Forum Moderators: martinibuster
In goole website does "Ads By google" appear on top in bold, then why in publishers website. Hope other publishers have some thing to say on this.
[edited by: testy at 9:10 am (utc) on Mar. 18, 2005]
If more publisher have a comment on it google might consider publishers suggestions and take some measures.
taken form Jenstars visit to the plex
[webmasterworld.com...]
To quote
Someone brought up Ads by Goooooooooooogle and wanted it back to straight Ads by Google again. They took a show of hands, and it seemed to be evenly split. In my opinion, the extra long Gooooooooogle seems to draw the eye to the ads. And I am convinced they must have done enough testing to know that it increased CTR enough to make it a widespread AdSense feature. So really, I think the best question to ask would be if publishers would be willing to lose some of their CTR % along with those extra oooooooooo’s. Is it the right theory? Some publishers swear their CTR went up the day oooooooooo became standard.
I'm sure the conversion rate of these 'tricked' clicks would be worse than the normal ones, so more and more advertiserts would decide not to advertise on publisher's pages resulting in a loss of income in the long term.
It gives people a wee bit of confidence they can click on the link without 3,245 pr0n site links suddenly popping up on their screen that will never go away.
I see the same font as the link but no bold so I can't see why you are finding this a problem
The CTR for whatever reason, was not as good. At least on my variety of sites and topics.
(1) Search engines have already been in trouble for trying to hide ads in organic SERPS. Ads on publishers pages should be no different. Without that ads by Google there is no telling how publishers will try to hide the ads in content. (The issue is at least four years old [webmasterworld.com...] probably much earlier)
(2) It helps draw more advertisers to the system, which hopefully benefits us all.
(3)The verified by VISA analogy is also good except that I think this is becoming less and less so as the ads become more prolific on garbage sites. Certainly it was true in June of 2003.
I like my ads to stand out as "ads". That way, even if I feature them prominently on a page, the user never gets the feeling that they're being hoodwinked.
Plus, you'll be less likely to get e-mails from people who bought a widget, aren't happy with it, and want to know the address of your returns department. :-)
Also "ads by google" should be at the bottom and not at the top (for all ad formats).
Also "ads by google" should be at the bottom and not at the top (for all ad formats).
Why do you feel it must be uniform?
I don't see a problem with them changing it up some depending on the ad format and what works best.
So I have a few 180x150's to make up for it, 3 of them a little less height than the large skyscraper. but the ads by google takes up too much space. it should realize i have other ads on there and remove all the ads by google and only show one.
You're right. I've gotten emails from people and it was clear that they thought the site and adsense were the same entity.
Well, in the case of traditional print advertising, when it matches the format of the magazine it is placed in so exactly that the ad could not be distinguished from the magazine unless there was an 'Advertising Section' or 'Advertorial' title placed on the edge of the page.
Given that the web is composed of HTML hyperlinks, I would not consider that simple text links should constitute 'matching the format': HTML is simply the medium. The format is more aesthetic graphic and design themes unique to each site.
So, why should Adsense have such a 'Advertising Section' label as 'Ads by Google?
The reason: marketing to other potential webmaster publishers.
They know 38% of internet users can't tell a paid search result from an 'organic' result. They know that a certain amount of people actually do read those plastic-wrapped supermarket flyers with the big glossy meat pictures on the front.
Consumers like to consume the best deals. They are not particularily concerned that advertiser X instead of advertisor Y is communicating to them, they are used to person with the most bucks winning their eyeball time.
My theory is that Google is not intending anything with 'Ads by Google' other than branding themselves and attracting more publishing points, rather than keeping consumers from clicking 'sneaky hyperlinks'.
My theory is that Google is not intending anything with 'Ads by Google' other than branding themselves and attracting more publishing points, rather than keeping consumers from clicking 'sneaky hyperlinks'.
If that were the case, wouldn't the "Ads by Google" link directly to the Google AdSense page?
I'm sure that Google wants to recruit publishers to its network with "Ads by Google," but it also wants to recruit advertisers (without whom the network wouldn't exist).
As for why the links shouldn't be disguised as editorial content, the answer is simple: AdSense advertisers pay by the click, so advertisers are served best when users know what they're clicking. A prospect who knows he's clicking on an ad to get a sales pitch is worth more to the advertiser than a prospect who's clicking on what he thinks may be a navigation link.
Granted, colouring them a bit to match your site design and layout could definitely be considered making these navigation routes biased, however DOS isn't what allowed the net to explode, it's Windows. People like the pretty colours.
We have to live with the fact there can be no neutral, hierarchically organized standard for input/output with web users, so in my mind alls fair in love and ads; if the status bar of IE showing someones destination when they hover over an Adsense link isn't enough to let them make an informed choice as to their next hyperlink, then they probably aren't the sort who cares either way whether someone has paid one way (or the other) to have them link somewhere.
On most any kind of established site, the general public cannot throw up links for their own interests; links are arranged and often paid for by third parties to the site and their end user. I think applying Adsense's scheme of labelling ads to every other paid linking scheme around would render the web ridiculous.
SO, bottom line, if Adsense should do this, why shouldn't everyone? 'Ads by my Grandma', 'Ads by Joe the link partner'. Etc.
The internets already got an identifier for links, it's a URL. Anything else is just branding.
Users click to find information and, when interested in an ad that can be distinguished as an AD, they click to find out more about a product that they might possibly want to purchase.
I'd say there's a good chance that the user looking for info will be less likely to buy if he's only in the "info-search" mode.
If that's true, when users mistake an ad for a content link the initial loser is the advertiser who got charged for a nonproductive click---but later it's the publisher who's conversion success gets reflected in the payout.
The transition in popularity from graphical banner ads to text ads is ironic, in that it's usually more of a mystery as to knowing inuitively what a graphic banner is about as opposed to what a text link is about. There is generally much more room for cohersion in a graphic banner than a simple hyperlink.
YET, all the major text link advertisers put their linkback or brand promo in their text ad units.
I find banner ads almost always exclude a 'Advertisement By' type of clear identifier.
From what I understand, premium Adsense publishers do NOT require the 'Ads by Google' label. So obviously it's not about advertiser ROI because premium publishers by definition are moving huge numbers of clickers.
From what I understand, premium Adsense publishers do NOT require the 'Ads by Google' label.
They usually have "Sponsored Links," "Advertising Links," or something similar, presumably because they don't want to give Google a free branding ad. Still, at least one highly regarded premium publisher--NYTimes.com--uses "Ads by Google."
Both NYTimes.com and WashingtonPost.com have a "What's this" link at the top of the AdSense box that launches a small popup window explaining what the text links are. (NYTimes.com has a link to Google AdWords; WashingtonPost.com rather coyly refers to the ads being served by a "third party.")
if Adsense should do this, why shouldn't everyone?
They should. That's kind of the point. Misleading users into thinking a link to an advertiser isn't a link to an advertiser doesn't do anybody any good (with the possible short term exception of the adsense publisher). Google loses because users are not getting what they want, which is, at least ostensibly, Google'e entrie raison d'etre. Advertisers lose because, as mentioned earlier, they are paying for clicks that are far less likely to convert. Users lose because they are being misled and let's face it, being lied to (by omission or otherwise) sucks.
I personally have alot of respect for the fact that Google insists their ads are clearly marked as ads. It reflects on their commitment to the user, which is exactly where their commitment should be.
cEM
Also if the intention of the ad network's is to show that a specifed region is ad, he can do it by using simple words like 'ad / advertisement / xxxxx'. But they make the text <b>links</b> 'Ads by xxxxx' more attractive then other ads just to have people clik on 'Ads by xxxx'.
One of our friend here said that 'Ads by xxxx' increase CTR. If it is so then the point of sending 'Misleading clicks to advertiser' is not valid. As long as we dont use 'click here ...' we are misleading any one.
The point is simple, as adnetworks are the only revenue source for most small publishers they tend to make use of them. But if we can get to a common conclusion we can put our view forward to these networks which we should respect as our 'revenue generator'.
