Almost every time I click through to the top natural results I suddenly find myself thinking that I didn't even LOOK at the sponsored results, let alone click on them.
As an advertiser I actually feel slightly "let down" by Google - ok I know i'm only paying for clicks but I just feel they could be doing A LITTLE BIT MORE to bring attention to AdWords than they do now.
As a searcher I wouldn't mind at all; I know the default reaction of many of you will be "NOT ON MY NELLY KEEP THEM WELL SEPARATE", but since many business related searches are just spammed out at the top of the natural results I don't think it would be a bad thing at all.
Any further and they will topple over the edge. Search engine history is full of victims who have not understood that basic lesson.
The ads are there and they are visible for people to click if they want. Most people don't want to... trying to force them on people would be totally destructive. In fact in my opinion they are already far too prominant.
In short, Google should NOT destroy itself for the benefit of those who simply wish to buy themselves to the top.
The average user will be drawn to the natural listings because thats where their attention has always been diverted. Its almost a reflex action - the coloured boxes literally dont exist for some people. Occasionally their attention will stray and they will pick up on a word in the 3rd box down that appeals to them. But Im convinced that a good proportion of searchers tend to ignore the ads.
This is partly why you strive - with any adwords campaign -to reach the hallowed premium slots at the very top. Not because you like the pink/green strip but because you have a better chance of getting into that blinkered "frame" that mr average tends to focus on when searching. CTR drops off significantly in my experience when you are demoted to the right hand boxes.
Test your family on this or your pals - walk them through a search on Google and see how many even look at the ads.
Think of the impact this will have on ctr. You are judged on the impressions/clicks on a particular keyword but if part of your audience is ignoring you by virtue of the ad positioning then the statistics might be considered somewhat flawed.
You only pay for clicks which of course we are all perfectly happy with but Id rather pay for more clicks with improved opportunities through better ad positioning on the results page. Google has taken the decision to retain their purity (to some degree)but they are losing revenue in doing so and the advertiser, as stated, is losing opportunity.
Given the changing landscape with Yahoo ditching Google any time soon - will there be changes to the layout of adwords? I personally do hope so and definately wouldnt say no to the conventional top 3-5 listings showing adwords results.
Google Adwords is a superb product - but it could be even better!
As for buying yourself to the top - sorry but if you run commercial website and are at the top of Google then Im pretty certain youve paid big bucks somewhere along the line to someone to get up there. The commercial reailities are that PPC is here to stay and the Google purists are in for a rough ride over the next 12 months.
C
I dont think people should be allowed to buy there way i above normal results. It gives an unfair advantage to the big companies, who have more money. The smaller companies deserve exposure just as much as the big companies.
I think that Adwords should stay at the side. They are there for folks to look at if they want to, but the performance based results are more prominent so that the users are getting the best possible search results google can acheive. IMHO :)
I think that Adwords should stay at the side. They are there for folks to look at if they want to,
Yes, I think the ads on the right are perfect. People do click on them, but they're not annoying.
The premium ads at the top, on the other hand, annoy me. I'd rather see paid ads completely separate from the regular results.
It gives an unfair advantage to the big companies, who have more money.
I don't think that's true - I'm a one man band and can afford #1 AdWord slot.
The real trouble with Google's natural search is that it is factoring in a "non-paid for" element into a commercial environment, which doesn't make sense.
Google is creating a barrier to entry that is not financial - it is based on the time you have been around, with a bit of SEO thrown into the mix.
It is difficult for a new-entrant into a marketplace to achieve top search positions in a sufficiently short space of time for them to become a viable business, in the face of competition that does have good SERP. (but not impossible - i'd prefer more sleep ;)
It is however, possible for a new entrant to afford to pay for that positioning on a per-click basis; since the cost of advertising is a level playing field - MegaCorp and Mom & Pop Shops all pay the same.
I think it would be the worse thing to happen if google does this, not just because of the end users but MAINLY the advertisers. Alot of people search like me (I have done research) and to have PPC on the general search results they will get a lot more information gatherers and browsers than potential buyers clicking on the PPC links. Therefore you will be paying MORE and getting less ROI.
I hope google also see's this and never goes down that route.
My 2pence
Steve
Alot of people search like me (I have done research) and to have PPC on the general search results they will get a lot more information gatherers and browsers than potential buyers clicking on the PPC links.
I see what you're saying, but that _shouldn't_ happen if advertisers are using the keywords properly.
Having said that, I'll welcome anyone that's typed my kewords into Google. Even a student doing a research project is a potential customer down the line - esp. if they're post-grad / MBA.
It appears to be a matter of familiarity with the SE's. I suspect most casual users do see the ads and do click on them.
WBF
Regular results are more about quality of site than size of budget. For example i may have 10 million dollars/pounds and a rubbish site but i could get ranked higher than Joe public because i have more money. That isnt a level playing field IMO.
I think you can dilute the quality of a result by allowing any old site with a high budget in at the top, so that why adowrds are better placed where they are now.
Out of interest, why have google discontinued the Premium Ads? Without going off topic.
But as far as the ads giving an edge to larger companies compared to the SERPs, I don't think this is the case any more either. The big companies have just as much of an advantage in SERps as the do in ads, if they choose to take it. They can pay for the expert SEOs, they can afford the IT requirements that put out thousands and thousands of pages geared for individual keywords in a way that doesn't break SE rules about doorways. They can pay for hundreds of affiliates to flood the first 10 results with pages that link to their site. The playing field is no more flat in the SERPs than in the ads.
Im not sure how true that is because "Megacorp" has a higher budget, and can target more phrases and set maximum bid much higher. Whereas "Mom and Pop" might not be able to extend to the same budget thus making the playing field a bit bumpy.
Sorry yes - of course MegaCorp can afford more of the same, but that applies to all forms of advertising.
What I really meant was that it is to a known cost with which you and all your competitors - fellow start-ups and established megacorps alike - are working.
It is known cost against which you can develop a business plan, attract financing etc.
ie people click, look at the index page for 3 seconds and leave.
They do that anyway.
However - i'm absolutely with you on not jumbling sponsored and natural results - definite no no. I'm all for decent segregation - just more prominence, that's all.
