Forum Moderators: martinibuster
People who have premium accounts surely feel much more comfortable about their online business. I guess it takes a bit of money to have a account manager who would work with you to make sure you are not violating any TOS and also help you with the flexible ad formats etc. I was just wondering if Google can consider offering a premium account for a monthly subscription - say $100 - one account manager can handle 20 - 30 accounts at least. Would you be willing to pay for such a point of contact and flexible ad formats? I guess the flexibility in ad formats may also help us gain more revenue and pay for the service itself. Can Google offer such accounts? Perhaps to old pulishers.
Regards,
R
I hear $2,000 per month would get you that and more in India. The "tech support/call center types" would be in the $500-$1000 range.
- Having an account rep is no guarantee of additional income (or of immunity from fraud controls).
- If Google wanted to introduce a special tier of hand-vetted publishers or sites, it's unlikely that the criteria for membership (or even for review) would be based on a willingness to pay.
If I had a blog that was earning $5/day from 1000 visitors, is it worth google's time to give me special attention to bring it up to $10/day? I don't think so.
I don't think so either. But this is where the genious of an Account Rep comes in. Like you mentioned in your last post (BigDave), it takes special Google Reps. to discern whether or not a site is a potential goldmine, or simply a blog they can't afford to waste time on. This is that technical-side, coupled with the people-side that you talked about.
I think there are a lot of 500k pageviews/month, $5k/month sites out there with the potential to go Premium. But if Google puts on its Premium blinders for anything below 5M/pageviews/month, then those below that may never get discovered. Especially if they have hit some "Adsense ceiling" and cannot find ways to bring in more traffic/revenue.
I'm not bashing Google for it. They certainly have the right to place any thresholds, or offer privileges to high earners. I just don't think it's the Premium folks who are needing the most help.
- Google account reps aren't limited to premium publishers.
I thought it was something along the lines of 5M pageviews per month to be considered for Premium? If that's the number, many of us with that many pageviews could rake in a lot with Adsense (Of course it's not Google's position to help us gain that much traffic either!)
- Having an account rep is no guarantee of additional income (or of immunity from fraud controls).
Of course not. But I think a lot of folks feel that they would be getting some classified, "inside" information if they had a Google rep. to bounce questions off of. Most just seem to want more control over their ad layouts.
- If Google wanted to introduce a special tier of hand-vetted publishers or sites, it's unlikely that the criteria for membership (or even for review) would be based on a willingness to pay.
I agree. But what would the magic criteria be? 10M pageviews/month? An aesthetically pleasing site? Length of time with Adsense?
Whatever the criteria, a lot of site owners would simply spend the time adjusting in order to meet the criteria. As it stands now, the criteria mark is based on something many site owners cannot easily adjust -- pageviews and traffic.
If Google wanted to introduce a special tier of hand-vetted publishers or sites, it's unlikely that the criteria for membership (or even for review) would be based on a willingness to pay.
Maybe you know something I don't about google. Since you didn't explain why you think that, it's hard to tell if there's any merit in what you said.
There's precedent for charging a review fee, of course, and I think you are confusing paying for the cost of a review with "criteria".
The criteria for membership would have to do with quality/desirability for advertisers, whatever might make sense to set apart the top tier, professional type sites from the junkier stuff.
Charging a review fee doesn't mean that's the criteria. It just means the program gets set up to be self-funding.
The other thing about such a program is that the competitive bidding on the advertiser side might actually push up revenues for publishers in the program (and google), which, of course seems perfectly reasonable.
As an advertiser, I think I'd be willing to pay a premium for exposure on premium, high quality, no spam, no scam sites that were contextually relevant to my products/services.
Celgins, you are exactly right, however most of life is unfair that way. For instance, have you noticed that the person who has bad credit even though due to some tragic circumstances, he has to pay a high interest rate that he really cannot afford and the person who has a lot of money, never had a financial tragedy, has great credit, therefore gets a very low interest rate even though he can afford the higher interest rate.
Credit is not a right. It is a privilege. Certainly, bad things do happen to people, but no one (IMO) should overextend themselves financially. If the debtor does not pay up, that affects the bank's ability to pay interest to the people who have savings and other interest-bearing accounts.
Same for AdSense. With increased awareness of click fraud, among other things, it isn't unreasonable to think that G would apply even more stringent criteria to publishers.
Ooops, I don't think you've read the fine print. It's not that simple because the Terms and Conditions clearly says that you can be booted whether or not you personally had anything to do with the arrival of what Google (at their sole discretion) judges to be "invalid clicks".
I said the best way not to get kicked out of AdSense was to follow the TOS. I didn't say that this in and of itself would not get you booted. I was not saying the TOS were easy to understand.
Absolutely obeying every aspect of the Terms and Conditions cannot guarantee that you will not get booted from AdSense.
I agree, as I never said the contrary. The fact of the matter is there is no 100% guarantee against getting booted. That's just something that as an AdSense publisher I have to live with.
I also am not worried about violating TOS myself but one does worry a little about click attacks, etc. as this is something beyond our control. I do hope G would figure out a way to discount the excess clicks from an ip, etc and simply not pay it, rather than ban someone.
They do discount clicks from a single IP, under some circumstances. However, consider something like this going on for several days. At some point, it is more of an imposition for them to continue to process these clicks than drop the publisher. Better to use the resources for traffic that is less likely to be fraudulent.
BTW, since IP addresses can be dynamic and also be transferred between organizations, it's not a good idea for a SE or ad network not to charge for these clicks for too long. They might not be charging for legit clicks after the IP is reassigned. Another reason, perhaps, to drop the potentially fraudulent traffic.
Credit is not a right. It is a privilege. Certainly, bad things do happen to people, but no one (IMO) should overextend themselves financially. If the debtor does not pay up, that affects the bank's ability to pay interest to the people who have savings and other interest-bearing accounts.Same for AdSense. With increased awareness of click fraud, among other things, it isn't unreasonable to think that G would apply even more stringent criteria to publishers.
Gregbo, I am not saying that Credit is a right, nor am I saying that getting an AdSense rep is a right, I was just pointing out that sometimes bad things happen to good people and it has nothing to do necessarily with overextending yourself financially or otherwise. For instance, say someone has a mortgage, a car payment and one credit card. This person was not living high on the hog, just living an average life. This person becomes ill, his savings is wiped out with medical bills, being out of work, etc. But this same person runs out of money, and now cannot pay his bills and ends up with bad credit. He did nothing wrong in order to cause this.
All I'm saying by this example is that life IS unfair, we all know this. However, just because we may look for a way to make it a little less unfair for the "little guy", such as a way to help someone just starting with AdSense to give them a little boost, again, if the little guy makes more money, so does G and so do the advertisers, it's a win-win-win situation.
As far as someone who just has a little blog and are currently only making $10.00 a month via AdSense, if he were able to bring it up even say five times that, then times this ONE little guy with the thousands of other little guys, and everyone including G would benefit.
Again, I'm not knocking G or AdSense because I and many others are making decent money from this program and I do feel it is a privilege and not a right to do so. Just trying to brainstorm with others here on how maybe there is a way to make someones life a little better that's all.
For instance, say someone has a mortgage, a car payment and one credit card. This person was not living high on the hog, just living an average life. This person becomes ill, his savings is wiped out with medical bills, being out of work, etc. But this same person runs out of money, and now cannot pay his bills and ends up with bad credit. He did nothing wrong in order to cause this.
I could make the argument that this person overextended themself. The individual didn't do anything (morally or ethically) wrong. It just wasn't a good idea to borrow so much money.
As for AdSense reps for low-earning publishers, what value would be there that isn't in forums like this?
- Google account reps aren't limited to premium publishers.
This is true but only partially. I have asked them to review my implementation on many occasions. But my point for asking a premium membership for a small fee is for getting out of that anonymity. Every time its a different account rep who looks at my account and although I am sure that they have my history stored up in a database it makes me feel uncomfortable having to deal with a new person every time - and if that rep is reviewing my account or website I would still want to know what my position is in this contract. I want a business relationship where I am in contact with Google at all time through one of their employees and not blinded all the time about what is going on with my account.
- Having an account rep is no guarantee of additional income (or of immunity from fraud controls).
Partially true again - but the guarantee of additional income is from the additional formats and implementation reviews.
- If Google wanted to introduce a special tier of hand-vetted publishers or sites, it's unlikely that the criteria for membership (or even for review) would be based on a willingness to pay.
Well they did implement a special delivery option for a fee of $25 who's to say that they can't do this for a fee.
The fact of the matter is there is no 100% guarantee against getting booted. That's just something that as an AdSense publisher I have to live with.
Yeah, just like we can get booted off life itself but this is business and I am eager to know where Google think my account stands – what are the problems if any – does anyone know they are in the clear? Don’t start with the “Follow the TOS” – I do and anyone who makes good money does that – but is that enough to make you feel even remotely secure about your accounts position. Silence is easy they say – but I want some feedback.
The criteria for membership would have to do with quality/desirability for advertisers, whatever might make sense to set apart the top tier, professional type sites from the junkier stuff.
Exactly.
Charging a review fee doesn't mean that's the criteria. It just means the program gets set up to be self-funding.
Wouldn't the program be self-funding through increased earnings for Google?
Google has never charged review fees for AdSense applicants with little traffic and revenue potential, so why would it charge review fees for publishers who offered greater revenue opportunities for Google?
I could make the argument that this person overextended themself. The individual didn't do anything (morally or ethically) wrong. It just wasn't a good idea to borrow so much money.As for AdSense reps for low-earning publishers, what value would be there that isn't in forums like this?
LOL Gregbo! Do you work for a bank? From my story about a person who had a mortgage, a car payment and one credit card, you say he should not borrow so much money? What if this person was making $200,000.00 per year, which is $16,666.00 per month. His mortage payment is $1500.00 per month, his car payment is $500.00 per month and his credit card is $100.00 per month. This person is living way BELOW their means and has a very low Debt to Income Ratio.
Anyway, we could argue that all day, the point is that there is nothing wrong with helping the little guys and WW is great for that. However, as we all know here, those that work at Google know more than we do about the inside workings and an actual Google rep would be able to give us more information or help than those of us who are not on the inside track.
Gregbo, I love a good debate and I hope you don't take any of this personally. After all, different opinions, etc. make the world go round, and it would be a boring place if we were all exactly the same.
Anyway, we could argue that all day, the point is that there is nothing wrong with helping the little guys and WW is great for that. However, as we all know here, those that work at Google know more than we do about the inside workings and an actual Google rep would be able to give us more information or help than those of us who are not on the inside track.
I'm still not sure there's any value in this beyond what's provided in forums like this. For example, an account could still be terminated. What you'd then have is an unhappy publisher who thought they were getting good feedback (or at least, not getting bad feedback) from their rep. Worse, the publisher is out the fees they paid the rep, in addition to lost AdSense revenue.
IMO, the money would be better spent investing in a backup revenue stream.
I don't need a rep. BUT, I think what would really work well is a Premium Content Network designation, which only sites adhering to high standards could apply to, and be accepted, and with regular inspections to ensure that quality is maintained.
That's what I'd like to see. A program for quality sites with something different on them than 'goooooogle'. I don't even care if it would make more money but the one thing I would expect is to get the same service in return. Just as the advertisers would be assured they would only show up on quality sites I would want to be assured that only quality ads would be put on my site. That means no MFAs, false cliams for free stuff, surveys, and other scammy schemes. Quality ads don't need to be high paying. I don't mind the new little widget shop's ads showing up on my site. That is what my visitors are interested in.
I hear $2,000 per month would get you that and more in India. The "tech support/call center types" would be in the $500-$1000 range.
Not exactly the best plan unless the adsense publishers that you are servicing are located in India.
Anyway, that is the cost to pay them, it is not the cost of the employee, even in India.
If Google wanted to introduce a special tier of hand-vetted publishers or sites, it's unlikely that the criteria for membership (or even for review) would be based on a willingness to pay.
There's self-funding, and there's self-funding. By charging each publisher interested a review fee, google covers the overhead of hand reviewing sites. In a sense, it's a guarantee for funding the program.
Think of the fee as either revenue-neutral or revenue positive, independent of what the specific publisher earns (higher or lower) in the future.
The problem of funding through "potential" future income is that while it might work on average, it's NOT going to work on an individual basis. In any event the approach is simple. Publisher wants the advantages of being in the program, publisher pays a fee for service to fund the program.
No assumptions need be made about whether involvement earns more or less money for anyone. It's a no risk model for google. It's a slight risk model for publishers.
I'd do it, also like annej, just to be shed of all the junk advertisers, and I think that would have to be part of "the program".
I certainly wouldn't pay for it. The TOS are very clearly spelled out.
"Very clearly spelled out" as opposed to clearly enforced?
From the program policies:
No Google ad may be placed on pages published specifically for the purpose of showing ads, whether or not the page content is relevant.
I'd pay $100 one time just to have someone from AdSense explain the above policy in relation to all the MFA sites.
I'd pay $100 monthly for some type of premium service account.
FarmBoy
I'd pay $100 one time just to have someone from AdSense explain the above policy in relation to all the MFA sites.
I'd think I'd pay ten times that amount just for that.
I'd pay $100 one time just to have someone from AdSense explain the above policy in relation to all the MFA sites.
I would pay that much to remove the "ads by gooooogle"
As premium publishers we still need to label each creative we implement with "Ads by google" and approve it with our reps.
Having an account rep is no guarantee of additional income (or of immunity from fraud controls).
A fact. After being several months in the program I haven't been able to implement creatives on my pages that work better than the default formats provided by AS.
Also having a rep won't automatically increase your revenue; My rep doesn't spend time going thru my site giving suggestions. All I get is technical support/ad approval via email when I need it. Also to what celgins wrote, the rep won't disclose any more information about the technology or classified "inside" information as you get as a normal publisher. I get the most valuable information still from people on WW reporting their experiences.
Don’t start with the “Follow the TOS” – I do and anyone who makes good money does that – but is that enough to make you feel even remotely secure about your accounts position.
For me following the TOS is enough to make me feel secure.
Silence is easy they say – but I want some feedback.
I’ve always gotten replies to my questions. I don’t see why I should pay for something I’m already getting for free.
The rep won't disclose any more information about the technology or classified "inside" information as you get as a normal publisher.
Oh...I'm sure. I was simply stating that people who wish to be Premium, feel that they would be receiving something to that affect. I don't think anyone actually believes it though.
Like you said, you're basically getting additional tech support and no true "inside" information.
