Forum Moderators: martinibuster
Scraper sites typically blend the ads in to cause user confusion. By stacking ads that look like search results, they can display nothing but ads "above the fold" (in the visible portion of the screen). This makes it more likely that a user will click on an ad instead of a scraped search result.
On my own site, I make the ads stand out because I don't want people to confuse those ads with my site's content. I also use rotating colors for the ads, so that a user who sees an ad on one page won't assume that the ads on the next page are the same. (A typical reader will look at several pages, and readers who are actively planning trips may look at many pages, so it makes sense to create some distinction between each page's ads.)
One other thought: Google uses anticipated conversion rates to determine "smart pricing" discounts for advertisers, so blending ads into the page may be counterproductive because that's likely to result in a higher percentage of non-converting clicks. (There's some evidence to support this belief; we've certainly seen quite a few posts by members who have complained about earnings per click going down as their clickthrough rates have gone up.)
Why are we blending our ads in?
Possibly because Google recommends it...
if you have so much content that your ad banner would be lost amongst the content, then you have a different problem.
also usually when you blend them, you try to put them in places where eyeballs will be too.
But it's easy to test your results on your site: Blend them in for a week - note the CTR, then change just the colour scheme next week, to make them stand out.
I'm betting blended gets a higher CTR though...
As I mentioned before... I sell widget stuffers. I advertise on Adwords for widget stuffers. I'll also build a custom widget stuffer if you need one.
The ads that appear (blended, above the fold) are about widget stuffers. So what is the matter if a visitor, who is looking for widget stuffers, clicks on an ad - even if they don't understand that they are ads? (note that the likely clicked on an ad in order to get to my site)
So what is the matter if a visitor, who is looking for widget stuffers, clicks on an ad - even if they don't understand that they are ads?
It matters to the advertiser. And it'll matter to you if you become one of those Webmaster World members who can't understand why "smart pricing" is lowering his earnings per click.
It matters to the advertiser.
If they came to his site by searching for widget stuffers, and clicked on his adsense link that said "Buy widget stuffers", I'd say that person has a pretty good chance of converting to a sale...
When does banner blindness not blind someone looking at a banner?
When it no longer looks like a banner - blending
[edited by: incrediBILL at 4:30 pm (utc) on May 4, 2005]
By blending them, you force people to actually read the text and decide whether they are interested in that link on a case-by-case basis. In this scenario, both the publisher and the advertiser win.
I don't make ads look IDENTICAL to the site content. Going too far leads to confusion and diminishes the user experience. The point is to make users engage with the ads rather than being tricked by them.
As I mentioned before... I sell widget stuffers. I advertise on Adwords for widget stuffers. I'll also build a custom widget stuffer if you need one.The ads that appear (blended, above the fold) are about widget stuffers. So what is the matter if a visitor, who is looking for widget stuffers, clicks on an ad - even if they don't understand that they are ads? (note that the likely clicked on an ad in order to get to my site)
There isn't a thing wrong with that. If the advertiser's landing page (sales page) doesn't convert a high percentage of clicks made under those circumstances there are only three possibilities:
1 - The ad didn't accurately describe what would be found on the landing page, or...
2 - The quality of the advertiser's site was so poor that the potential customer was afraid to risk a purchase, or...
3 - The sales page simply didn't sell the item.
Neither of those possibilities is the fault of the publisher. The responsibility for converting eyeballs into sales lies squarely on the shoulders of the advertiser, especially in a cut-and-dried situation like the one you described. A lead simply cannot get any more targeted than that.
And I say that as an AdWords advertiser who spends several house payments per month on ads running on content sites.
I wouldn't worry so much about smart pricing. It appears to work on more or less a random basis and your site might get hit or not regardless of what you do or don't do.
[edited by: birdstuff at 4:37 pm (utc) on May 4, 2005]
I don't make ads look IDENTICAL to the site content. Going too far leads to confusion and diminishes the user experience. The point is to make users engage with the ads rather than being tricked by them.
I think the only exception to your statement is a directory or a link list.
The only purpose of a directory is to send someone to another web site so there will be an exit from the site by it's very design. Whether the visitors click the paid exit or the unpaid exit is somewhat irrelevant as long as the link clicked was relevant to the visitor.
Only because I agree with him on one important - albeit, very important - point. :-)
"The responsibility for converting eyeballs into sales lies squarely on the shoulders of the advertiser..."
That line should be emblazoned into the Adwords and Adsense Policy Pages permanently. Google does not need to reinvent the wheel, nor the principles of advertising, for that matter.
Exactly as I have been saying for some time now. I distinctly recall a number of individuals complaining to me after seeing an ad for a restaurant in my newspaper and trying the place out, that, "the place was dirty and the food awful."
I explained that I was sorry, but that I had no control over the business or hygenic practices of my advertisers. They completely understood AND THEY DID NOT ASK ME FOR A REFUND! IMAGAINE THAT?!
Let's suppose an opposite situation, wherein an ad converts very well from my site to an advertiser who turns out to be criminal, i.e., takes orders and never delivers.
Should I be penalized for that? In fact, in the Googly world that is "smart pricing" I would actually be rewarded by higher EPC, I would think. However, the customer (and that's what this is all about, isn't it?) would be essentially a victim of my good fortune. A case of the unintended results of good intentions.
Smart pricing is a sword which can and undoubtably will cut both ways. I believe Google will learn a very real and hard lesson in the economics of advertising.
Smart pricing has become the bane of online advertising. It's an unnatural distortion to what should be a simple, mathematic process. Google has turned simplicity on its head and invented a calculus which nobody - not the advertisers, not the publishers and not even Google - understands.
It is typical of the whiz-bang, dotcom generation and probably symptomatic of a nerdy, technocratic need to foist "improvements" upon every working technology, probably in the name of job security.
***************
That's all for today's Smart Pricing Update. Thank you for watching and don't forget to click on the ads.
***************
EFV, apparently blending is rewarded when it contains highly focused ads. EPC has been pretty constant for six months after averaging out the 10-14 day gut-wrenching cycles.
Once in a while google throws in ads for turkey stuffers and everything goes haywire. I can't be blamed for that.
And it'll matter to you if you become one of those Webmaster World members who can't understand why "smart pricing" is lowering his earnings per click.
Wrong answer.
I have one of the sites which dramatically reduced EPC for its clicks, while the conversions surely remained the same.
In the meantime, the keywords' CPC for advertisers actually become even more expensive accross the major players on the net.
So wouldn't it be better to give the ads or text in the ads some sort of colour that would distinguish them from the rest of the site, use a colour that isn't everywhere?
Why? So they're even easier to ignore?
It isn't the ad format that one uses that makes it abusive, tricky, whatever.
It's the implemetation.
In some situations blending might be less than staright forward. But I can imagine ways it would be perfectly natural and actually add to the quality of the site design, without thinking too hard.
We just finished an experiment which we ran for a month. We took the google adverts which had the highest average EPC (clickthrough rates varied) and changed them to blend them 100% with the background - no borders, sames colours as surrounding page etc. We didn't change the positioning of the advert.
As much as I cringed upon the early results, we stuck by it to let it run for a full month.
End results -- clickthrough rate increased slightly but EPC halved -- not good!
We're moving back to what we had before which were borderless but shaded adverts -- seems they're a good compromise between the totally blended and the totally standout style -- and importantly, users know they are adverts and use them accordingly.
End results -- clickthrough rate increased slightly but EPC halved -- not good!
Let's see... CTR changed just a little but EPC dropped in half....
If smart pricing works as described (which it obviously doesn't), it would take more than a just slight increase in clicks for your EPC to be affected to the tune of 50%, but apparently the changes you made didn't alter the CTR much at all.
My guess is your color changes and border removal had little or nothing to do with the change in earnings. Sounds more like some other factor is in play unless the changes just happened to coincide with "your turn" in the bullseye of smart pricing's scatter gun.
I think the changes in borders etc -- blending the advert in -- caused some to click on the advert thinking it wasn't an advert, and they backed out as soon as they realised what was happening -- often the ads we get read easily as being a part of the site, so once they're fully blended in, its an easy mistake to make. However for that to be true, there'd need to be a drop off in the "interested" clickers -- and that's what we're having difficultly putting our finger on.
However for that to be true, there'd need to be a drop off in the "interested" clickers -- and that's what we're having difficultly putting our finger on.
Bingo.
Would then, if people are window shopping or comparison shopping or, heavens forbid, just not buying (ask ebay sellers how they feel about this because they know), smart pricing would only add to the misery by lowering our earnings and prevent us from buying.
I can see the headlines: "Google Blamed for Deflationary Spiral, Depression Looms, Greenspan Fired"
wishful thinking that last part...
