Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 184.108.40.206
Personally, I'd rather take less of a payout per action, with more assurances that the service will survive because it is less prone to fraud, than take higher payout per click with the risk of cancellation of my account or even the entire service because it became too difficult to police for fraud.
If I want to promote affiliate programs, I'll do it my way -- in fact I already do, with considerable success. But I frankly don't believe Google can add any value in that space.
As far as PPA model is concerned I am not interested. Too much dependency on the advertisers to actually close a sale or other option. Personally like to control my own fate not leave it to others to close out the opportunity for me to get paid. Have discussed this before and still of the opinion I display ads only....sell space to the highest bidder. If I wanted to rely on others would expand my own current ecommerce efforts rather than give others free advertising space.
good for the advertisers.
from my experience in showing ads on the content network it was a complete waste of time and money. not saying this applies to all advertisers, as people still run them.
if this came along i would be back on board, and would be willing to pay 10-20 times more easily
IMO, that's the only way CPA could work in the Google system.
Every day I find another merchant who has "forgotten" to add the tracking code to his updated pages. I don't find that on the smaller networks with only a few hundred well-policed merchants on them.
A huge CPA network run on the level Google would probably want to do it would fail on both sides whether they chose to do both or not:
1. As has been mentioned already, "sucessfully" policing the hundreds of thousands of affiliates that would be signed up to the program would simply be impossible so the level of spam/fraud/mfas/cloaking/hijacking would be a hundred times worse because they don't just have to get the click, they have to get the sale which always leads to liability/sueable conduct. Currently I get a "we're suing you" letter about once a month and I'm clean (hence why none have ever succeeded) I don't think Google could handle the headaches and bad press ... unless they bought up some media outlets ...
2. Policing merchants themselves will be even harder. It's easy to make them pay for a click, but if Google's money depends on that merchant processing the sale/lead successfully and converting that lead in the first place there is absolutely no way that they would be earning more money than the clicks.
I think Google are just trying to corner another market that they are left out of i.e. people who refuse to pay per click due to the amount of fraud. Unfortunately (maybe fortunately) I don't think Google would be able to control such a function on a large scale. CJ has only a few thousand merchants and there is no end to the list of complaints against them. Imagine a CJ with quadruple the amount of merchants .... oooooh .... I didn't like that thought - here you go Fido, you can have the rest of this, I've lost my appetitite ...
[edited by: internetheaven at 6:18 pm (utc) on June 21, 2006]
The tables are finally turning. I'm sick of being an merchant in the adwords program thinking to myself, there's too much dependency on the publisher to actually drive decent clicks.
As a publisher, I won't disagree with your statement above. But also as a publisher, I will not use CPA if its not an effective means of monetizing my content.
I say we all meet in the middle with the CPM model. IMHO, its the easiest way to find a middle ground between advertiser and publisher.
I'd especially love to see how Google is going to establish a baseline for new CPA campaigns when for all they know the conversion rate will be 0.0%.
I'll give them the benefit of the doubt right up until they roll out a finished product and don't give publishers any way to opt out. Maybe they'll come up with an industry-defining paradigm for managing CPA campaigns, but I'm skeptical.