Forum Moderators: martinibuster
For example, a click on an ad for digital cameras on a web page about photography tips may be worth less than a click on the same ad appearing next to a review of digital cameras.
[edited by: markus007 at 8:08 pm (utc) on April 1, 2004]
To give an example, whereas previously I would hypothetically make $120 for 300,000 impressions a day, now I'm pulling in about $80 (those figures are just examples, not real).
This hurts a lot. I understand why Google is doing this but I am now very much interested in hearing what Google's competitors will have to offer if and when they do appear.
[edited by: jackti at 7:31 pm (utc) on April 4, 2004]
If this happens who will provide the "bargin" rates to advertisers/adwords users? If only the guys that are seeing increased revenue (and they seem to be in the minority) remain, won't adwords get more expensive?
Google can experiment on us now, but competition is getting stronger, and I for one welcome it! I believe this will backfire on Google in a big way if they do not make radical changes quickly... I think most being hurt will give it a month, no more.
Looking across the board mostly we all lose big time, which brings something to mind:
Was the new targeting technology exercise just an excuse to smooth out the real cut in publishers revenues?
To be honest, I feel that I should fault Google if they're saying my website isn't providing good leads and are lowering my revenue accordingly. My site is browsed by a few hundred thousand people a day and I can't believe that none of them are truly interested in the products that are being advertised. If people are interested and are clicking through the ads to the websites and not liking what they see, then Google is simply targetting the ads AND/OR the advertisers' websites incorrectly. I don't see why I should be punished for that. Not that I think the adwords people should pay much for a non-interested click either - but again, if Google matched up the ads AND the advertisers' website better that wouldn't be an issue.
On another subject... targeting... I placed a 7 word blurb about an apple ipod contest on my webmasters resource site (you know, typical domain name regi, articles, etc, for webmasters) which contains hundreds of words about domains and webmastering and such... yet now all my adsense ads are about apple ipods, which is obviously NOT the general theme of my site.
that's not a bad idea, but how - and why should google listen?
Remember the "related search" thread in August last year?...
[webmasterworld.com...]
Google dropped that "feature" after numerous complaints on this forum.
Perhaps the best way to "cry out" will be the changes that we publishers make to our sites as a result of the new adsense.
Also, I do not believe that the adword advertisers are seeing more "targeted" or "quality" results as the changes. This will help as well.
Personally, I understand what Google is trying to do, and it makes sense. The problem is, they missed the mark big time. I could be wrong, and perhaps the changes were meant specifially to line their pockets, in which case I believe they have been very successful... for the short term.
Even if the problems we are experiencing are fixed, I believe Microsoft solution will get a much warmer reception from publishers who have been burnt by this experience than they would have previously.
Looking across the board mostly we all lose big time, which brings something to mind:
Was the new targeting technology exercise just an excuse to smooth out the real cut in publishers revenues?
No, because lower click prices for advertisers mean lower revenues for publishers and for Google.
Just as Google's search algorithm changes over time, the Google "content ad" algorithm will continue to evolve and--with luck--improve. Better targeting, higher conversion rates, and improved value for advertisers should translate into more advertisers buying more ads in more niches as time goes by.
For publishers, things to hope for include:
1) Upward pressure on bids as more advertisers get comfortable with the idea of "content ads."
2) More targeted ads on keywords or keyphrases that aren't yet attracting advertisers. More ads on more keywords/keyphrases = more opportunities for revenues on editorially diverse sites.
3) A better match between click price and actual value as Google refines what may now be a rather primitive discounting formula.
In looking at my own site, I can see many pages where improved targeting and--just as important--more advertisers would result in higher revenues for me and for Google. I think Google wants to fill those revenue gaps just as much as I do. And as much as I dislike seeing my EPC and revenues take a hit in the short term, I'm willing to concede that changes were necessary to make content ads more attractive to advertisers--especially with an increased pool of clicks from gmail, DomainPark, high-traffic/non-niche premium sites, etc. watering down conversion rates and ROI.
What I'd really like to see is a way for advertisers to opt in or out of specific sites. The variable-pricing scheme may be a step in the right direction, but some advertisers will inevitably feel that non-converting traffic is as worthless at two, three, or four cents a click as it is at five cents a click.
Hopefully Google will respond to publisher concerns with some kind of corrective action. Or are they trying to make the above Yahoo bombing seem true?
Actually, it's number two on Google now too:
[google.com...]
CTR: down 19%
EPC: down 24%
CPM: down 39%
I am an extremely niche site - the only sizable one in this field - and Google was doing quite fine with finding paying advertisers up until the end of March.
Google, Web search's top dog, is changing its ad service to offer discounts to some shortchanged advertisers while goosing relevancy for publishing partners. It said Thursday that it now monitors ad performance on its publishing partners' Web sites, which display Google's text-based ads amid their own content. Google can track how many sales, or "conversions," result from the ads. If they're not up to snuff, it plans to reduce the per-click fees it charges those marketers.
"Our technology looks at signals to determine which pages convert more than others," said Salar Kamangar, Google's director of product management. "We'll charge people less when they convert less well." An e-mail Google sent Thursday warned its partners that ad revenues could drop or rise, depending on convergence rates. It said the changes should also make ads more relevant.
[news.com.com...]
especially with an increased pool of clicks from gmail, DomainPark, ...
Perhaps I am misunderstanding but ... wasn't the whole point of this change to IMPROVE the CTR?
Damn, first Google, then Austin, then SiteMatch, and now this. How the hell are we suppose to keep our businesses running. The SEs just don't seem to have much respect for webmasters these days - we're just pawns in their powerplay.
And this site was a known "relevant" site.
Well it was if you define one indicator of "relevance" as getting actual e-mails from lots of visitors, asking for the product the old (pre-"improvement") AdSense advertisers were offering. I think someone taking the time to sit down and bang out an e-mail is about the best relevance indicator you can find short of making an actual sale, correct me if I'm wrong.
Pages load faster now too.
Thanks.
What are our alternatives? Does Overture presently offer a text ad product similar to AdSense? I can't afford to let this die on the vine; I need a solution asap.
[google.com...]
I think it will be important that we speak out, not just for this but for future changes as well. We moved helped to move a mountain after the Florida update - let's see if we can move another one.
As an Adwords advertiser (until today), I never gave Google any conversion data, nor based on the Adwords Forum threads, have many.
This was Google grabbing the difference in your missing revenue and ending the Adsense program as we knew it.
It was a great nine months.
This form has always worked for me. Although they seem to get slower in their response (last was one week), i'd say it's worth to send them a message using your AS account. Like with Spam reports it's important to send them a detailed, constructive, non-emotional message and explain them what's the problem FOR YOU - stick to the facts!
As soon as i have evidence of a loss in revenue, i'll send them my detailed message.
CTR is now up by 50% and revenue up by around 20%.
Its early days yet, obviously, but based on 'feel' rather than statiscally relevant analysis, it looks like the peaks and troughs have been ironed out - presumably a result of better targeting for my themes.
Obviously, it depends on your 'theme', but so far I am unexpectedly pleasantly surprised.
Guess its 'swings and roundabouts', but my main areas are doing OK.
Without the collaboration from individual site owners, there's no way that Google can track sales conversions at a destination site, since A) they can't track beyond the click and B) even if they somehow found a way around that, they don't know which page(s) are "thank you" post-purchase/post-signup/post-join pages.
So Google may be sheltering behind a sorta-kinda true statement (in that they may be using the conversion data from the 1% or however many sites have set up full tracking) but it's not THE reason why the adsense program has stopped paying out.
Similarly, it may be that some advertisers are getting ads more cheaply, but it's intriguing that we are hearing many, many negative Adsense stories but no more than a handful (and a small one at that) of positive Adwords stories. So again, it's the truth, nothing but the truth, but not the whole truth...
They're basically guilty of the fallacy of insignificant cause: "The object or event identified as the cause of an effect is a genuine cause, but insignificant when compared to the other causes of that event."
Gosh, any one see aything wrong with them using this data as they are? When I implemented the tracker I thought it was solely for *MY* benefit. I heard recently that they're now tracking (via cookie) everything that you click on when doing a search. Makes me nervous to think what that information will now be used for since they've clearly shown a pattern now of stealth use of their data. :-\
