Filter ads linking to "reward" programs?

[DXL]

I have a music niche site that earns middle three digits every month. The majority of the ads are related to downloading ringtones for cell phones, and downloading music for free, both of which pay poorly but add up (1-10 cents per click).

I only recently started looking at the URLs for the ads and then typing in the site address, it looks like many of the ads take people to a page where they are encouraged to sign up for downloads and get the chance to win gift cards/ipods (or they apparently get to download free and get spam in return). Should I be filtering sites like this out?

[toomer]

I ban all ringtone sites, and sites that promise to give you a free iPod, laptop, cell phone, whatever. Often they seem to use "reward" and "offer" in the domain name.

The ringtone sites seem to thive on deceiving users into signing up, when buried in the terms and conditions is a multi-month paid subscription. The "offer" sites? Research that I've done indicates that these sites end up spamming thier users for 100 to 400 spams a week. There's no way in hell that I want my users to have to see those ads.

[DXL]

In terms of revenue, though, by filtering out those sites am I looking at a loss of clicks? I don't know if filtering sites leads to doing away with higher paying advertisers and just getting ads from the lower bidding ones.

[Car_Guy]

I filter out anything that looks cheesy.
If we don't, we can look cheesy, too.

There is a line between earning a living and being a whore.
Usually, the line is pretty easy to find.

[Scurramunga]

If it looks spammy (that's the majority of them) then I remove them. There have been on or two in the past that were obviously legit, so I allowed them to remain.

[eeek]

Maybe Google should be looking at filtering these? They don't exactly make my site look good.

[moTi]

forget it. you have to look for yourself how far you will go with (dis)allowing cheesy stuff.

in the meantime, i'm also on a more strict track concerning teasers and rewards. pure mfas are simple to sort out (although that would be googles' job), but there are certain cases which are hard to decide and which unfortunately will cost you quite a few clicks. sometimes you're not sure, if the advertiser holds his funky promises (free sms and whatnot). and as ever, removing stupid catchy ads tends to decrease your ctr remarkably. but consider smart pricing and long term negative perception effects on visitors if you let them show on your sites.

at the moment i'm not exactly in the situation to be picky, but nevertheless i try to assure quality to fit with my content.

[Rodney]

Maybe Google should be looking at filtering these?

There are legit businesses paying good money for "reward" type marketing.

Not all publishers or customers think it's necessarily cheesy or a scam

[eeek]

There are legit businesses paying good money for "reward" type marketing.

Maybe there are some. But I think the number is on the same order as the number of WMDs in Iraq.

It's not just the reward marketing that I'm seeing. There's a lot of MLM and other scams that have been popping up on my pages recently and I don't like it.

[Rodney]

But I think the number is on the same order as the number of WMDs in Iraq.

That's an understandable opinion. I was just responding to the idea that Google should filter them out, which to me doesn't seem like a good idea at all.

It's not just the reward marketing that I'm seeing. There's a lot of MLM and other scams that have been popping up on my pages recently and I don't like it.

I personally don't like MLM type sites or ads either, but as a whole, I don't think Google should be filtering them out based on what I do or don't like. That's what each publisher's filter is for.

[graeme_p]

The problem, Rodney, is that it creates a lot of extra work for us.

It is not possible to check every page of every site daily, so the best we can do is filter the frequently displayed of the objectionable ads.

[toomer]

There are legit businesses paying good money for "reward" type marketing.

While ultimately there may be "legit" money behind the folks running the "reward" and "offer" sites - the fact is it is the "reward" and "offer" sites that are the ones that end up paying us if their ads are on our site and a visitor clicks.

In every, EVERY single circumstance where I've checked one of these "reward" or "offer" sites that has appeared in my ads - they have been reported as sending at least 100 spams per week to brand new test email addresses that were set up specifically for checking the site out. In some cases, the number was a staggering 400 spams per week all from one "reward" site.

So, while it may be good money at the start - it's bad money by the end, and I don't want it nor do I want my visitors seeing those ads. I hate that Google's algorithm doesn't give me a "highest earning potential" (their default) vs. "highest paying" option.

Much like the nav system in my car - sometimes I want to choose "shortest" or "fastest" based on how much I know the landscape ahead of me, how it tends to compute, etc. That's what I find most annoying about the Google algo here -- if they think that I'd earn $1.00 more over the course of a day running a low CPC/high CTR junk ad ... they're going to give me that ad with no option! I'd much rather sacrifice a percent or two, and see my CTR drop in order to only have high CPC - because those will be the better ads and keep my users happier.

I'm halfway through my ad filter .... I hope Google expands it soon.

[Rodney]

My point is just that not everyone thinks it's junk and not all customers think it is cheesy.

So if Google filtered it out for you (or me),then it could be costing other publishers well deserved money based on someone's personal preference.

In every, EVERY single circumstance where I've checked one of these "reward" or "offer" sites that has appeared in my ads - they have been reported as sending at least 100 spams per week to brand new test email addresses that were set up specifically for checking the site out. In some cases, the number was a staggering 400 spams per week all from one "reward" site.

I don't know which sites you checked, but for the ads I've seen, and the companies I've dealt with, there haven't been any reports of spam from the actual reward company.

If they break Google's rules for advertising on adwords, then yes, they should be filtered out globally, but otherwise, I don't want my preferences/spam-definition (or your preferences) pushed on everyone else.

[toomer]

If they break Google's rules for advertising on adwords, then yes, they should be filtered out globally, but otherwise, I don't want my preferences/spam-definition (or your preferences) pushed on everyone else.

I don't think I actually suggested that. I was just trying to state my position and what I do, in my own filter, in response to the OP's question about whether or not it's a good idea for him to filter out these programs.

[abbeyvet]

there haven't been any reports of spam from the actual reward company

Whether it comes from the actual reward company or not is irrelevant if it comes as a direct result of signing up for the reward.

In the minds of most people they look cheesy, are cheesy and make the place they appear seem cheesy. Unless your site is of the kind you want and expect users to visit once and once only, then in 99% of cases filtering these ads is to your benefit, if not in short term revenue terms then in the long term.