Forum Moderators: martinibuster
And this AdSense Premium, wouldnīt even need to have better commissions (%). Just to know that the advertisers would be happier, is enough for me.
Do you want to squize the program, and kill one of your biggest revenue sources, or to take care of it, have it for the years to come?
Not a 100% solution, but it could start making a difference.
give advertisers the choice where their ads show. only the advertiser knows the ROI, google doesn't know it & neither does the publisher.
the adwords content network is IMHO unfairly biased towards the publisher & not the customer (the advertiser)
if the advertiser is given the ability to opt out of sites (or indeed opt in to specific sites & exclude the rest) then quality sites will benefit automatically (or at least high ROI sites the two not necessarily being the same.)
Iīm not just a publisher, but also an advertiser, and my latest spendings where on a specific country network, that just work with long term online presence sites / portals. I paid it, because I knew that there werenīt any fraud websites / webmasters there.
Though, I would never manually optin, because, I donīt have the time to do it, I trusted that network judgements. And I would never pay for an broad general content match on that country. Only on recognized / old / trusty sites.
Imagine that you would like to make a campaign in a specific country, like Sweden, for example. I donīt have time to search, and to know all the quality sites out there, but I would advertise in a safe network there...
We should be able to do absolutely nothing & get the same service we do now.
I should be able to opt out of specific sites I know I am not gettting a ROI for.
I should be able to opt out of all content sites & opt in for specific sites I do want to advertise on.
This way, the customer (advertiser) has control. I know what my ROI nobody else does & ain't gonna tell anybody else either.
We are fed up with made for adsense scrapers, and directory sites that offer nothing as much as you are!
One problem with all the optin ideas is that it would mean a lot of overhead for google. Each time a page with adsense on it gets displayed they would have to query the database for each prospective advertiser to see if the site was on its black list. That would be a lot of queries, maybe more then the search engine requires.
Google could organize it so the blacklist was indexed by publisher sites, in that case they could also use that information to rate the overall effectiveness of the site and feed that back into the 'smartprice' scheme.
One problem with all the optin ideas is that it would mean a lot of overhead for google
google is always boasting how many machines it has got, i think it will cope. it is now a multi-billion dollar corporation therefore there are no excuses. it ain't in no garage any more (if indeed it ever was).
I'm the customer I want this control NOW!
every time you do a search you hit their database, by comparison this is small beer.
If in AdSense, you can block certain urls from showing, I only think itīs fair to let the advertiser decide in which sites he donīt want his ad.
And this seems fairly simple to implement. Itīs strange... have you wrote them, asking this?
This idea of an AdSense Premium, based just on the the age of the site, has some flaws too. It could rush the buying of some sites, but hasnīt the same thing happened with the Pagerank rush?
Itīs strange... have you wrote them, asking this?
No, of course I haven't. Google is a multi billion pound company with far better things on it's mind than listening to customers.
It's a no brainer. this should have been in from day one. I've heard people on here talk about this for at least a year. Nobody is listening.
1. Adwords / Adsense is owned by Google and they have set up rules for everyone [advertisers/publishers] and it works pretty well for both. Otherwise there WON'T be any advertisers [who definitely are gaining a decent ROI to stay] and publishers [who know that nothing pays better and nothing is as trustworthy as Google]
2. In adwords Google CANNOT show advertisers which websites are giving the maximum ROI because then
i) Advertisers can simple strike a deal with them for cheaper... and this would kill the network.
ii) The fact that advertisers will just manipulate this system to locate good sites and striking out less profitable sites and striking deals with bigger sites cutting out Google as the middle man who's technology the advertiser used to locate the site.
iii)Google's overall income and the profitability of the system will fall.. making the network useless to maintain without enough profits.
iv) Small publishers will be kicked out because it would just be worthless to keep them. This will kill a bit of goodwill and some of the internet boom. Basically Google will become overture... silly it would be since overture is starting to think about getting some small publishers. They won't do it if it weren't profitable.
3. Similarly Adsense publishers cannot be told what they are making out of each click. Since if I know a company is paying $5 each click to google and I generate 1000 click of that ad [that's $5000] and I am getting say $2500 of it.. I may be tempted to go and tell the advertiser.. listen.. I get you 1000 clicks.. you pay me $4000.. deal?
In effect the network will eventually come to a standstill and will only be used to locate sponsorships and advertisers and websites. Then.. it's needless to say it won't be profitable enough for Google to keep the network going.
So be happy with what you have.. It's not perfect but it works.. and we all know it!
Regards,
R
1. Agreed it is Googles choice.
2. Not so and the proof is the advertiser can already tell this. The site ad was clicked on is in the referrer logs. We use this info on our sites to calcualte ROI.
[webmasterworld.com...]
3. Agreed that Google does not want to let this info out but there would be no need to do so just to allow the advertiser to optout of sites that are showing low or negative ROI.
It would cause a loss of ads to some sites but if a site is converting and giving a reasonable ROI then why would an advertiser block the site. All the businesses I know want all the business they can get at a positive ROI. If sites can't deliver clicks that convert to a positive ROI then they should not be in the program.
I think this would be good for adsense as it would encourage all the adwords advertisers to stick with the content program.
I think this system would actually increase the revenue for most publishers as advertisers will bid up the price to where they are getting as many clicks as they can that convert. The only reason they would not is if they thought they were getting all the clicks there were to get already.
So be happy with what you have.. It's not perfect but it works.. and we all know it!
It doesn't work, not for me anyway.
my campaign was monied out by a site I wasn't getting a ROI from. I can't do anything about that save for pulling the campaign. I pulled the campaign rather than waste my money every day. Had i been able to remove the offending site I may well have found sites that would give me a ROI.
It isn't true to say that everybody has the same level of control. Publishers can block ads they don't make enough money from. Advertisers cannot. Hardly a level playing field.
If California is a jurisdiction where non-compete agreements are enforcable I can see one approach limiting whether participating advertisers or Adseners cherry pick their direct relationships to the exclusion of Google.
Also, whether or not Google lets on about which websites provide a better ROI, just how hard do you think it would be for an advertiser in any niche to get a handle on which websites hold promise, or at least test that potential on their own?
The question that has yet to be answered about online contextual advertising - which some industry group will answer soon enough - is "Is there a conversion/performance difference based upon certain website attributes?"
Clearly magazines target different audiences for a reason.
Adwords / Adsense is owned by Google and they have set up rules for everyone [advertisers/publishers] and it works pretty well for both.
It's a good start, but with online advertising representing only a tiny fraction of the total advertising market and AdSense being hardly more than a crumb in the overall scheme of things, it's hard to imagine Google being satisfied with what has been accomplished with AdSense 1.0.
2. In adwords Google CANNOT show advertisers which websites are giving the maximum ROI because theni) Advertisers can simple strike a deal with them for cheaper... and this would kill the network.
As Charlier explained, advertisers can already get that information.
But that's only one reason why the "advertisers will bypass Google" argument isn't convincing. A more important reason is that most publishers can't deliver enough impressions or clicks for highly targeted ads. The largest portals and news/entertainment sites can't do it because they don't have enough traffic on those keywords or keyphrases, and the smaller sites can't do it because they don't have enough traffic, period.
In other words, if you're an advertiser who's trying to buy ads for "Vistula river cruises" or "six-fingered gloves," it probably isn't cost-effective to buy ads direct, because you'd have to pay for too much waste circulation.
The idea of "AdSense Premium" (or "AdSense Select" or "AdSense Gold," as it has been called in previous threads) makes sense because it would (a) make Google's content more attractive to advertisers who aren't willing to take potluck, and (b) it would earn more money for Google.
IMHO, the best way to implement such a program would be to do it in combination with advertiser controls such as "include" or "exclude" filters (not unlike the domain-blocking filter that publishers have now). Google wouldn't even have to offer such a program directly: If the filters were built into the API, resellers--such as Google-certified ad agencies or SEM firms--could develop their own subsets of the network for sale to advertisers generally or to specific verticals such as travel, finance, computers, etc.
In effect, having include/exclude filters would allow Google to outsource the drudge work of quality control, and building them into the API would allow Google to outsource the drudgework of creating value-added (and premium-priced) AdSense products.
Let advertisers pick a number (say 50, 100, 200), and when they login have alerts say something like
"This website has now generated xx clicks for you, do you want to keep advertising with them? yes ¦ no"
This type of solution would place a smaller computational burden on Google than reviewing every site by just ignoring small sites and lets each advertiser decide what "small" means to them.
I know Google offers channels for tracking, but that seems to be a one way program: You tell Google what to track. In other words, if Google was already tracking domain bound data, it seems that you wouldn't have to "create channels", you only have to query an existing database of your various extended files to determine which are receiving clicks.
I've argued the merits of an AdSense program that only serves feeds to submitted lists of root domains/URLs and their extended URLs. A program such as Figment describes would appear to work hand in hand with an AdSense feed program that only worked for submitted domains. If my analysis is accurate then Figment's idea has got my vote. ;0)
As a web surfer I would like to see the scraper sites kickedout; and as a publisher I can't bring myself to inflict that kind of garbage on anyone; but as an advertiser all I care is whether the clicks convert for me, I really don't care whether they came from a made for adsense site or not.
Doesn't smart pricing solve this problem? If it turned out that the ugliest, nastiest, most awful website had the highest conversion rate for you as an advertiser, would you want that ugly nasty site banned from adsense?
Depends on the advertiser.
A lot of traditional PPC advertisers, such as affiliate and e-commerce sites, tend to focus on immediate ROI, as in "Did the click result in an a transaction?" For those advertisers, a click is a click is a click as long as somebody buys something.
Not all advertisers fit that profile, however. Some are looking for qualified leads, and for them, all clicks are not the same. Others, especially those with established reputations and brand names, don't want their brands associated with shady, inappropriate, or otherwise unacceptable media.
Bottom line: Different advertisers have different expectations, and growth requires meeting the needs of advertisers who haven't bought ads--not just of those who have.
Doesn't smart pricing solve this problem?
No one really know. Google doesn't tell anyone how it works, and my guess is that Google doesn't have very good data to work with.
In addition, a lot of scraper sites and other junk just get in the middle of the transaction.
No one mentions this and it is frickin' huge. Just looking at conversion data makes the assumption that the last referring site generated the sale. Junk sites don't create demand, at best they redirect sales from one vendor to another. At worst, the buyer would have ultimately got to your website and made the purchase anyway and the scraper site just raised your sale expenses.
AdSense Premium, with manually accepted sites
Going all the way back to the original post, I don't think you need a "Premium" program to do this. In fact, I think the current "approved once, run all" is the most serious failing of the current program.
If Google really wants to separate the wheat from the chaff it simply has to change its terms to reflect that Adsense can only run on approved sites. Period.
And then just give a sub-ID for each additional site:
"pub-1234567891011-01 for tracking and reporting purposes.
all with a minimum recognized online presence (4 or 5 years).
This is a brilliant idea, a sandbox for AdSense. If anything it should be based on quality, not time. Jeez google would barely be able to be in their own premium program. Give a little thought to how time is related to quality... not at all. This mentality is what makes people think the sandbox is an ok solution and it is completely flawed, unfair and probably illegal somehow (there has got to be some lawyer out there who could make something up). Like discrimination bsaed on age, there we go.
Nice try pal.
Doesn't smart pricing solve this problem?
Speaking as both an advertiser and a publisher who is very active as both, I can tell you the answer is a big NO. Not even close.
The idea behind smart pricing is a good one, but the way it's implemented makes it worse than worthless. All it's doing is driving away good publishers with no real benefit to the advertisers.
They already have a 'rep' system, it's Pagerank. Breaking off the ad system into it's own popularity contest would be anti-Google.
Google would and should not do this as it would be admitting that their primary platform for Adsense for Content delivery is flawed
In that case, were they admitting that AdWords was flawed when they introduced contextual advertising with the "premium partner" network? Or that the premium partner network was flawed when they introduced AdSense, because premium partners couldn't deliver enough targeted ad impressions for niche keywords and keyphrases?
AdSense 1.0 isn't a finished product; it's a platform on which future product extensions can be built.
They already have a 'rep' system, it's Pagerank. Breaking off the ad system into it's own popularity contest would be anti-Google.
You're mixing apples and oranges. PageRank has nothing to do with AdSense. (And even in search, it's no longer as important as it once was, because Google realizes that no technology company can stand still. Advertising media can't stand still, either, when they've got competitors tiptoeing up behind them.)
all with a minimum recognized online presence (4 or 5 years).
That would rule me out then :). I consider my site to be a quality content site, and judging by some of the people who link to me (including articles published in the British Medical Journal) others think so too. I've been online for about 4.5 years now.
I agree that there needs to be some way to tell quality, but I'm not sure that age is any guarantee, or measure of it. I would agree that there should be some minimum time period (maybe 6+ months) that sites would have to prove themselves in before being admitted.
K.
Everyone has talked a lot about "premium" sites, and congratulated themselves on how good their own sites are, but what nobody has put forward on this thread is any evidence at all that what they consider to be "premium" sites are actually any better for advertisers by any measuring stick.
Again, I would never run a scraper site. But not because I think it would be bad for advertisers. Who knows? Maybe scraper sites are ideal for advertisers. Do you know? Do you really know? Otherwise if you don't this is just navel gazing and self-congratulatory bunk.
There are many media/advertising players looking to remain relevant. There's also enough money to go around.
Soon enough there will be alternatives aplenty. It's mostly just a matter of when, not if.
europeforvisitors: What if the best qualified leads come from a disgusting made-for-adsense scraper site? How do you know they don't?
1. Legitimate publishers would produce such sites, albeit likely of higher quality, to generate the ad revenue.
2. Many advertisers would produce them to generate their own leads.
3. Advertisers would be actively seeking opportunities to market through scrapers.
4. Those behind scrapers wouldn't be hiding their sponsorship of the site, or masquerading as robots from legitimate search engines when scraping content.
The fact that most of those behind scraper sites hide their sponsorship and affiliation, aren't even honest in the robots they use when scraping content, can't produce any apparent interest by any advertiser save through affilate links and AdSense, and for the most part eschew any performance-based advertisements in favor of CPC, pretty much betrays scraper sites as the garbage that they are.
europeforvisitors: What if the best qualified leads come from a disgusting made-for-adsense scraper site? How do you know they don't?
It isn't what I, you, or even current AdSense advertisers think. It's what potential advertisers who aren't using contextual ads think.
It's a fact--yes, a fact--that quite a few businesses actually care about the context in which their brand names and ads appear. They may also have preconceptions (based on experience in many cases) about where "qualified leads" come from. Now, those advertisers and their agencies are never going to know whether "the best qualified leads come from a disgusting made-for-adsense scraper site," because they aren't going to test the waters to find out.
