etc. [corrections welcomed!]
It sounds like you may be confusing the "keywords" in your META tags with AdWords keywords that you bid on. The keywords in your META tags or for that matter, the keywords that appear on your web pages will help you in the SERPs (the free results), but not in AdWords.
When it comes time to choosing your ad, AdWords is not looking at your web page, but the factors that (oh, I can't see the name anymore) the poster above cited.
patient2all
especially stupidscript Excellent post i must say. Im sure a few people will learn lots from that i know i did. Thanks again
...currently they do not take the landing page into account (although I hear they are planning to).
I hope this change, should it be implimented, will be discolosed to advertisers prior to the change.
..currently they do not take the landing page into account (although I hear they are planning to).
Where did you hear that StupidScript?
Hmmm... wonder what the thinking/motivation behind that would be and what particular quantitative aspects of the landing page would be factored in? Would this possibly be a move towards some kind of quality control in terms of landing page relevancy? Pure speculation based on a rumour, but interesting nonetheless.
Based on a per click model, maybe irrelevant landing pages should be bumped up since people back out of them right away and click on more ads, hoping to find what they're looking for... Google could easily quantify this based on time spent on a landing page or between clicks. All facetiousness aside, I'm puzzled why landing page would be directly relevant to pay-per-click and Google's bottom line, beyond what the current review process attempts to do.
OTOH I could see landing page being very relevant if they were to introduce pay-per-sale.
I hope this change, should it be implimented, will be discolosed to advertisers prior to the change.
nyet,
I think you're just setting yourself for another disappointment :) - You'll probably read about it here first.
patient2all
Just noticed a dot ca entertainment directory that puts 3k thumnails of the landing pages next to their (sponsored?) directory listings...
First a few observations:
- the thumbnails sure drew my eyeballs, as opposed to text descriptions accompanying them.
- I tended to scan all the thumbnails before considering the text part of the ads, partly because they were more interesting, and partly because it's easier than reading.
- I clicked a lot more than I would have for just text ads, partly out of curiosity I suppose.
Applying my observations to Adwords:
- CTRs on ads with thumbnails would probably skyrocket in general (from the current 2% to > 10%?)
- Adwords ads with thumbnails would take attention away from organic listings.
- Landing Page design would really become a factor - still can't objectify it though.
I suppose I've hijacked this thread enough with my tangent, but since StupidScript so effectively answered the original post and dropped the rumour...
I can't help wondering what you all thought about this possibility. It might slow down search results a bit, but looks like it could be a lucrative move for Google.
Has anyone out there experimented with such a directory of their own and the effect on CTR of thumbnails?
In the search for "better" placement for "more relevant" ads, the AdWords review process might hit the target URL and include its content in the "relevance" calculation. Hopefully, this will minimize the presence of "trick" sites in the AdWords lineup and improve the positions of sites who are really advertising something of value.
For a completely hypothetical example:
In a search for "widgets", an ad going to a landing page that consists of a directory of widget sites would be positioned lower than an ad going to a landing page that actually offered widgets for sale or info about widgets, regardless of CTR, locale, Max CPC or ad keyword relevance simply because the directory site is "less valuable" to someone looking to buy widgets than the site that sells them. Similar in practice to the way the "natural" results are positioned.
Anyway ... that's the thought. Less trickery, more true relevance.
Google may actually have their cake and eat it too, by keeping the content network open to affiliates, directories, etc. and leave it up to the content partners to filter out ads.
Directories will not go away though, especially good quality targetted verticals, and who knows - they may actually perform better on content sites anyway than alongside G's own search results.
Eventually I see there being more transparency - consider that G is moving towards removing the veil off the content sites so advertisers are left with the role of choosing, and publishers may also choose their advertisers.
This will allow the search engines to fill their own inventories with top-quality top-paying ads just like the big TV networks do now, while at the same time leveraging their market knowledge and influence to exert domination over the broader advertising space - very clever imho.
Firstly, do we have evidence of locale being included as a factor and secondly if they do is it really as important as (anything but) Stupid Scripts suggests.
Scenario 2:
YOU: Max CPC = $5.00, CTR = 0.8%, Locale = Idaho
THEM: Max CPC = $1.50, CTR = 0.4%, Locale = Maine
SEARCH: "maine widgets"
YOUR POSITION: #2 (locale rules)
So what you are saying is that locale can trump a massive rank score (CTR x Max CPC)?
YOU: $5.00 x 0.8%, Rank Score = 4
THEM: $1.50 x 0.4%, Rank Score = 0.6
The implications of this alone are far reaching if it is this important. Does anybody else have evidence of it?
The implications of a move towards the assesment of a site are also pretty immense. It really takes the concept of AdWords optimiser to quite an extreme. Where would it go next? Oh hell, lets just ditch the natural results altogether :)
Surely they are waiting for their own inventory to fill up, until they can afford to be more selective without it hurting their bottom line
IMHO poor relevancy of ads is likely to have a much greater impact on the bottom line than losing a few advertisers.
