Forum Moderators: martinibuster
Simply, it is just not worth it to me to lose a visitor for .03 cents.
This is especially true when the page contains .30 or .40 cent keywords.
I would rather the visitor move along and click a different PPC ad or even just enjoy the content and come back another day.
I understand the concept of inventory and bidding as I am also an AdWords advertiser, and when those are the cause, I can accept it.
However, when it is smart pricing, it is very frustrating. My site has great content with issues, original articles, etc.
As an advertiser myself, I don't expect to pay only .03 cents for a click worth .25 cents. Market value should set the price. If it is too much for me as an advertiser, I bail and look for other keywords.
The frustration of smart pricing is exacerbated by the fact that we know absolutely nothing about reversing it except shared forum theory.
In the past few weeks, we have finally been given real alternatives to AdSense with YPN, possibly Chit, etc. If Google would just dump their smart pricing program and let the market set the price, I would gladly and loyally stay with them.
I never tried for one and two dollar keywords as I'm not going to add irrelevant content just for income. I'm fine with my .20, and .30 cent keywords.
I'm just sick of losing visitors for two and three pennies.
Thanks. Just needed to let off some steam.
Buz
As an advertiser myself, I don't expect to pay only .03 cents for a click worth .25 cents.
Yes, but do you want to pay 25 cents for a click worth 3 cents?
Market value should set the price. If it is too much for me as an advertiser, I bail and look for other keywords.
Look at it from Google's point of view. If you were Google, would you want advertisers to abandon existing keywords if 25-cent clicks from the content network weren't converting?
Also, the purpose of smart pricing isn't to reduce the cost of keywords for advertisers, but to make sure advertisers are getting value for their money. In the long run, it's a good thing for advertisers and publishers, because it keeps advertisers from bailing because of poor ROI and it protects publishers from a steady diet of PSAs when clicks aren't likely to convert as well as clicks from AdWords search ads do.
It is hard to determine it in some niches.
For instance in Photography I really would not expect anyone clicks on ADs on my site and buy something
immediately on a site of advertiser. It is not how it works in my niche.
Most of the clicks is intended to be just for curiosity
(even advertisers could not count on more in this area).
So it is virtually impossible to detmine that visitors from my site converting or not.
They can buy later or they can bookmark, or they can just exchange links because lot of visitors on my site
are photographers too.
Yes, but do you want to pay 25 cents for a click worth 3 cents?
Of course I would love to bring in all traffic at a cap price. Everyone would.
However, if I chose bid .25 cents on a particular keyword, I expect to pay it. If it is not converting, I will try to find a different one or different form of that one. I have almost 200 words I bid on for my sites. Most are words I have found and gotten for just .05 cents. For some, I go as high as .20 cents, but that is my limit. My site doesn't sell big-money items, so paying more would not be worth it.
Bottom line, if I purchase ad space in a magazine and it doesn't get as many leads as I hoped, I don't ask for a refund. I just don't use them anymore.
How long have you had an AS account?
Converting ....
It is hard to determine it in some niches.
Exactly. As publishers, we are dependent on
1. The Advertiser creating an ad luring enough to click.
2. The advertisers website. Does it close the sale? Do they know anything about print advertising?
3. Is the "converstion" filling out an inquiry or purchasing a car? Is the designated converstion set by the advertisers unrealistic?
On some sites, it could be just about impossible to convert.
In any case, smart pricing exists, and there's no reason to think it will go away. Publishers can live with it or find other alternatives. (However, it's important to remember that ad networks don't just compete for publishers; they also compete for advertisers, and advertisers aren't likely to pay more for clicks from AdSense's rivals unless they can justify the added expense through a higher ROI.)
advertisers aren't likely to pay more for clicks from AdSense's rivals unless they can justify the added expense through a higher ROI
I'll bet the advertisers whose ads are showing up right now on many of my pages are pretty steamed about ROI. I've contacted several to alert them to the fact that Google's targeting system is so out of whack that their completely unrelated ads are showing up all over my pages. A few have written me back quite alarmed when they saw it themselves at my sites. I'm begging them to block my sites! I can hear the stampede to YPN now. OK, maybe not a stampede, but even a trickle should be noticed by Google. FIX THE DAMN PROBLEM!
FIX THE DAMN PROBLEM!
Amen. As soon as the revenue at Google dips and market share start to go up north on 101, Google will realize it has to devote more time to the issue for resolution.
Cheers,
CaboWabo
How do you know you're being shafted by Google? Do you know what the advertisers are paying?
Sometimes I see people refer to the Overture price for keywords, but those are not tightly in sync with AdWords prices in my experience. And people only look at the top price at Overture, not the number 4, 5, or 6 bid. Further, the top prices on Overture for a given keyword vary over time. I've seen many cases where over the course of a month they rise 100% or fall 50%. This is very common.
AdWords (which is where AdSense gets its ads) is even less predictable than Overture. AdWords advertisers don't even know what each other are bidding or paying. Sometimes a higher ranked ad will bid lower than a lower ranked ad. How can AdSense publishers KNOW what the words are supposed to be worth?
I really don't get it. These complaints (which often blame Smart Pricing) seem to stem from the fact that publishers feel their sites deserve a certain cost per click, and the publishers seem to base this estimate on Overture bids or what their sites earned in the past.
AdSense correct your problem or it is time to find other alternatives!
[edited by: a1call at 7:31 pm (utc) on Oct. 10, 2005]
In the post, I was simply saying that it is not worth it to me to lost a visitor for .03 cents.
I agree with most of your post, except I give more credit to the Overture bid tool than you do. While it has absolutely nothing to do with G, I belive it is a usable barometer.
The advertisers which appear on my site bid much more for the topic than a nickel.
As far as how much I believe the ads are worth, when you use the G "More Sponsored Links" feature for the same topic using numerous keyword combinations, there is a never-ending supply of advertisers. That fact alone should suggest that the bid has exceeded a nickel.
When you combine all of this, I think my observations are valid.
Buz
Publishers should have a mean to set a minimum click rate for their sites. Below this I'd rather show PSAs.
Sure, but Google needs to deliver enough inventory for all ads--not just ads with higher bids or ads that pay what a publisher wants after a "smart pricing" discount. It probably isn't realistic to expect Google to allow publisher-set minimums.
In the end, it's average eCPM that matters.
Whatever is causing erosion in click prices, it isn't good for publishers, and that's all I care about. This is especially true for well-targeted ads.
Where can you get a good lead for 5 cents or less, whether it's just a few pageviews, a curiosity or a sale. As I've said before, a nickel is too low, and going lower than that is just plain insulting to the publisher base.
EFV posits (on Smart Pricing):
In the long run, it's a good thing for advertisers and publishers, because it keeps advertisers from bailing because of poor ROI and it protects publishers from a steady diet of PSAs when clicks aren't likely to convert as well as clicks from AdWords search ads do.
This statement is pure speculation and as far as publishers are concerned, it might well be better to have PSAs than low-paying clicks because the visitor might head to another page on one's site rather than leaving on a sub-5-cent click.
For all the flack over Smart Pricing, I still maintain that whatever conversion rates Google is tracking are not relevant or not from a large enough sample to be meaningful. Besides, publishers should not have to concern themselves with click conversion. Display of the ads is where their responsibility ends.
Personally, I prefer to keep with the full range of ads, including low CPC ones. At the end of the day, they add to the bottom line, although not usually by a great amount.
Very occasionally, though, a minor bidding war seems to break out in our low CPC niches. Typically, the CPC rates will increase by up to 400 or 500% for a very short time, though for part of one wierd day recently they jumped 50,000% and we made more money from that page in that one day than the previous month. I wonder if that was the budget optimiser spending someone's remaining Adwords budget?
Anyway, if anyone doesn't want their low CPC business, I'd be happy to take their pages over. Most cricket teams win test matches by taking lots of singles in addition to the big-scoring 4s and 6s.
As I've said before, a nickel is too low, and going lower than that is just plain insulting to the publisher base.
Depends. On a high-traffic site, it might be a decent source of revenue.
as far as publishers are concerned, it might well be better to have PSAs than low-paying clicks because the visitor might head to another page on one's site rather than leaving on a sub-5-cent click.
That's for each publisher to decide. But PSAs clearly aren't better for Google or its advertiser base.
publishers should not have to concern themselves with click conversion. Display of the ads is where their responsibility ends.
Publishers don't need to concern themselves with click conversion. However, advertisers do--and so does Google, if it wants advertisers to use the content network.
if it wants advertisers to use the content network
That's a good point EFV, if advertisers turn off the content network then we all loose out, publishers may not be content earning a few cents a click but it's certainly better than nothing.
Sure, but Google needs to deliver enough inventory for all ads--not just ads with higher bids or ads that pay what a publisher wants after a "smart pricing" discount.
There will be no problem, refer to msg #:15.
Plus Google is welcome to show this low bids on their SERPs all they want. That would probably offset any publisher's refusal to show them.
It probably isn't realistic to expect Google to allow publisher-set minimums.
Why? That is the normal business model established for the last 2000+ years, namely supply and demand.
AdSense is based on supply and demand, with or without smart pricing. After all, advertisers bid on ads. And they aren't bidding for individual sites (with the exception of site-targeted CPM ads); they're bidding for ads across the network, with the understanding that Google will discount the cost of clicks when--in Google's judgment--such discounts are warranted. One could say that Google's supply of discounts is the result of advertiser demand.
Supply and demand come exist at the publisher level, too. If publishers want to reduce Google's supply of ads on their sites, they can can limit the number of pages with AdSense code or they can remove the AdSense code altogether. However, unless they choose to do so (i.e., if they merely complain on forums like this one), they can't expect the law of supply and demand to work in their favor.
In other words: Tough, if you don't like it, leave it. Fair enough, the only problem is there is currently nothing better out there. This does not mean that AdSense is the best it can be. My post is only a suggestion as to how I and probably any sensible person would see an improvement on AdSense. IMO we should strive to be fair in business. Regardless of AdSense being the highest paying affiliate program that I have ever tried, It is unjust toward the publishers at the cost of subsidizing the advertisers.
It is unjust toward the publishers at the cost of subsidizing the advertisers.
Subsidizing the advertisers? Where can I get in on this? Google pays advertisers?
No. That's not what you meant. Google does not pay advertisers. Advertisers pay Google. And there is no externally determined "fair price" that keywords should go for. Overall, PPC costs are much higher than they were 5 years ago. Advertisers pay more per click. Is this a case of subsidizing the publisher, making things unfair for the advertiser? Why can't we go back to what prices were 5 years ago? I think most advertisers would prefer that.
Advertisers pay more per click.
In other words: Tough, if you don't like it, leave it. Fair enough, the only problem is there is currently nothing better out there.
Well, you're the one who brought up supply and demand. As long as unhappy publishers talk the talk without walking the walk, the supply-to-demand ratio won't change.
Regardless of AdSense being the highest paying affiliate program that I have ever tried, It is unjust toward the publishers at the cost of subsidizing the advertisers.
"Unjust"? There's no way of knowing that without having access to Google's data (and let's face it--Google has a lot more statistical data, including conversion-tracking data, than we do).
As for subsidies, smart pricing is designed to prevent subsidies of one party by the other (more specifically, of publishers being subsidized by advertisers). Its goal is to bring ad prices in line with value. Consider these four hypothetical examples of a click on a "red widgets" ad:
1. An AdWords ad on a Google SERP that is clearly set off from the organic search results.
2. An AdSense ad on a product review of luxury sports widgets at sportswidgets.com, a recognized authority on sports widgets--again, with the ads clearly recognizable as ads.
3. An AdSense ad on the widgets forum of lets-talk-about-stuff.com, which caters to a demographic that consists mostly of 15-year-olds who dream of owning things like sports widgets and sex widgets but can't afford the former and are mostly fantasizing about the latter. (The ad has been optimized for maximum clickthroughs.)
4. Ad AdSense ad on a scraper site that has three borderless AdSense units above the fold, with colors that have been chosen to match the scraped directory links (which in turn are set in a typeface that matches the AdSense ads).
Now, it should be obvious that not all of these sites are going to deliver clicks of equal value to advertisers. And clicks from sites #3 and #4 are likely to be of especially poor value (even if you don't have access to conversion-tracking or demographic data).
Is it realistic to expect that advertisers will pay the same amount per click for traffic from each of these sites? And with thousands of possible sites to choose from, is it realistic to think that advertisers will want to bid separately for these and other sites where ads for luxury sports widgets might appear? Without smart pricing, why would an advertiser of luxury sports widgets choose the content network for CPC ads?
Bottom line: Smart pricing may not be perfect, but until Google can come up with something better that advertisers trust and that isn't labor-intensive for advertisers, smart pricing will have to do.
Side note:
One possibility for the future might be to have third-party agencies compile regularly updated lists of approved sites in various categories and manually assign "bid multipliers" (either positive or negative) or some other grading system that would allow clients to buy ads on the hand-vetted sites without having to bid separately for each. Google could let approved agencies place bids on large numbers of sites at once, with the bid multipliers serving as customer-controlled substitutes for Google's automated smart pricing. All of this would be done through custom programs (or maybe even off-the-shelf programs designed for the purpose) that would work with a Google API. The agencies would profit by adding value for the advertiser (i.e., human judgment by people with advertising experience in the niche), and Google would benefit by having ongoing relationships with those specialized media buyers.
In short, there may be a possibility of workable substitutes for smart pricing down the line, but even then, there probably would have to be something like smart pricing to adjust click values for sites that were below the agencies' radar or that simply didn't make the cut.
Publishers should have a mean to set a minimum click rate for their sites. Below this I'd rather show PSAs.
Exactly - I agree.
I too share the load of frustration here.
A good feature would be to allow publishers to set a minimum price which, if not met, the ad would change to the alt ad.
Just the way I do it. Probably nothing new to most of you. I don't think I'd make as much if I made pages for products that I don't sell and don't intend on selling... most people can tell the difference between a website that is set up only to have people click out and those who are real vendors.
I don't make a million off adsense but my next check will be close to $2500. Will make my house payment. : ) I'm not sure how some of you make $1000 a day, but I'd really like to know. : )))))
OK, I am not complaining if that is the fact of the market value ... :D
After I realized that the critical factor is not on my side, I would spend my effort on other income sources. Don't get me wrong, I am still with adsense until it fails to pay the cost to survive.
I tried the minimum bid theory. I removed adsense from all pages below a certain CPM. The end result was great stats with CPM well above 100 for the whole site.
The end result was I was not making as much money. People did not travel to the high value pages in enough numbers so overall revenue declined. I have since added back adsense to all pages.
Quoted:
----
Minimum bids...
I tried the minimum bid theory. I removed adsense from all pages below a certain CPM. The end result was great stats with CPM well above 100 for the whole site.
The end result was I was not making as much money. People did not travel to the high value pages in enough numbers so overall revenue declined. I have since added back adsense to all pages.
Now they're worth quite a bit more, through no particular effort on the part of the Web publishing universe. Publishers who can't even spell "ad" are complaining that Google is screwing them to the wall. (I don't mean this to apply to the person who started this post and apologize in advance if it sounds that way.) In fact, Google is about all that is propping up most of the smaller, AdSense-optimized sites out there.
These sites, created by people who think that optimizing font color constitutes publishing,
are a waste of electrons and bear primary responsibility for devaluing online advertising.
Advertising is based on the notion that presenting a paid advertisement in an atmosphere of worthwhile editorial content adds value that would not exist if the advertiser simply pasted the ad on the side of the nearest trash container. Cosmo thus gets more for its inventory than the Topeka Times. Google's Smart Pricing tries to approximate this process and, given the vast number of sites and the nearly compete lack of reliable data about them, the system probably works about as well as can be expected, given present technology.
I don't doubt that some worthwhile sites are being penalized. My largest site, a bigtime money-loser even in the best of times (because we spend way too much on content), was in the cellar for months because of some algo tweak that was later resolved (probably inadvertently). This is the age we live in -- machines try to judge intangibles and get it right only some of the time. (Unlike humans, who get it wrong only some of the time).
