Forum Moderators: martinibuster
It looks terrible. Any ideas how to get it to show four ads?
(I have opted out of CPM and "advertise on this site".)
Maybe they're doing this to discourage MFA sites and keep them from draining the ad pool?
My thought exactly!
If the whole idea of this was to filter out junk MFA ads, then wouldnt it have been better to just let publishers filter out the lowest paying ads -- thus letting the organic process of supply/demand fix things?
It would have been a lot worse but I finally thought of a solution that would work for all pages.
Now it will take me less time to convert all the pages over than the redesign did, but you can't really slap an ad unit with a new shape just anywhere. So it's been a pain.
The frustrating thing is it's probably been a lot easier for the MFA people to convert than it is for us with articles and graphics on the pages. So I'm not sure who is getting punished here.
I understand there are some ads that are by impression. How do we tell if we have one of those?
Happy New Year. I'm certain a little of that is seasonal, but some has to be attributed to two ads showing in blocks where there should be 4.
I'm almost sure Google will figure it out sooner or later, but eventually they will take a larger percentage of earnings (which they may be dong now) in order to satiate their investors for ever-escalating profits.
This really is a no win game for publishers absent of better transparency. I may switch to YPN over the course of this month, not because they're any better but because at least they do not rely on advertising for almost 100% for their revenue. They are more diversified and that is a little more confortable, at least for me.
CTR down 1-2%
ECPM up ~10%
EPC up ~20%
Total earnings remain unchanged or is little bit higher.
Stangely, today I saw 4 ads for 336x250 format on one page, but unproducible.
After 5 days the results seem to be about even. So the rectangle ads with two items in them aren't really hurting me but they do look bad.
Jensense just posted about this on her blog.
[jensense.com...]
It looks like we are stuck with them.
It looks like we are stuck with them.
Thanks for pointing out Jensense's blog. I hope you're not correct in saying "we're stuck with them", because there are two or three things reported in jensense's blog that concern me:
I suspect that, whilst Google are genuine in their intentions, they may be making some inadvertent errors, putting too much trust in the logic of their algos. "Smartpricing" has created a very complex beast, perhaps far more complex than they intended. Eg: changes that increase eCPM on an individual page basis could simulataneously have a knock-on Smartpricing impact that reduces overall earnings.
With regards the claim of "seasonal fluctuations", I am concerned that this is wishful thinking and not based on hard statistical analysis. In my case, I think that most WW members who have read my posts over the last 6 months will recognise that I take a hard statistical approach to most analysis. I have submitted a report to Google with evidence that CPM ads, contrary to their claims, was suppressing earnings. I can't do a similar analysis on expanded ads because there isn't detailed enough reporting from the Adsense system. But what analysis I am able to do is strongly suggestive that, on my site at least, these expanded ads are damaging the bottom line. We've probably spent 2 to 3 man-days on this in the last fortnight.
I recognise that, in the overall sea of web advertising, many of us publishers are minnows. Google aren't going to base their business strategy around little ol' me. However, although we are relatively small, to us internet publishing is a big part of our way of life. If we are going to be able to plan and invest for the future, and help Google's business grow as well as ours, then there are some very serious questions that Google need to look at, such as:
This is not intended to be a moan against Google - I have been and continue to be critical of whingers. I want to work in partnership with Google. But a partnership involves both sides expressing their views and concerns and working to further each other's aims.
However, in recent months I'm spending an increasing amount of effort defending our bottom line against new "monetization" initiatives. I reckon CPM ads cost us $1,000 or more in November alone.
In my view, the current problems with expanded ads is not, not, "seasonal fluctuation" - such Big Sweeping Generalisations do little to instil confidence in this particular individual publisher. I can provide data to suggest (though not conclusive) that this particular claim is incorrect, just as the CPM ads claim is not correct.
On the need to work together AdSense gives us so many choices like whether we use ad links, search, the kinds and shapes of ad units. Why can't they give us a choice on this?
It would be one thing if the problem was there are't enough ads for my page but this has never been the case before. Just let me choose if I want a 4 ad rectangle or if I want the expanded ads.
In my case it's more how it looks than how much money it earns. My site has an academic aspect and I don't want it to just scream commercial. I'm going to give it a few more days then I'll convert the rest of my articles back to skyscraper ads in the side column. They are more subtle there yet seem to get clicked on just fine.
Now I propose a new theory.
G intentionally reduced the number of ads in the 336x250 unit to two or one leaving a lot of white space and showing big fonts. This is exactly G want to achieve! Why? because most people including me blend the 336x250 into their content (this format blends best), misleading visitors to click the ads as part of the content. G must have got lot of pressure from advertisers about the blending, so G makes the ads in this format stand out.
The results are:
advertisers get real clicks but pay higher for each click
publishers get low CTR, but higher EPC.
Believe or not, let wait and see.
Now I propose a new theory.
Where would any of us be without a good theory?
That one sounds plausible. The thing that is behind all of this is either:
a) Google trying to combat ad-blindness, en masse, or
b) Google trying to increase the justification for charging more per click for the advertiser, in exchange for adblock formats that deliver better conversion rates.
Google trying to combat ad-blindness
I agree that might be part of it but I'd like to have a choice as to whether I want a more subtle approach even tho it might pay a bit less.
