Forum Moderators: martinibuster
What do you think of this: Based on our experience we know that it is possible to increase a publisher's CTR by putting the ads in the correct spot and making them appear more attractive for users. The question, however is, does a higher CTR automatically translate into a higher conversion rate for the advertiser? After all, the advertiser is the one who pays for the clicks but they don't want clicks, they want conversions. So, while a higher CTR might a good for the publisher for a short period, the big question is whether is means a higher value to the advertiser in the long run. What are your thoughts on this?
In abusive cases like that, the user clicks in desperation, not because of some legitimate interest. You'll get a handful of people in these forums defending their approach like this saying they are legit clicks but while they might meet the narrow definitions of the Google TOS, any more honest analysis would no doubt reveal that web users were partially tricked into clicking.
I don't know about you, but when I see a page with just ads and no real content, I have many options to get off a page than to click "out of desperation"
(1) google toolbar search
(2) address bar direct address
(3) close the window
(4) hit the back button
I would say that most people would choose option 4 rather than clicking an ad if they are so desperate to get off the page.
Personally, I have NEVER clicked an ad on a scraper site and I would NEVER do it out of desperation. That's just ridiculous. People who click ads do it for (mainly) 2 reasons.
(1) accidental (click by mistake or ad was disguised)
(2) they are truely interested in the ad
People don't click on ads just to get off a page...the way it is put, "out of desperation", implies an "anywhere but here" attitude from the visitor... which I don't think happens.
Edit: back on the topic... I have recently moved my ads around and increased CTR by about 50%. I put the 336x280 ad within the content as so many have suggested. It was a 468x60 banner before. Even with increase in CTR, earnings are flat. I am getting many more clicks but EPC fell through the floor.
...any more honest analysis would no doubt reveal that web users were partially tricked into clicking.
You mean like Google's or Yahoo's premium ads position in their search results?
The question, however is, does a higher CTR automatically translate into a higher conversion rate for the advertiser?
No. In fact, it's likely to mean a lower conversion rate if the clicking occurs because the ad has been disguised as editorial content. A good example of this would be a scraper site where the top half of the page consists of three large borderless AdSense rectangles that have been blended into the page background. The real content (such as it is) is displayed "below the fold," making the ads look like search results to clueless users.
You mean like Google's or Yahoo's premium ads position in their search results?
Unlike the scraper crowd, Google and Yahoo display their premium search ads against colored backgrounds that contrast with the organic search results beneath. And they don't bury their organic search results "below the fold" under 15 ads.
Unlike the scraper crowd, Google and Yahoo display their premium search ads against colored backgrounds that contrast with the organic search results beneath. And they don't bury their organic search results "below the fold" under 15 ads.
This is not true if you run Google Search on your site. When I had it on my blog, users saw four advertiser results from Google on a white background before results from my site were listed. Yes, there is a slender black border around the adds, but if you are viewing at less than 1072x768, the content links are below the fold. I know from the CTR that a lot of visitors were tricked into clicking those ads. So, Google leads by example there...
Even in G's regular search engine results, "sponsored link" is way over to the right side of the top result where most people probably wouldn't notice it. You and I might know colored background = advertisement, but I am sure there are a lot of people out there who don't.
I don't necessarily think a high CTR means a bad conversion for advertisers, if the ads are prominently displayed and obviously ads. If people are tricked into clicking it would certainly be a different story. But Google doesn't seem to worry too much about it...
But Google doesn't seem to worry too much about it...
I won't argue with that.
When a surfer clicks on a link, (paid or not) they do so because they are interested in the (product/info) in that link.
I think you'll find that not all AdWords advertisers share that point of view. (Quite a few of them have posted in this forum and the AdSense forum.)
IMHO, if more publishers tried to take the advertiser's point of view instead of being greedy, we wouldn't see so many "my EPC is dropping" and "I'm not seeing targeted ads" threads.
1. Petra was correct... advertisers want visitors to click on their ads and pay people to write the "eye catching" clickable content ads. The challenge is advertisers want people to "buy" ...not just click. Advertisers are responsible for what people see of their ad and also the website they are respresenting.
My biggest challenge is that some ads don't accurately describe where the visitor land! ( Some do of course) Advertisers may sometimes point the finger at the content network for lack of sales. You know the saying, "One finger pointed at me makes 3 pointing back at you" :)
2. Europe is correct in that adsense publishers can be greedy, which leads to the "scrapper" sites.(Not built for any other useful purpose than to attract adsense $ as described above.
IMHO - I have never been tricked to click anything. I don't think anyone aimlessly "clicks". Even the least internet savve person reads before they click on the most relevent description. If it would say ..."buy widgets" somewhere in the ad content, there would be not mistake. It would sure make sense the person would want more information and click if they were looking to buy.
That is why it says.... Ads by Gooooogle :)
Is a big CTR good for the advertiser?It would seem to be all in the numbers (with mulitple variables of course), but basically yes. I would think it is better for the advertisers once they know their conversion ratio, then they can adjust as needed to hit their target.
The simplified version of course :)
When I check ads using my AdSense preview some advertisers have an excellent landing page showing exactly what the ad told about but others are terrible.
All too often I follow an ad that looks like it would be really interesting to my site visitors and I can't find the product anywhere. I guess the idea is to get people to search the whole site but I can't believe this converts very well.
So it's not always the publisher's fault that an ad converts poorly.
Again, not all customers purchase right away sometimes they click to view and learn about a product or even to compare and its our job as publishers to place the ads in the spots and manner that will catch their attention. I'm an adwords customer as well as an adsense publisher and I can tell you I do not mind if people clicked on my ads out of interest, even if they do not purchase.
That's a reasonable attitude if you're selling a product of interest to anyone, such as computer memory or commodity hotel rooms. But for many products and services, advertisers want qualified leads. That's why camera dealers advertise in POPULAR PHOTOGRAPHY, vendors of sportscar accessories advertise in ROAD & TRACK, and offshore banks for rich investors advertise in THE WALL STREET JOURNAL.
The problem with scraper sites, from an educated advertiser's point of view, isn't just that such sites taint the advertiser's brand image. An even bigger problem is that no value is added by the scraper site. There's no "preselling," as there would be in a positive product review that generated a click, and there's no "prequalifying," as there would be if the page were on a special-interest site. The scraper page is, at best, a tarnished mirror of the SERP where the user found it.
Google loves algorithmic solutions to problems, even when they don't make sense. This one would be easy: if there are no other links on the page, display PSAs.
That being said, as long as the page has other links in prominent locations it's the advertiser's responsibility to convert the traffic by:
1 - Writing clear, accurate ad copy that describes exactly what the visitor will find on the landing page.
2 - Providing a landing page that offers a compelling reason to purchase the item or service.
Depending on the format of the ad block, the visitor has anywhere from 2 to 5 link options, not including the other links on the page. If he/she decides to click on one AdSense ad over all the other links then by default there is a certain amount of interest. It's the advertiser's responsibility at that point to close the deal. Of course not every click will result in a conversion. That is the way it is in the world of advertising.
My own AdWords ads convert extremely well under all but the poorest conditions. Why? Because I write ads that people want to click if they're even remotely interested in my products, and my landing pages make a compelling case as to why they need to buy my products, from ME.
Depending on the format of the ad block, the visitor has anywhere from 2 to 5 link options, not including the other links on the page.
Google allows multiple ad units, which can be stacked so that only ads are displayed "above the fold" on the typical user's screen. This is a common ploy on scraper sites.
(One can argue that Google has been irresponsible in permitting multiple ad units and borderless ads that blend into the background of the page, but that's a separate topic.)
Google allows multiple ad units, which can be stacked so that only ads are displayed "above the fold" on the typical user's screen. This is a common ploy on scraper sites.
True, and just a cursory glance at that page would let an advertiser know right away that paying for clicks from that page wouldn't be a wise investment. Opt-out. We're done. All Google needs to do is give advertisers that option, then "smart pricing" will implement itself in a way that truly works.
But apparently it's better short-term from the investor's stand-point for Google to use the smoke and mirrors that is the current implementation of "smart pricing". Very poor decision long-term.
True, and just a cursory glance at that page would let an advertiser know right away that paying for clicks from that page wouldn't be a wise investment. Opt-out. We're done. All Google needs to do is give advertisers that option,
I agree that "opt out" by domain would be a useful option for advertisers, but I don't think it would work as a replacement for smart pricing. Playing whack-a-mole with the automated site-generation software crowd would be a full-time job.
I agree that "opt out" by domain would be a useful option for advertisers, but I don't think it would work as a replacement for smart pricing.
But it's a system that would work exceptionally well most of the time. Contrast that with "smart pricing", a program that works very poorly most of the time.
It simply makes no sense to keep such a flawed program in place primarily to pad the profits of investors at the expense of good publishers, especially with the contextual advertising wars getting ready to heat up.
A year or so ago I purchased several sites that had great domain names and received decent traffic but had very poor content (in a couple of cases almost non-existant). My plan was to revamp the sites with lots of high-quality useful content and THEN monetize the traffic. I never got to that point.
I placed AdSense on the sites just to earn a few bucks until I got around to rebuilding the sites. Guess what? The EPC on all but three of them was through the roof. Not being one to tinker with success, I just left them alone. To this day they enjoy a very high EPC that has actually increased under "smart pricing" on a couple of them.
These are very poor sites. I certainly wouldn't want my ads on them. But "smart pricing" seems to love them.
On the other hand, I have two very high quality sites that receive one-way links on a regular basis because of the tech content on them. I have AdWords advertisers contacting me directly from time to time seeking page sponsorship deals so I know the clicks convert well. Guess what? The EPC has dropped 77% and 64% on them since the introduction of "smart pricing". I finally just dropped AdSense from those sites altogether.
One of those sites currently earns more from a page sponsorship by a major ADWORDS ADVERTISER on just a relative handful of pages (160) than the entire site used to earn from AdSense.
Google has lost out with my sites, and I would venture to guess that I'm not alone in this experience since my sites cover a wide range of topics and niches.
There is a serious problem with "smart pricing" when "trash" sites consistently outperform top-tier sites with AdSense EPC. If you think about the system and the way it's currently implemented it's really pretty easy to see why.
Could you please explain briefly how your CTR and SmartPricing are related to each other? Am I right in assuming that if a publisher's CTR increases, the SmartPrcing system kicks in to ajust the payout (CPM) for that particular publisher?
The purpose of smart pricing is to grant variable discounts to advertisers based on the likelihood of whether content will convert. In other words, it's something that happens on the advertiser side, not on the publisher side.
IMHO, the best solution (along with advertiser controls) would be to have subcategories of manually vetted sites in addition to the current run-of-network or lowest-common-denominator setup. It might not be practical for advertisers to play whack-a-mole with every scraper site out there, but it wouldn't be that hard for them to set default combinations of the types of "quality-approved" sites and pages they wanted their ads to run on, e.g.:
[ ] Editorial
[ ] E-commerce and affiliate
[ ] Forums and blogs
[ ] Directories
TYPE OF CONTENT
[ ] All pages
[ ] Content pages only
[ ] Search results only
(These are very rough and incomplete examples; they aren't meant to be a specific proposal.)
I think your entire last post is correct. I have no beef with Google trying to provide a good ROI for advertisers. I'm a very active advertiser myself abd I make a good deal more from direct sales and affiliate programs than I make from AdSense, and I'm very happy with that. I just believe, based on my own experience, that smart pricing in its current state is bad for publishers, Google, AND advertisers long-term. Here's why:
1 - It drives good publishers with quality sites to other programs and away from AdSense when their earnings plummet for no apparent reason. This in turn effectively removes AdSense as a viable revenue generator for those publishers.
2 - This ultimately reduces the number of quality sites that are available for advertisers to get their ads on.
3 - Google will ultimately lose publishers, advertisers and market share to future competitors. This is inevitable of course since some will jump ship anyway, but smart pricing will surely exacerbate the problem.
Ultimate effect: Google shareholders lose money. Short-term fixes rarely end up benefiting shareholders in the long run, especially when they are so poorly implemented.
Smart, experienced publishers and advertisers will do fine regardless of what Google does. It's really Google that loses the most in the end.
