Forum Moderators: martinibuster
in Adwords:
Content bids - New! [?]
Let me set separate prices for content clicks
To me - this changes EVERYTHING
*** What do Publishers think?
I am also starting a thread to hear from the Advertisers point of view
"What are content bids?"
Content bids let AdWords advertisers set one price when their ads run on search sites and a separate price when their ads run on content sites. If you find that you receive better business leads or a higher ROI from ads on content sites than on search sites (or vice versa), you can now bid more for one kind of site and less for the other. Content bids let you set the prices that are best for your own business.
You can set content bids for any campaign running on content sites in the Google Network. Content bids are set on the Ad Group level within each campaign."
The thing that appeals to me as both publisher and advertiser is that it put's control into the hands of advertisers. That's a positive. My reason being that smart pricing was "Supposed" to offer discounts on content. Both advertisers and publishers mistrust and hate smart pricing as it's seen purely as a profit creaming off excercise for Google's benefit alone.
If advertisers have the control, then unlike smart pricing, this may be something that will genuinely encourage them into content. Us publishers need advertisers, therefore what works for them has to be ultimately good for us in the long run. Unless of course you've just purchased a software package to auto-generate lots of sites to scam them.
These tricks and games hurt the integrity of the program. So this is a great move for letting this program earn its clicks and income, and hopefully many more moves of this nature will be forthcoming on the adsense side of things.
Not me. I can give advertisers better targeted prospects in some cases than an ad displayed on a Google search results page.
Sure, and so can I, in many cases. If a user reads a review of a destination, a cruise, or a travel accessory and then clicks on an ad, he's probably in a money-spending frame of mind--and, in many cases, he's been presold by my in-depth coverage.
But that's mostly of academic interest, since advertisers can't pick and choose where their ads appear (except with site-targeted CPM ads). So I'm not at all sure that having different bids for search and content ads will make that big a difference for advertisers who aren't bottom-feeders.
That is not true - you can now pick site by site where to advertise on the content network. I am running such an ad with great results on what amounts to a competitors site. One ad targeted to one site - and it is performing great.
Publishers have to be benefiting from this.
"Yet here we are in late 2005 with all this technological power and in general, AdWords advertisers have a choice of two very broad categories of either "search" or "content.""
That's because of the "technological power"--i.e., page targeting by keyword, which didn't exist not so long ago.
There shouldn't even be a need for separate "search" and "content" categories, because the distinction is artificial. Some "content" pages display search results, for example, and the range of "content" is too great to make the term meaningful in terms of advertiser bidding. (Certainly there's little in common between, say, a product review on a respected site, a list of scraped search results for term, and a gmail ad on an e-mail that happens to mention the product.)
The next big challenge for Google and its rivals will be to offer keyword targeting plus audience targeting. Right now, it's either/or.
I'm not sure what all the fuss is about. Advertisers could always do this. The new feature just makes it more convenient.
Do you find it odd that so many publishers are convinced that advertising on "content" sites is less effective than search ads...
There's no convincing to it - Publishers are driven by numbers and proof. As a publisher, I find that a majority (not always) but a majority of the time my ads get a much lower ROI when advertised on a content site as compared to search. Especially over the last few months, as content sites have been duplicating each other up the yinyang to turn a small profit. I don't want to have to pay for that.
Advertisers shouldn't have to pay for scraper sites. Maybe this is G's way of weeding that type of behaior out, as it will become much less profitable to clone a site and provide bogus clicks. - Just my 2 cents
I find that a majority (not always) but a majority of the time my ads get a much lower ROI when advertised on a content site as compared to search.
Unless you're talking about site-targeted CPM ads, how do you advertise on a content site (as opposed to AdSense's potluck jumble of content sites that include gmail, scrapers, parked domains, etc.)?
Answer: You can't. That's why domain blocking and smart pricing were invented. Whether they're an adequate substitute for better advertiser control is open to debate.
