Forum Moderators: martinibuster
We've also added some language to anticipate Google's retrieval of advertiser landing pages. To further improve program quality, our system will soon visit and evaluate all landing pages specified in AdWords ads.
Does this mean curtains for the dreaded MFAs?
You guys have got it all wrong thinking that this move is to stem out.....
In short, they will use it for lots of stuff.
and the impression I get from them is one of frustration
Would you like to look day after day at MFA pages? After how many days would you be sick? I mean, I do it every now and then, and even I can't see this stuff any longer. But they are dealing with this every single working day. It must be maddening.
Anyway, your experience with Adsense support is just another indication that the Adwords team rules Google, and Adsense are virtually helpless. But they could at least use their tools to do their part:
- bigger, better blocking lists and tools
- enforce TOS by removing MFAs that use Adsense and violate Adsense TOS
Well, we'll see.
I am not concering who is going to pull the plug ... :P
But if Google really awares the risk they have. Specifically if Google has well-defined indicators to measure the "effectiveness" of their AW/ AS business.
The Advertiser's ROI is an important factor, however, Google seems overlook "user experience", which is at the same level of importance if not more than Advertiser's ROI.
Imagine a situation when our *** VALUABLE *** users/ the advertiser's *** CUSTOMERS *** no longer believe they can find the required information from the AS slots, the overall AW/ AS business would suffer by the decline of turnover because of the decline of user clicks, though Advertisers may still receive a similar ROI.
Google needs well-defined *** Alert *** indicators before it goes too late, and when that requires a pull the plug decision from the top management, that is already the time - the expiration of the dream.
ALl you complaining about MFA sites need to work on your own. You complaining is a short term solutoin to a long term problem with YOUR site.
Here's part of the result of the junk MFA pages:
[webmasterworld.com...]
This will qushion the effect of smart pricing that hit the publishers.
If the sales don't confert, according to the smart pricing, the publisher is paid less, the publisher is responsible. However, what if the landing page is very poorly designed and is done very unprofessionally? Why should the publisher be responsible for a bad landing page that does not sale?
However, what if the landing page is very poorly designed and is done very unprofessionally?
Smart pricing adjusts the cost of advertising upward- you get paid more. The lower an advertiser's quality score, the more expensive it becomes for the advertiser to show up in the auction.
I mentioned that in post #22.
So what could eventually happen is that the poor quality ads will be the one's that pay more. In which case it might be better to unfilter ads and let smartpricing work to your advantage.
If you were Google and were going to wipe out a whole sector of websites from Adsense would you tell anyone what you were planning or when you were going to do it?No.
Yes. It could significantly reduce the workload.
If I were Google, I would find a few that have been reported repeatedly, evalaute and then ban if appropriate. I would continue to do a few each day until word of the banning activity surfaced on forums such as this one and others.
I think that would begin to stem the tide of new MFA pages being created as webmasters begin to realize the risk is very real. I think that would also cause some people to start shutting down their MFA pages and converting to pages that don't violate the terms.
Then, the majority of what will be left for me to hunt and kill would be those who just decide to ride the Golden Goose until they get cut and then go do something else AND those who never visit forums, read AdSense related news reports, etc.
Like I've written several times before, just look how many people are basically terrified at clicking on an ad on their site after reading, "I got banned" threads on a forum. The same "viral news spread" will happen when/if they start banning MFA's.
FarmBoy
I would continue to do a few each day until word of the banning activity surfaced on forums such as this one and others.
AdSense has been operating for almost 3 years, now. MFAs were there from the beginning, if you count MFAs as low-content or no-content sites with AdSense ads. Indeed, I think most people would agree that the AdSense program has been largely responsible for the proliferation of low quality websites on the Internet in recent years and the degradation of the web experience for many users.
What people here are complaining about isn’t sites that were made for Adsense, so much as publishers that seek to do arbitrage by buying clicks cheap and selling them expensive.
And this arbitrage scheme has been around since the very start, too. In 2003 people were doing arbitrage. When AdSense started, existing advertisers were automatically opted into the Content Network. When we finally realized this arbitrage was going on, many opted out.
I remember one market I advertise in, the arbitragers were advertising for a cheap keyword that was the symptom of a disease, and then bringing visitors to a page about the disease where ads were very expensive. It cost us tens of thousands of dollars and embittered me against AdSense. I even e-mailed other advertisers in the industry and pointed out what was happening with a suggestion they should opt out. I still have the e-mails I got back from them and would post them if it weren’t against Webmasterworld TOS. Whether due to my suggestion of not, the big advertisers in this industry all opted out of the Content Network. This was in 2003.
Arbitrage scheme have been going on ever since in many markets. It seems that just in the past few months people on this forum have become interested.
It’s OK with me if Google bans these sites, but I don’t see why they would as they make money off them, and have allowed them to operate for almost three years.
There always were people gaming the system, and there always will be. But in the early days of adsense, most of the ads were relevant ads from real advertisers, the arbitrage crowd weren't a nuisance and there was indeed room for them. But the situation we are now in is that the vast majority of ads do not pay into the system. MFA's cream off a percentage, but ultimately the people that foot the bill are advertisers with products to sell, and the MFA's simply increase their ad spend. How long that continues to be the case is anybody's guess. If ad costs spiral because of having to pay for the layer of MFA's, then advertisers will turn away. Right now, with click fraud and the MFA problem, adwords doesn't look like a good proposition.
That is the problem of a big company, the tops are busy at woundering the stock price, and there would be always reporting/ management problem from the bottom to the top.
Now would it got any chance that goes to the tops? Or the top would sense the current environment by chance when doing a Google search and got fooled into the game? LOL.
When it becomes an issue of ** confidence weakness ** to a brand, that is a real disaster and the time to sell.
1) Moving to Yahoo! or MSN might be risky if referrals from Google are responsible for the majority of your site traffic. - At some point in time Google may link Google Search and Google Adsense with (a slight) priority given to pages that carry Adsense. In this scenario, moving away from Adsense might not make sense.
2) Who knows whether MFA's will not move on to Yahoo! and/or MSN? - The only way to prevent this would be Yahoo! and MSN using different tactics to address landing page quality. If they use the Google approach ("just let everybody and his dog in"), they will just attract the same attention as Google did, and the problem will get worse rather than better.
In fact, I would love to see Google actually dealing with the problem. I like the Adsense program, and I like the idea behind it, but its current implementation is, well, flawed.
Consider this scenario: Visitor clicks on an MFA being displayed on a legitimate publisher's site. At this point the only advertiser out of pocket is the MFA. Next the visitor reaches the legitmate advertiser on the MFA site and clicks on the legitimate advertiser's ad. The legitimate advertiser pays only for one click at this point. So how (in terms of cost)is this any different for the advertiser? Before I am hammered, remember I am only talking about costs here. I am not defending MFA's
My site usually runs on a very high ecpm, therefore I would speculate on the possibility of legitimate advertisers paying less per click on the MFA site than they would have paid on my site.
Likewise an MFA that sits in number 1 Adwords position for a Google search might lead the visitor to blocks of legitimate ads on that MFA site that could only dream of been discovered on Adwords search network
I am yet to understand how MFA's actually add to advertisers' costs.
The additional cost comes from clicks that do not convert into sales. For example:
a) Without MFAs
An ad from advertiser is on my site that is tightly on topic and has visitors in a shopping mood (i.e. looking for information on widgets because they are looking to buy one). Visitor sees interesting ad copy, identifies this as ad, thinks "that looks promising", clicks, and sees the product. With a certain likelihood this visitor converts into sales. - Of course, the likelihood to convert also depends on product price, design of landing page, brand name of advertiser.
b) Introducing MFAs
An ad from MFA is on my site that is tightly on topic and has visitors in a shopping mood (i.e. looking for information on widgets because they are looking to buy one). Visitor sees VERY interesting ad copy -probably written by a smart copywriter-, identifies this as ad, thinks "that looks VERY promising", clicks, and... sees just more ads about the same topic! He is puzzled. He somehow expected something else, not just "more ads". He is desparately looking for the information he would like to see, but finds none. The shopping mood is gone. The visitor either clicks the back button or exits through one of the links on the MFA, just TO EXIT THE PAGE. On the landing page, he will probably not convert into sales, because the experience has been destroyed. The original ad (he was clicking on my site)is not directly linked with the site he is on now.
So, an advertiser sees click-throughs, but those clicks do not convert so well, because people come there for another reason (to flee the MFA page). So the advertiser has to spend more to get the same effects.
There is a thread over at the Adwords forum discussing the quality of Google leads. Very interesting reading.
Although it is quite plausible that visitors may click on links simply to flee the MFA. There may be also many situations where visitors find the ad they are looking for when they land on that MFA from the original publisher's site. Or the visitor might find that there are endless MFA's on the MFA site, in which case it is just the MFA's are are paying for clicks. We don't know which of the two scenarios is the most likely.
I seen posts on this board that claim MFA's add cost because they are a 'middle-man' just adding another layer between Google and the advertiser. I guess this is where I am starting to disagree.
Don't get me wrong. I do believe that the mere presence of MFA's is destroying the visitors experience along with Google's and associated publishers credibility, as most of you here belive also.
the "middle-man theory" is quite valid as well. In theory, the original advertiser could have placed his ad on my site for less, i.e. the price the MFA pays. He would not pay for the arbitrage that the MFA gets in such a scenario. Thus, the advertisers cost are less than in an MFA environment.
MFA's have nothing to sell. By clicking through an MFA to get to a real advertiser, you are simply adding to that advertisers costs. It would be a lot cheaper for them to have you click direct on their ad. They pay Google as the middleman, as that is Google's function.
I don't see how it's possible to have a huge raft of middlemen taking profits without adding to the advertisers bills. There are only two groups in the equation - people with products to sell, and customers flexing the plastic to buy them. Everybody else is somewhere in the middle. Somebody has to pay the cost in the end - the MFA's and Google take, that leaves only the advertisers footing the bill. Assuming Google's take is a constant, the more MFA's, the higher the advsertisers costs.
In theory, the original advertiser could have placed his ad on my site for less, i.e. the price the MFA pays. He would not pay for the arbitrage that the MFA gets in such a scenario. Thus, the advertisers cost are less than in an MFA environment.
If the theory that MFA's buying clicks for peanuts (which I do agree with) does hold true, shouldn't MFA's be capable of generating a profit by offering ads at the same CPC you or I would receive? They could possibly work on volume and small margins.
David,
I don't see how it's possible to have a huge raft of middlemen taking profits without adding to the advertisers bills.
Maybe I am missing the point but the way I see it is that there are MFA's generating revenue for themselves artificially and Google dipping into the pie step of the way. If google is gaining as a result of a visitor's prolonged journey via various ads, I still can't see how this would accumulate costs to the advertiser.
The advertiser pays only once at the end of the journey. During the entire process Google has dipped in more than once, so there are no extra costs to pass on. The MFA's have paid for their arbitage and although they do expect to make a profit, I can't imagine their sites working on at a high CPC. If legitimate (product selling) sites are prone to being hit by the wrath of smartpricing, imagine what these guys would cop?
Actually I can understand how MFA's could possibly add to advertisers costs by artificially increasing demand for ad space, rather than by inflating costs as a middleman. MFA's work mostly by good copy writing as you mentioned providing them with a good ctr placing. Advertisers of legitimate ads would have to push their way up the ladder by throwing more money in. You both did mention this of course, however couldn't legit advertisers counter this by producing good copy themselves?
The MFA's have paid for their arbitage and although they do expect to make a profit
That's the basic point. They do pay for adwords, BUT they only do so to make a profit. Say they spend $100 on adwords, they ONLY do it on the basis that they will get $110 back. If there was no profit in it, they wouldn't do it. They don't exist as a nett contributor - they exist as a nett taker.
Therefore if an advertiser buys adwords, that sum should be divided between Google and the content providor. Add a layer of middlemen that are overall takers from the system. Who pays for that? Additional costs such as nett takers have to be paid for by someone. Google aren't going to pay for it are they? In all likelihood they split the amount taken out of the system by a totally un-necessary layer of middlemen between advertisers and publishers. Advertisers pay more, publishers get less. Neither are happy. Google isn't going to be concerned about publishers, but they should be concerned about advertisers.
[edited by: david_uk at 2:28 pm (utc) on May 29, 2006]
And the users. Don't fool the users/ customers, it is a pain costs .... :P
The sign for the end of PPC advertising industry?
If the theory that MFA's buying clicks for peanuts (which I do agree with) does hold true, shouldn't MFA's be capable of generating a profit by offering ads at the same CPC you or I would receive?
No, they can't.
First, nobody in his right mind would visit such a page or recommend others to do so. Due to the lack of genuine content, MFAs are having a hard time to get listed in organic search results. So they have to rely on ads to get traffic.
But there is the risk of the user using the back button in order to leave the page. Depending on the percentage of visitors leaving the landing page through a paid click, the MFAs need to target higher CPCs from valid advertisers. Example: 70% of users click the Back Button, 30% of users click an ad. The MFA acquire an user on average at, let's say, $0.04 - now, to "break even" the MFA has to have a EPC of
$0.04 / 30% = $0.133
100 users acquired = $4.00 cost
30% users click an ad = 30 paid clicks
Average EPC per clicked ad = $0.14
Gross Earnings = $4.20
- cost for ads = -$4.00
Gross profit = $0.20
Yes, you can make a profit of this, especially if you are talking about zillions of keywords, pages, sites. This is exactly the root of the problem. That's the reason why we are seeing so many useless sites recently. The margins get smaller, and the MFAs adjust by increasing the volume.
You see, in the example above, the MFA can not sell his ad space for less than $0.14, because if he did he would be losing money. It all depends on the factors of
1) Acquisition cost for MFA - Usually they try to buy niche keywords or do site targeting. Or other shady methods.
2) CTR on MFAs site - "Just ads" leave little opportunity for visitors to not click an ad. That's why some MFAs go into full screen and disable the back button (and that's why it is not allowed to use such techniques).
3) EPC on MFAs site - Usually improved by blocking other (competing) MFAs, and by maintaining a tightly focused page.
couldn't legit advertisers counter this by producing good copy themselves?
No, the legit advertisers do not have the same skills. Legit advertisers know their business, i.e. they know how to satisfy customer demand, but they are not necessarily good marketeers. In my niche I see a lot of adorable small businesses that run a really nice shop, but their homepages look, like, 1998. Animated GIFs, bright colours, missing navigation, Times New Roman all over. I do not expect them to write excellent ad copy, at least not copy that can compete with MFAs.
At some point in time Google may link Google Search and Google Adsense with (a slight) priority given to pages that carry Adsense. In this scenario, moving away from Adsense might not make sense.
As soon as that happens, about 100 people will write and sell an ebook on how to get better ranking by placing AdSense on your site. Then every site will be putting up an AdSense display and the benefit will cease to exist.
FarmBoy
