Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 188.8.131.52
Google suggest that you might earn more indirectly - because having image ads increases the competition.
I'm not so sure. On the one hand, advertisers will probably use video ads in place of what they did before (image ads) - ie: no change. On the other, if they have spent the time/money developing image ads they may be prepared to bid a high EPC.
But, afaik, the compete in the same auction on the same terms.
Click-to-play video ads can be paid EITHER on a CPM basis, or a CPC basis.
If the video ad is paid on a CPM basis, you'll be paid for impressions just like other CPM ads.
If the ad is paid on a CPC basis, you'll be paid when a user either 1) clicks on the display URL or 2) clicks on the video itself and is brought to the advertiser's site.
In either case, video ads compete in the same ad auction as all other AdWords ads, and they'll only display if they represent the highest revenue potential for that ad unit at that time.
For more information, see [google.com...]
Hope that clarifies!
you'll receive earnings for each valid clickthrough on ad -- that is, a click on the display URL or playing video that directs a user to the advertisers' website.
right, so if accounted in cpc, the publisher only gets paid if the user lands on the website of the advertiser.
the crux is, that many users likely at most click on the play button, watch the video and then in the second step don't click further to the landing page. so on the one side the ad demands a considerable high amout of time and awareness from the user without the publisher being paid for the branding. on the other side it's limiting the attention time to your content, lowering the chance to monetize the visitor otherwise. that's simply not right.
if as purposed the video ads compete with the other ads in your ad slots, how is that supposed to work out? i predict a non-starter..
by now most publishers will have noticed, that cpc for other than text ads doesn't perform, whereas advertisers seem to shy cpm campaigns - that's the problem google has to face with every expansion of their ad types.
If I was looking to advertise and do some branding I would be using CPC video ads designed not to encourage clicking.
I would bet that is much easier to do with videos than images and even more so with text ads....
Yes , I agree , Companies could use these video ads to generate brand awareness without generating clicks. This is bad for the publishers network. I am going to opt out quickly. However I think currently the ad inventory of G must be pretty limited as I am yet to see any on my site.
1) The video still acts as teaser (compared to the ad copy of a traditional text ad)
2) If there is enough interest, the play button is CLICKED to play the video (this click can be compared to the traditional CPC click, IMO)
3) Depending on the ad itself, the user may or may not click the ad again to get to the site.
There is a risk that products are advertised without offering a real incentive to get to the landing page (i.e. pure branding purpose). Which is not a good thing. For us publishers, that is.
Also, have a look at TV advertising - the companies typically pay the price for views (eyeballs), not for click-throughs or immediate consumer reactions.
Don't forget how ad rank is calculated -- bid price is not the only factor weighed. Quality score is also taken into account. This means that even a video ad with a high bid price won't appear on your site unless it will actually perform better than the other ads competing to display in that ad unit.
So you shouldn't worry about CPC video ads appearing -- if they do, they are the highest paying ads available for that ad unit.
Here are two resources if you'd like to learn more:
1) This page will tell you more about ad rank:
2) This page will tell you more about how to tell whether site targeted or contextually targeted ads are appearing on your site, and why you may notice differences in eCPM between the two types of targeting: