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]
I launched a new site, ~100 pages or so, a couple of weeks ago and I regularly called in to see the type of Adsense ads being served. They were fairly relevant to the site as a whole, but not particularly relevant to that page's content.
Today however ads are spot on relevant for the first time on each individual page, but its too early to say what £difference if any I'm going to see.
(coincidence? today is the first day of google traffic to this new site too).
DoU
ASA, I hope the media bot will play a big roll in this new system. The regular Googlebot isn't crawling our sites as much as it use to. It seems like media bot is visiting all pages as soon as someone visits them. Please don't take this the wrong way, but some of us get traffic to pages that Googlebot has not crawled, but other SE's have. The only way those pages can serve up the correct advertisements is for media bot to play a big roll within indexing a page.
#1 Priority is to ensure that media bot is crawling correctly.
#2 - Wouldn't it be nice if media bot then fed GoogleBot the page so it could crawl it?
MQ
but newsletters and any mail sent via to and from GMAIL will include adsense advertising...
Incoming, outgoing or both?
Meanwhile spammer with adsense account decides to send mass mailing and calls it a newsletter out re cruises ( just buys list off the net ) and includes adsense code , now poor old joe public gets this unsolliceted email and sees cruise line advert so over period of time associates the cruise line with spam so has negative view of cruise line and any other adds seen on net for cruise line
That scenario has nothing to do with gmail. With gmail, any ad revenues go to Google, not to AdSense publishers.
[edited by: europeforvisitors at 3:03 pm (utc) on April 2, 2004]
Here's a snapshot posted in another thread.
[adwords.google.com...]
IMHO, Google's variable pricing is similar to what has existed in traditional online advertising (and offline advertising, for that matter) for a long, long time. Back in 1997 or 1998, AOL's rate card showed CPMs of $15 or so for chat rooms and $65 for targeted search results, and at one point About.com (then called The Mining Company) was claiming CPMs in excess of $100 for ads on some of its medical guidesites at the same time that it was selling general chat ads for $10 per thousand. Similarly, if an advertiser wants to buy space in the NEW YORK TIMES Travel Section, it will pay a different amount than it would for a general untargeted newspaper ad. With variable PPC, Google is just doing what other media have done all along.
There is one big difference, which is a lack of transparency for both advertisers and publishers, and a lack of choice of channel for advertisers.
MQ
There is one big difference, which is a lack of transparency for both advertisers and publishers, and a lack of choice of channel for advertisers.
Sure, but that's in the nature of the beast--"the beast" meaning "ad networks."
I'd love to see advertisers have the ability to include or exclude specific sites. Still, the new variable pricing is an improvement over the "one bid fits all" model that AdWords/AdSense advertisers have had to accept in the past. It should make advertisers more comfortable with the idea of content ads, and in the long run, it should benefit publishers who deliver quality content and audiences.
Sure, but that's in the nature of the beast--"the beast" meaning "ad networks."
This is true for many, but, if Google wants me to ever run my Adwords on content sites, I must have more choice in where they run. For now, the box remains unchecked.
The changes implemented yesterday are not enough, as there's absolutely no way to measure them. If I can't measure an ad, I won't run it.
MQ
Fortunately for Google and publishers, not all advertisers share your fears. :-) I routinely see ads for airlines, cruise lines, tour companies, and other major vendors on my own site, and many of those advertisers have made regular appearances for months. IMHO, we're likely to see even more competition for "content ad" space with the new variable-pricing scheme.
Today's revenue is *way* below average. Traffic and CTR are normal, but EPC is way, way down. EPC appears to be dropping with each report update as I tracked it throughout this morning. Site is large enough and has enough traffic that numbers are statistically valid.
It would be interesting to know if anyone here is experiencing a jump in EPC or revenue that cannot be attributed to any other factors, such as increased traffic or CTR. For every one of us losing revenue, another person should see a gain (in theory).
AdWords advertisers who are not currently bidding on content partner sites are highly unlikely to bid on the network in a meaningful way in the future.
By charging at that windmill, Google is losing a lot of money both for itself and its partners.
I am experiencing a serious jump in EPC that cannot be attributed to anything other than this change. At first I was concerned because most of my relevent ads had disappeared. That was yesterday afternoon. By last night (11 P.M. CST) the "good" ads were back.
I checked my figures this morning and yesterday's EPC was up 60% (though my CTR was way down because of the irrelevent ads). Today's EPC, though not really valid yet because very little data has been posted, shows my EPC up almost 300%.
I've always thought that my site, which is a highly targeted niche site, should provide great ROI for the AdWords advertisers. I just assumed that the EPC I was getting was all that could be afforded by the advertisers. If ROI is now coming into play more, I really believe that is why my EPC is up.
Perhaps those sites now experiencing lower EPC were not doing well from the ROI perspective? It's way too early to know that for sure, though, and that still doesn't explain why the sudden surge of unrelated ads. Thank goodness that cleared up.
I sure hope things continue to improve... here's hoping.
Glad to hear that you are getting more EPC than before. It's only fair that for those that lose revenue that someone else makes more. Otherwise, it would lead to the hopefully erroneous conclusion that Google is keeping more of the pie.
Naturally, it's too early to really tell how things are going to play out. I suspect that the pendulum will swing back a bit before it's over (i.e., high EPC sites will see a slight drop in EPC, those of us who got slammed will see a corresponding increase in EPC).
Unfortunately I also suspect it's too late for most advertisers who dropped content ads; they are unlikely to return once they feel they have been "burned". Hopefully I am wrong here.
After a couple of days we should start seeing post-apocalypse^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hchange channel data in our reports. That well help publishers who are using channels to better determine which sites are more "relevant".
I can't help but feel that Google had no choice in doing this: publishers had all but determined the % share they were getting, and through the recent Javascript code posted here (and later made somewhat redundant by Google's report additions), we were getting more and more refined data on how best to maximize revenues. While not all bad, it can lead to cheating but those less honest publishers.
Now with the "relevancy" variable, which is pretty subjective, us mushrooms are back in the dark again :)
This may have been mentioned here before, but a totally "open-source" system would be great. Or perhaps an auction-type system for both publishers and advertisers.
Just thinking out loud at this point, so I'll stop....
I too need to see other advertising options...
AdWords advertisers who are not currently bidding on content partner sites are highly unlikely to bid on the network in a meaningful way in the future.
I disagree, but in any case, whether current AdWords advertisers choose to use AdSense isn't all that important. PPC in general and AdSense in particular are still in their infancy, compared to other online and offline advertising media, and the real future for content ads is with traditional mainstream advertisers who are used to paying outrageous prices for leads via advertising or direct mail. By offering click pricing that's based on media type (and possibly audience) and not just on keywords, Google is making content ads more attractive to a much larger pool of advertisers.
My understanding is that the cost of a click for an advertiser can at best be what it was before. Or adjusted down.
The only way the changes can benefit the publisher is either by making the whole AdSense model more sustainable from the advertiser perspective.
Or if better targeted ads raise CTR or carry a higher per click price than the ads shown before on your site.
If you get the same ads as before the changes, you can at best keep the same earnings, or lose revenue.
According to Clickz, "Adjustments will only lower, not raise, the amount paid by the advertiser"
[clickz.com...]
?
My understanding is that the cost of a click for an advertiser can at best be what it was before. Or adjusted down.
This is my understanding also.
I also think that what was implemented yesterday was a pricing adjustment algo "nothing more". The fact that ad targetting was thrown into the whole thing is to appease the publishers and public relations.
The targeting is something ongoing, which should in theory only get better.
The only way that Google can determine ROI will be by looking at the values placed on the keywords and content that triggered the ad. While I do think that they have access to conversion data, I very much doubt that they have access to conversion data for all industries.
I think that the CPC that an advertiser can pay for an ad in the contextual side of adwords has a ceiling {determined by the amount that the same ad can be charged in a SERP adword ad} and can only be diminished by the combinations of words and concepts that triggered the ad in the publishers page.
I respectfully submit that Google does not know what the ROI is. I will also state that a lot of advertisers do not know what their ROI is and some are running their campaigns with a negative one.
Only time will tell <- If we had signatures, I would have added this to mine :)
My understanding is that the cost of a click for an advertiser can at best be what it was before. Or adjusted down.
That's true only if you're talking about one moment in time (now), because PPC rates are fluid, not fixed.
Upward adjustments will come in the form of higher bids. If advertisers know that $1 or $5 is only a maximum for quality leads, and that their adverage rate per click will be lower than that, they can justify higher bids.
IMHO, Google's new variable-pricing scheme is a practical and necessary alternative to the "one bid fits all" approach that was used before. It frees advertisers to pay for value received, which will mean higher payments for some clicks and lower payments for others. Some publishers will benefit, others will suffer, and others won't feel much impact either way.
Make no mistake: Variable pricing wasn't introduced merely as a discounting scheme. Google is obviously hoping that, by tying click price to click value, the net effect will be to make contextual text ads more appealing to advertisers who are willing to pay high rates for quality leads (just as they do in traditional media).
Upward adjustments will come in the form of higher bids.
We could also argue about the necessity of introducing the new pricing scheme. I guess that would be a judgment call, that nobody in this board has the data to support.
Sorry if I did a faux pas
woop-auto blank out.. guess its not allowed. sorry guys, search your webmaster news channels for more info
This means no more large coffee for me, and definetily no more supersizing the value meal.
Upward adjustments will come in the form of higher bids.Supposedly :)
The market will determine what clicks are worth, but it's likely that maximum bids will climb higher under the new system than they would have done under the old one. (In the short run, however, EPCs and revenues may be depressed in many cases, because it will take a while for the market to respond.)
We could also argue about the necessity of introducing the new pricing scheme. I guess that would be a judgment call, that nobody in this board has the data to support.
No, but I'll bet Google has that data--and that such data was studied exhaustively before the new pricing scheme was announced.
CTR: 25% below March
EPC: 35% below March
CPM: 51% below March
Google records high five figure impressions per day (Google is on about 66% of my site's pages), so this is a statisticly valid sample.
I am getting more and more completely irrelevant ads. For example, if my site was about Apples, it would be giving me ads about raising chickens.
Thanks to them ignoring meta tags, the only way I can get Google to make any sense of my pages (a collection of short fiction and poetry), is to add tons of useless content to the page. For reasons of design and usability, I don't want to do this.
I've tried to get better placement through directly targeting the site through DMOZ. Google doesn't give a rat's fart.
Google AdSense paid Ok, better than most other click though, and their ad format wasn't atrocious, design wise. But their "Targeted Ads" were never all that targeted, except on key nav pages. You should see some of the crap their "intelligent placement" comes up with on a page who's primary content is a short story.
And looking at the site today, it got even worse.
Screw 'em. I'm going to make every title on every page read like:
<title> Review Fiction Review Poetry Review (insert title of work here, with the word "review" between every word) Review books Review Literature Review Steven King Review Michael Crichton Review Amazon Books Review.... etc etc </title>
