Forum Moderators: martinibuster
The writer (Nate Elliott) thinks that Google will fall because the new competitor will be ready to combat this year. And then...
What kind of publishers will sign in with an ad network which pay less? Cheaters? Pills/S*x/Gambling/Credit-reporting/Car-insurance sites? Where will be published the ads?
And the best of all: the article is under a 728x90 Adsense leaderboard!
I've been saying the same thing consistantly here at WW since AdSense launched.
Humm... another fortune-teller.
FYI: After more than 6 months, Adsense is still alive and kicking ;-)
But I also think that it will be hard for the competitors to get 150,000 advertising clients anytime soon.
So, what does it matter if competitors pay more to publishers if they will have an hard time to grab advertisers to put their ads in the publisher sites?
I really see this very difficult to Google competitors. I am afraid that initially they will either show mostly PSAs or just the same very few ads of the advertisers they grabbed.
Keep in mind that most Google advertisers came to it because its search engine is the most popular on Earth so it offers the greatest exposure. So competitors will always have an hard time to provide advantage to advertisers.
On a side note, personally I find it a little ridiculous that some people seem to cheer against Google as if there is a great interest to cause harm to their business. So, when I see comments predicting the doom of Google, I can't help thinking that those comments seem to come from any Google competitors wannabes.
Even big competitors like Yahoo, I think it would probably better to remain partners and share greater profits than trying to depredate each other market. That's just a personal opinion.
Regarding the number of advertisers, you also have to take into consideration the number of publishers... Google has built itself a very large network in a small amount of time, I think that any new competitor will have trouble getting that kind of network going.
It's also worth noting that some advertisers are quite happy with AdSense's ROI, and mainstream advertisers (those who have been spending millions on print or broadcast) are likely to find AdSense far more cost-effective than traditional media. (I remember seeing a comment by one advertiser who said that, compared to what his company was used to paying for leads, AdSense leads would be a bargain at 50 times the price.)
It's possible or even likely that Google will offer a separate bidding structure for AdWords and AdSense in the future, just as it's possible or even likely that Google will give advertisers more control over where their ads appear within the AdSense network. The current version of AdSense is merely the first generation of a new product line, and--like most product lines--AdSense will evolve and expand over time.
If we all relied on $6cpm banner advertising 2 years ago where would we be now. Things change...
Make hay while the sun shines. Keep building your sites. Who cares what comes next, if you have a great site then the planners of the future will be looking for your ad space.
JAG
1. By running any ads, if people click on them they leave your site thus meaning a lesser chance for a sale. If you don’t make enough on the ads to compensate for this, then you need to remove the ads, or replace them with an equivalent money making ad.
2. Based on my research, G is messing with the way they serve the ads, just before the IPO, and I don’t think I want to be involved with a company like that. It at least looks bad to some people.
Just my opinion.
I know as soon as I get enough to get another check, I’m pulling Adsense ads, maybe before. I posted in a nother post why. But, G isn’t serving the ads they should be to my site. The ads they were serving brfore the FL update.
I'm quite happy with the way AdSense has been performing on my site. To judge from the number of my advertisers who have been running AdSense ads continuously for months, quite a few advertisers are happy, too. That doesn't mean AdSense will work for everyone; results will obviously vary according a site's topics, how many advertisers are buying ads on those topics, and technical issues that may affect the Google Mediapartnerbot's ability to extract relevant keywords or keyphrases from a site's pages.
AdSense is like any other rsvenue source: I've heard publishers talk about their success with Amazon.com, but I never got more than a trickle of Amazon commissions when I had an Amazon blurb on every page. And a hotel vendor that generates four-figure income for me is a bust on a friend's travel site, while she does well with other hotel vendors. As a tobacconist might say, "Different smokes for different folks."
Exactly. Before the FL update, it was worth it to us, now it is not becasue they are not serving up the ads that should be for the keywords in the ads but for the same KW's we show up in the search.
see...
[webmasterworld.com...]
Message 423
For the record, I do not think AdSense will go away. The main point, for a variety of reasons, is that Google should not continue to intertwine search ads with content ads.
Also, something the article missed, is that it is pure EVIL for Google to make content distribution opt-out instead of opt-in (on every single campaign no less).
While I do not think it is guite "a house of cards" if Google changes either of these, I believe prices for content Ads will fall. I would estimate by 20-30% - not that big of a deal.
Personally I think 20-30% is a lot. (read average 25% or 1/4) Now 5-10% would be a different issue.
Google is right, for a simple reason: If Google had launched AdSense as a completely separate product, AdSense would have had to work that much harder to overcome advertiser inertia.
That is so true. The planning behind the launch of AdSense was brilliant. By piggybacking it with AdWords, their advertising base was able to try it out and get comfortable with it without having to exert any effort. All they had to do was check the box.
However, I do think Nate has some extremely valid points. While it may be true that contenxtual ads might generate more bang for the buck than other marketing methods used by large companies, I don't think that applies to the average AdSense customer.
Ultimately, the standard that will be used to judge the value of AdSense will be AdWords. And so far, (at least in my experience) AdSense isn't even in the same ballpark. Every time we have placed a client's ads into AdSense roatation, the overall ROI of the campaign took a significant hit. And the vast majority of companies/consultants that I've talked to at conferences have shared similar experiences.
As more and more companies get with the program regarding effectively tracking their ROI, I think you will begin to see many more of them adopting an "Opt Out" policy. That in turn will generate a higher rate of PSA's or poorly targeted ads (something I'm already seeing) for publishers.
In the end, I think Google will will either have to separate the two products, or remove the option of opting out. Splitting them up will cause AdSense prices to adjust to match their true value. If there truly are areas where AdSense generates exceptional ROI, then the marketplace will keep those prices inline with current AdWords rates. But the price for the majority of AdSense inventory will drop. And that means Google will need to pay (and disclose) publishers a bigger percentage.
If they were to do that, they would definitely make a lot less per advertiser, but they would build a much larger (and separate) advertising base.
What exactly do you mean by less attractive? Do you mean in terms of dollars?
Thanks for the clarification.
Dollars vs ad space +/- loss of visitors.
In the end, I think Google will will either have to separate the two products, or remove the option of opting out. Splitting them up will cause AdSense prices to adjust to match their true value. If there truly are areas where AdSense generates exceptional ROI, then the marketplace will keep those prices inline with current AdWords rates. But the price for the majority of AdSense inventory will drop. And that means Google will need to pay (and disclose) publishers a bigger percentage.
That isn't a real solution either, because the difference in quality of leads or ROI may vary as much (or more) between content sites as it does between AdSense and AdWords. If advertisers are being gypped by having to pay the same rate for AdWords and AdSense, why would they be less gypped by having to pay the same rate for content ads on quality general-interest news and entertainment sites (where keywords are targeted but audiences aren't), quality niche sites (where keywords and audiences are targeted), and a vast spectrum of other information, community, e-commerce, and affiliate sites where the quality of leads and ROI may range from awful to excellent?
For advertisers to receive true value, they need the ability to choose specific advertising venues instead of being forced to buy what amounts to a run-of-network audience.
(BTW, if Google doesn't offer such options, I suspect that competitors will at some point--and if that happens, Google will stand to lose advertisers and publishers.)
By running any ads, if people click on them they leave your site thus meaning a lesser chance for a sale.
This may be true if you are a commercial site attempting to sell a product, but I don't believe that is what Adsense is all about. Adsense is for publishers like myself. We publish information and don't sell product. That’s why we are called publishers. Adsense is a way to monetize our content.
Adword is for people who are selling products and services. It allows you to bring qualified and interested people to your selling page (through targeted search results and content sites), measure your ROI, etc. If you add Adsense to your selling pages and your potential customer leaves the your selling pages via an Adsense ad without purchasing, that is your fault (or you could see it as a way to monetize the "browser" who had no intention of purchasing your product).
I’ve been measuring ROI since 1986. But then it was called RONI, (return on net investment), and RONA, (return on net assets)
For advertisers to receive true value, they need the ability to choose specific advertising venues instead of being forced to buy what amounts to a run-of-network audience.
Sorry europeforvisitors but this is an extension of our other conversation in an earlier thread and I still have to disagree with this and agree with WebGuerrilla. How big would the dropdown box be if an advertiser was given the option to choose where they want to be or not be? I'm guessing that there are probably 10's, maybe even 100's of sites using AdSense ;-)
JAG
As an advertisier I'd definitely would go with b.) - that's why it's very hard to evaluate a site just by looking at it's content, if at all it would only be possible by tracking a visitor all the way down to the checkout on the advertiser's site. (on which google is already working on)
And others have already successfully implemented :-)
JAG
Agree, except every space is a little different and the degree to which that is applicable varies because of thngs like where the visitors are coming from, currency differences, world wide business VS local business, et. al.
Added:
If you are a company with innovated ideas, then you must explain these ideas or people may think you don’t have both oars in the water. You know you are onto something when competitors start taking these ideas. This education is a pre-cursor to other products that will be released in the future, thus, keeping you competitors at bay and one step behind
[edited by: jim_w at 8:08 pm (utc) on Jan. 8, 2004]
That is so true. The planning behind the launch of AdSense was brilliant. By piggybacking it with AdWords, their advertising base was able to try it out and get comfortable with it without having to exert any effort. All they had to do was check the box.
The launch was even better, they had to check the box to opt-out :)
It's about the quality and relevance of the site, and of the audience. That's why advertisers need control. If you're selling disposable enema kits to hospitals through a medical sales force, you don't want your ads appearing on a fetish site. And if you're selling $700- or $1,000-a-day luxury cruises on lines like Silversea and Seabourn, you'd rather have your ads appear on a cruise enthusiasts' site (where readers are likely to know your market segment before they click) or The Robb Report (which is geared to an audience of rich people) instead of buds-budget-cruising.com.
Mainstream advertisers are used to selecting the media where their ads run, and that isn't going to change just because they're paying for clicks on the Web. What mainstream advertisers need is a product that combines targeting by keyword with the kind of site selection they get at a targeted banner network like Tribal Fusion.
As for the argument that AdSense would have to offer a dropdown menu with hundreds of choices, that simply isn't true. The default could be to buy an unfiltered audience (i.e., targeting by keyword only), possibly with a few radio-button options for broad content categories such as:
- Information pages
- Community pages
- Commercial pages
For advertisers who wanted more control, there would be "Include" and "Exclude" options similar to the block-by-domain list that publishers currently have.
This wouldn't just be good for advertisers; it would also be good for Google, since it could charge different amounts (perhaps through surcharges on the basic bid) to advertisers who wanted a higher degree of control than the default.
cf
Not really. I can sell the space I have G ads in right now for three times what G is now paying, for they are not showing the ads that are relative or that have any click value.
I'm going to give it a couple more days before I remove them for I don't want G to have the funds I have earned for this month for the next 365 days.
- Information pages
- Community pages
- Commercial pages
Who would organize this? Google is into automation. This starts down the path of what was done years ago with other ad networks so why go backwards? If anything this would validate the more generic and human controlled Overture and Kanoodle type contextual matching models even more.
JAG
