Forum Moderators: martinibuster
For example, if ads from your site do not meet a conversion threshold on the advertisers site (perhaps compared to other publishers with the same ad) you will be dropped.
Would this be a good thing? Would it increase the value of adsense and therefore increase average EPC to those who are left?
It seems like Smart Pricing is only the first step.. Or perhaps eventually they will "tighten the screws" slowly on the Smart Pricing Algo which will keep lowering the EPC of non-converting ads which will have the same effect.
I don't think Google will do this. It's more trouble than it's worth. It's better for Google to keep conversion as an advertiser risk - if the ads don't convert, the advertiser can either modify her site or modify the advert or stop buying adverts.
If the advertiser has conversion tracking on their site and (however they define it) ads from your adsense publisher site convert at a much lower rate than ads from another adsense publisher site (all going to the same advertiser) wouldn't it be reasonable to drop the low performing site from that advertiser's campaign? And if your site does not convert for anyone, drop it from the program?
...or stop buying adverts.
Precisely....In the traditional advertising marketplace, advertisers would drop ads in the magazines which are not successful for them, and keep the ones that are. Magazine advertising would not be as valulable if the only option for the advertister were ALL magazines or NONE. (as it is in adsense). By letting the marketplace *remove* the less successful *magazines* (i.e. adsense publishers) from the system (or at least from some advertiser's campaigns) then the value of adsense as a program will increase.
One logical outcome of Smart Pricing and Conversion tracking is to use conversion as a benchmark for continued Adsense participation.
For example, if ads from your site do not meet a conversion threshold on the advertisers site (perhaps compared to other publishers with the same ad) you will be dropped.
Maybe, but if used conversion as grounds for dumping an account, they'd probably need to eliminate most of their "premium partners." :-)
If Google wanted to set a minimum level of anything, profit would work better than conversion rate--at least from Google's point of view. Conversion is mainly of interest to advertisers, and Google has already addressed that issue (albeit imperfectly) with the new variable-pricing scheme.
In the traditional advertising marketplace, advertisers would drop ads in the magazines which are not successful for them, and keep the ones that are. Magazine advertising would not be as valulable if the only option for the advertister were ALL magazines or NONE. (as it is in adsense). By letting the marketplace *remove* the less successful *magazines* (i.e. adsense publishers) from the system (or at least from some advertiser's campaigns) then the value of adsense as a program will increase.
Better advertiser controls would certainly make AdSense more viable over the long haul. But if you trurly want the marketplace to remove the less successful publishers, you can't rely on an algorithm--you've got to let the marketplace (i.e., the advertisers) do the job.
you can't rely on an algorithm--you've got to let the marketplace (i.e., the advertisers) do the job.
How can they in this venue? I cannot 'deselect' publisher sites, I have 2 options: adsense-ON or adsense-OFF.
I don't think we have a choice here anyway. Google is an engineering company and it is *precisely* their philosophy to rely on an algo. Besides it is not possible (nor in *anyone's* interests) to manually 'vet' each publisher's site.
....Google has already addressed that issue (albeit imperfectly) with the new variable-pricing scheme.
my real suspicion is that this point is moot. I suspect that G will slowly tighten the screws continually lowering the EPC of sites which do not produce conversions. In time effectively removing publisher sites (or EPC of $0) which produce less conversions for the advertiser.
How can they in this venue? I cannot 'deselect' publisher sites, I have 2 options: adsense-ON or adsense-OFF.
Yes, I know. That really needs to change.
I don't think we have a choice here anyway. Google is an engineering company and it is *precisely* their philosophy to rely on an algo. Besides it is not possible (nor in *anyone's* interests) to manually 'vet' each publisher's site.
Well, you were the guy who used the magazine analogy and talked about letting the marketplace decide. :-)
Yes, I know. That really needs to change.
I hope it does...otherwise I fear it will be ADSENSE-OFF.
Google WANTS to have the widest distribution network possible. A site that might start slow, yet improve and even become a star down the road. I think we just the tip of the iceberg, as just a few sectors of the economy have joined online advertising / ecommerce.
Given the number of sites involved in Adsense, I don't think it's realistic to let advertisers hand-pick sites to exclude or include. Just like it's not realistic to have publishers exclude advertisers by URL.
The variable-payout-% sortof takes care of that, if a site-owner doesn't mind getting paid pennies per click, he can stay with the program.
Off topic: Btw, as far as I can tell, Google is very far ahead of competition, in all services it's involved in, practically a monopoly. Although I've personally always had benefits from Google all those years, as an Internet user and a webmaster, the thought of all this power in just ONE place is a bit scary.
Google WANTS to have the widest distribution network possible.
only if it is profitable. More value for advertisers = more profits....
A site that might start slow, yet improve and even become a star down the road.
Time Is Money. (*My* money in fact!)
As an advertiser, I lose words which are not profitable for G (after a period of time to refine my ads etc). It should be no different here....
....the thought of all this power in just ONE place is a bit scary.
Don't worry, that will change. Adam Smith will see to that!
We don't know this.
We do know that they changed the pricing structure to adjust epc based on the expected value of the click.
They stated that there were a number of factors used to determine this.
It is a speculation that Adwords conversion tracking is one of the factors. It is far from certain that it is the only factor.
Based on the info Google shared with us, the valuation are done based on the content of the page the ad is displayed on, and not the site.
Don't worry, that will change. Adam Smith will see to that!
Good answer!
One thing we should keep in mind is that a monopoly is not necessarily in a position to abuse its customers. As long as there is nothing inherently keeping competitors from starting up, the threat of competition can keep the monopoly-holder from abuse.
We run into trouble when some entity, often government, protects a monopoly. The railroad monopolies that led the US to enact anti-trust laws were able to abuse customers because of the unfair advantage Congress had given them decades earlier -- huge land grants. Potential competitors weren't going to get those grants, so would have to spend large amounts of money to get rights to lay rails -- effectively protecting the monopolistic position of those earlier railroads.
Google has no such protection. Within months or even weeks of the time that many customers feel abused a competitor will emerge.
...It is a speculation that Adwords conversion tracking is one of the factors. It is far from certain that it is the only factor.
what better way is there to evaluate the 'value' of a click than what ever price the advertiser is willing to pay? If the ROI (for the advertister) goes up they will be willing to pay more, and conversely less.....
For most advertisers conversions (either $$ or page views for branding) have everything do with that.
How else could it *poissibly* be measured?
IMO G offers conversion tracking *precisely* because they need the data! For evaluating performance.
Based on the info Google shared with us, the valuation are done based on the content of the page the ad is displayed on, and not the site.
Yes, that's what they told us, but it's likely that conversion statistics were taken into account when values were assigned to different types of content.
Some people think conversion tracking is being done at the site level, but I'm a little skeptical if only because the conversion rate of clicks from different types of content on a given site (e.g., articles and forums) might vary more than the conversion rate between the same type of content on different sites.
IMO G offers conversion tracking *precisely* because they need the data! For evaluating performance.
Any estimate on how many advertisers actually USE the conversion tracking feature?
It is a good feature.
