Forum Moderators: martinibuster
In any case, it isn't against WebmasterWorld's TOS and that's the only one I uphold around here, so I don't care if you admit or not. :)
Now is anybody going to say that this remotely conforms to Google TOS? I've given up reporting it, as Google clearly do not care one hoot about ad quality.
I'd also like to disagree with those who think advertising on parked domains is a good thing. It's a sneaky way to make a quick buck that may backfire in the long run.
If I type in www.widgets.co.uk and got a wall of ads I would have one of two reactions. 1, this company is crap - I'll avoid them, and 2, darned kids have picked up a brower hijacker.
If the search engine I use repeatedly did this to me (as well as invading the right of the screen with spam) I'd change to a different search engine.
The article cited by our moderator said that type in direct traffic offered the best return at about 4% conversion. What do they mean by conversions - actual sales, or click throughs?
To be honest, 4.whatever% ctr isn't that marvellous. I'd regard it as the lower end of middling. I certainly wouldn't get excited by it. Especially as when presented with an unexpected wall of ads, there is a natural tendency to click ANY link to get out of there. That is most certainly NOT going to result in a sale for the advertiser.
Given a captive market who just want to escape the page, I think that 4.something% is actually rather poor. The other question that remains unanswered (I wonder why) is do these clicks convert into sales for the advertiser better than an ad on a genuine site. I'd suggest not personally.
In all this debate we are forgetting something - advertisers are the ones who foot the bill for this, and for them to be able to continue advertising it needs to be effective for them. The big feature of Google was that it delivered your ad to websites where you were most likely to get paying customers, and for publishers the income was better than anything else round precisely because the ads were tailored to your content and thus converted for advertisers.
I use the past tense, as this no longer exists. Google place your ads on sites of un-necessary middlemen that simply direct to other middlemen. Advertisers are the ones that pay for those clicks. MFA's get placed where proper ads should be due to faulty algorithms, people widely regards "Ads by Gooooogle" as spam and don't click them, and now we have the browser hijack program to contend with. Sorry - slip of the keyboard. I clearly meant domain parking.
In all this debate we are forgetting something - advertisers are the ones who foot the bill for this, and for them to be able to continue advertising it needs to be effective for them.
True, but advertisers have the ability to track their results from AdSense. If advertisers are getting a positive ROI or acquiring decent-quality leads more cheaply than they would with other media--even with MFAs tarnishing the pot--they're unlikely to cancel their AdSense campaigns.
In other words, MFa ads and sites (like fraudulent clicks) aren't a big problem for advertisers or for Google as long as they're kept to a tolerable level.
You know, the content you wrote.
If you are getting so many MFA ads on you site, should you be wondering what it is about the content on your site that attracts so many of them?
It could simply be the topic. Some topics attract a lot more dreck than others do.
I was just trying to approach this from another angle. Putting aside domain parking, which really is another topic.
We choose our topics, we choose what we write, Google chooses which ads to display.
They choose those ads based on which are most likely to generate the most income for them, and for the publisher.
If MFA ads pay the most overall, you can bet they'll be around for a while. It's not Googles fault that am MFA ad might pay better than a merchant ad.
Why is it that the merchants ads don't show up on the "innocent" publishers site, but do show up on the "wicked" MFA sites?
It might well be the merchants fault for not knowing how to write a good ad that will attract clicks, or not know how to use Adwords effectively. So maybe these threads should be directing the anger and frustration at the merchants.
Or it might be the "innocent" publishers fault for not writing content that would attract the merchants ads over the MFA ads.
Of course the MFAs make an easier, and probably more comfortable target.
On another, maybe unrelated, note....
These kind of threads remind me of the person who buys a bunch of cheap ready made (for Adsense?) sites, puts one online with who knows how much modifcation and then is apparently dissapointed when they don't make a ton of money right away.
Gosh, it must have been the site sellers fault :)
True, but advertisers have the ability to track their results from AdSense. If advertisers are getting a positive ROI or acquiring decent-quality leads more cheaply than they would with other media--even with MFAs tarnishing the pot--they're unlikely to cancel their AdSense campaigns.In other words, MFa ads and sites (like fraudulent clicks) aren't a big problem for advertisers or for Google as long as they're kept to a tolerable level.
Ouch, that rationalization is just wrong on so many levels I wouldn't know where to start.
Is it OK to rip people off for any reason? I only steal a little? They can afford to be ripped off. Those mindsets don't fly anywhere, never have and it only serves to enable the crooks. No one is entitled to ill gotten gain, not Google, not CPC fradsters, no one.
It's not simply the publishers fault. My site is in the top 4 on serps for my keyword. It's been online since 2000. I've never bothered with seo or any of that crap. In fact, my eyes glaze over when people start discussing seo techniques. Seems like they are talking Martian, so I switch off. The site got to where it did through natural traffic, and I'm sure the only reason it did this was content.
As regards MFA's paying more than real ads. I hope you were being TIC on that one and don't seriously think that it's true, as it isn't.
Could it be that Google have holes in their algorithms a mile wide that shysters can steer a battleship through?
As we all know, Google isn't two college dudes foolin' around, coming up with a really cool search engine that people can actually use, and playing baseball at lunchtimes in the car park. Well, that's the image they'd like to project. It's a huge concern run by bean counters. it's possible (though we may not like to think so) that MFA's actually might be profitable to Google. Or rather profitable enough not to resolve the issue at this point.
Nobody expects that MFA's pay a lot to advertise. They are takers, not contributors and only exist to make a profit. If Google charges them 5c per click, and they make 6c per click they are happy. But if Google charges them 5c a click, how much do you think the publisher will get after smartpricing? 1c if that? On that example, Google make a profit margin of 80% on the deal. As we know from the balance sheet Google pays out some 70%+ for traffic aquisition, so clicks with large profit margins are of benefit to Google, and possibly the reason they are still with us, and the reason Google chooses to place them in spots that they haven't paid the market price to occupy.
Please don't bother rattling on about smartpricing being paid back to advertisers. I'm an advertiser and that has never happened to me. Content costs as much as search to advertise in. If you are a large account and have a Google representative looking after your account, then smartpricing discount is to be expected. Small advertisers (including MFA's?) - forget it.
Ouch, that rationalization is just wrong on so many levels I wouldn't know where to start.
but you have to hand it to EVF - it's a perfectly valid point and one I agree with.
At the moment Google can get away with this, as the advertisers are not yet up in arms about it. Maybe they never will, and Google can keep this up for a long time. However, it's my personal opinion that at some point they will have to deal with the issue to keep MFA's down to a percentage that will allow adsense to stay on top. If they chose to turn off the tap, I'm sure they could do so quite easily. I suspect that it's not convenient to do so at the moment. But for many of us, the turning point can't come soon enough.
ken_b wrote:
If you are getting so many MFA ads on you site, should you be wondering what it is about the content on your site that attracts so many of them? You know, the content you wrote.
david_uk wrote:
As regards MFA's paying more than real ads. I hope you were being TIC on that one and don't seriously that that it's true, as it isn't.
OK, I'm going to try to step between the two of you, here, and disagree with you both.
Ken_b, just because David_UK's site might be susceptible to MFA ads doesn't mean that there is something wrong with his content. As I've posted in another current thread, it could simply be because the ads aren't optimised in the right way. I have a quality site (something people tell me, not just my opinion) and MFAs have appeared on it in the past; dealing with them is matter of ad optimisation, not dodgy content.
David_uk, ken_b is right that MFAs can pay more than real ads, as martinibuster explained in that other current thread. A low bid x high CTR can sometimes earn more than a high bid x low CTR. To get an overall better return, therefore, one has to make sure that the CTR for high-paying ads is improved (by cutting down on the number of ads, placing them above the fold, etc.).
Ding, ding, round 4.
<steps back hoping not to be on the receiving end of two boxing blows as the same time>
Ouch, that rationalization is just wrong on so many levels I wouldn't know where to start.
It isn't a rationalization (or even a defense); it's an impartial observation.
Is it OK to rip people off for any reason? I only steal a little? They can afford to be ripped off. Those mindsets don't fly anywhere, never have and it only serves to enable the crooks. No one is entitled to ill gotten gain, not Google, not CPC fradsters, no one.
True, but that doesn't alter the fact that advertisers learn to live with waste circulation, retailers learn to live with shoplifting and pilferage, credit-card companies learn to live with fraud losses and deadbeats who don't pay their bills, etc. Wal-Mart isn't going to close its stores because it can't eliminate all shoplifting, and Budweiser won't stop buying Super Bowl commercials because it can't keep everybody in the audience from going to the bathroom during station breaks.
The reality is that, if a PPC network delivers an acceptable ROI, most advertisers aren't going to stop advertising just because they can't be sure that every click is well-intentioned or will convert.
Wal-Mart isn't going to close its stores because it can't eliminate all shoplifting
They probably won't call the cops either if someone is sneaking in and stocking their shelves ;)
CPC providers are responsible for the behaviour of their publishers and its only going to take one or two big "outings" for the house of cards to collapse. Google was pretty quick on the trigger with the 90 mil settlement but thats a drop in the bucket and they know it.
I agree whole-heartedly with this....
...just because ...[a]... site might be susceptible to MFA ads doesn't mean that there is something wrong with ...[its]... content. .... it could simply be because the ads aren't optimised in the right way.
Which would make it the advertizers fault, not the fault of Google or the MFA site, right?
So maybe nagging Adwords to help advertizers write better ads might be a better use of time than these anti-MFA threads.
Of course one could always just work on their own site(s), which might well be the most productive course of action.
CPC providers are responsible for the behaviour of their publishers and its only going to take one or two big "outings" for the house of cards to collapse.
What "house of cards"? PPC advertising works. Advertisers are profiting from it every day. What's more, they have proof that it works, because ROI can be tracked.
Which would make it the advertizers fault, not the fault of Google or the MFA site, right?
Advertisers' poor copy is one contributory reason. And bona fide advertisers could certainly learn some lessons from MFAers (many of whom are highly intelligent and capable, methinks) in copywriting.
But there are also other factors that are under the control of the publisher - and I'm not just talking about the blocklist. Imho, those factors are worthy of discussion in this forum and, if widely adopted, could significantly reduce reliance on blocklists.
Aww geeze 21_blue, you're not going to throw that out there and then just leave us hanging are ya? :)
[ken runs off to check the forum thread index for new thread(s) by 21_blues. :)]
What "house of cards"? PPC advertising works. Advertisers are profiting from it every day. What's more, they have proof that it works, because ROI can be tracked.
Last I checked, gasoline still works to power autos but no one is tolerating rigged pumps. You are mixing issues and attempting to justify fraud, it can't be done.
ken runs off to check the forum thread index for new thread(s) by 21_blues. :)
Where've you been, mewonders? In case you don't find the threads I've been contributing to that deal with the "other factors":
[webmasterworld.com...] (see second page for "other factors")
[webmasterworld.com...] (now in the library)
Last I checked, gasoline still works to power autos but no one is tolerating rigged pumps. You are mixing issues and attempting to justify fraud, it can't be done.
What a stupid, insulting, and dishonest thing to say! I'd not "attempting to justify fraud" at all. I'm simply pointing out what should be obvious: As long as advertisers are earning positive ROI on their pay-per-click ads, they're going to continue using PPC advertising. But don't take my word for it--just look at the AdSense revenues in Google's quarterly earnings reports.
I'm simply pointing out what should be obvious: As long as advertisers are earning positive ROI on their pay-per-click ads, they're going to continue using PPC advertising.
EFV, I think there may be a misunderstanding stemming from your use of the expression that fraudulent clicks can be "tolerated". What I understand you to mean by that is that a low level of fraudulent clicks won't cause people to pull out of Adsense.
But the use of the word "tolerate" can also imply a value judgement, that a certain level of fraud is ethically acceptable. I don't think that is what you meant, but I suspect others have read it that way.
But don't take my word for it--just look at the AdSense revenues in Google's quarterly earnings reports.
Yeah, and they earned every penny, lol. But thats another issue, misleading investors (big fraud).
There's a famous old saying in advertising, to wit:
"We know that half the money we spend is wasted, we just don't know which half."
EFV is right; you *have* to live in the real world, and that means accepting that some bad things happen while attempting to minimise them. My credit-card business is being defrauded daily by (*£&("&s from all over the world, often the US. I don't make a bigger profit by writing off all US citizens as jerks, refusing all US users, or by shutting down the company; we deal with the biggest problems first and indeed are now well within VISA's target fraud threshold.
(In AS/AW *much* less than half your money is wasted, and you can prove it as EFV points out.)
There is nothing black-and-white, no fraud-free system to be had, so ranting about G/AS/AW in this way is tilting at windmills.
...and insulting to those of us trying to point out that reality and fraud are not optional, and happen in all industries, including at gas/petrol stations.
Rgds
Damon
[edited by: DamonHD at 6:45 pm (utc) on April 14, 2006]
Simplified, in order to make money in this way, the main obstacle is the CTR. You pay $0.05 for a click and you get, say $0.25 PC on your page.
So you need CTR of 20% just to break even.
Sure, MFA sites with little content immediately come to mind for such a high CTR, but I think the smart pricing makes a final killing here. Probably very few could survive this trade.
Now, making an article about this in an famous business magazine will almost surely produce the negative hype and hurt the program, including everyone involved, thus publishers and advertisers alike.
Surely, if the problem is the real one, it would deserve broader attention and demand for possible solutions, but in this case, IMO, it would be just a "cry wolf".
[edited by: activeco at 6:53 pm (utc) on April 14, 2006]
In other words, MFa ads and sites (like fraudulent clicks) aren't a big problem for advertisers or for Google as long as they're kept to a tolerable level.
Exactly. I spend in the mid-four figures on AdWords advertising each and every month, and I know that a significant chunk of that cash doesn't earn me squat. But the rest of it helps make possible a lifestyle that I could only have dreamed about 10 years ago. Like most other advertisers who know what they're doing, I'm willing to tolerate a little spilt milk because the cream is so sweet.
I diagree; I think that a balanced write-up of the pros and cons, and a note of the worries of some participants *as worries* rather than known facts, would be a good thing. Especially if G can be pursuaded to give more response/rebuttal than they are prepared to in the tin-foil-hat and conspiracy-theory-mongering atmosphere that pervades even WW when the black-hats are whining rather than winning... B^>
I'd love the Economist to do a warts-and-all survey of the field on a regular basis, for example.
The bad players have more to be afraid of than the good ones, if anyone has anything to be afraid of at all, IMHO.
Rgds
Damon
I spend in the mid-four figures on AdWords advertising each and every month, and I know that a significant chunk of that cash doesn't earn me squat. But the rest of it helps make possible a lifestyle that I could only have dreamed about 10 years ago.
As John Wanamaker (founder of Wanamaker's department stores) is reported to have said, "Half the money I spend on advertising is wasted; the trouble is I don't know which half."
I got that quote in first (back a few messages)!
Rgds
Damon
I'd love the Economist to do a warts-and-all survey of the field on a regular basis, for example.
I would like someone like Nielsen-Netratings to conduct such a research.
I regulary see high profile "offline" business magazines miserably failing when dealing with online topics.
Their coverages are mostly superficial, devoted to average broad readers.
As I understand, the editor here is not an exception. He didn't even hear of Adwords/Adsense arbitrage before and wants to make an influental coverage.
I sincerely doubt he will be able to do a proper research in a short time.
Can someone tell me why a bad site (read MFA) with adsense on it is any more fraudulent than a good site with adsense on it?
The way I see it is that both are legitimate web sites just one is better quality than the other. People are allowed to put anything up on the internet as long as the content is legal. (Okay an MFA may be against Google's Adsense TOS, but isn't it up to Google to police sites that are contravening their TOS)
I also can't see why arbitrage is fraudulent, buying ad space at one price and selling it at higher price has been going on for most of this century - there are companies who make their whole livelihood out of block buying ad space in magazines and newspapers.
(When it comes down to it I'm not sure that click fraud is illegal when it is done solely to burn competitors budgets - but in this case it is probably just that the law makers haven't caught up with the reality of what is going on.)
I'm yet to understand how what the MFA's is doing can be construed as fraud.
I'm not sure that click fraud is illegal when it is done solely to burn competitors budgets
The last time we discussed this topic, incrediBill suggested it was tortious interference of a business, which sounds reasonable to me.
but noone is suggesting MFAs or arbitrage are fraudulent.
Good to have that point cleared up.
