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
That wouldn't be a good feature .. it would be an EXCELLENT feature.
Adsense Guy, are you paying attention?
I did this as well (over a 2 month period) and had the same result. I also confirmed it by 2 other methods: statistical tests, and calculations based on tracking user movements through the site. All three confirmed that having low CPC ads added to the bottom line.
But sites are different, and what works for me isn't necessarily best for others. Having a minimum bid for publishers would be a good feature, even if I didn't use it.
Allowing publishers a choice as to what they will or will not accept for their adspace will go a long way towards balancing things out.
Does it mean some sites will jack up their floor in hopes of getting only higher priced ads? Yup. It also means they are likely to end up with less revenue, unless they have the means to monetize their pages for all the times they will get psas or no ads. But the choice should be ours... not google, and not the advertiser.
I don't have a problem with smart pricing, but I agree that publishers need a mechanism for setting a floor that they will accept for their site. This means if they set it too high they get no revenue, but so be it. I think publishers have the right to do this...
Why? What gives publishers a "right" to set minimums? Clearly the contract that we all signed doesn't grant such a right.
Be practical: It isn't in Google's interest to let publishers set minimums, because (a) many publishers have an unrealistic view of what their clicks from any given page are worth, and (b) Google needs inventory for all of its ads, not just those that publishers find sufficiently profitable.
If Google ever did allow publishers to set minimums, there would need to be an incentive for publishers to refrain from actually doing so. For example, Google could pay a higher (though unspecified) percentage of revenues to publishers who didn't set minimums than to publishers who did. Picky publishers would have the right to opt out of ads below their chosen minimums, but the less favorable split of total revenues would make them think twice before doing so.
Be practical: It isn't in Google's interest to let publishers set minimums, because (a) many publishers have an unrealistic view of what their clicks from any given page are worth, and (b) Google needs inventory for all of its ads, not just those that publishers find sufficiently profitable.
Why? What gives publishers a "right" to set minimums? Clearly the contract that we all signed doesn't grant such a right.
Answer: Doing fair business. After all it's their site.
I know you view Google as infallible but the fact of the matter is that the only "realistic view" of what a click is worth is what supply and demand would dictate.
I don't view Google as being "infallible" (as you'd know if you'd spent more time here), but I don't view Google as being stupid, either. They're quite aware of the law of supply and demand, and they know that allowing publishers to set minimums won't increase the supply of publishers but will reduce the supply of badly needed low-priced ad inventory.
Answer: Doing fair business. After all it's their site.
You may not like the contract that you agreed to, but that doesn't make it unfair--especially when you have the freedom to kick Google off your site at any time without penalty.
Good points.
IMHO .02 worth.
TR
You present a good argument, EFV, and I can imagine this debate taking place in Google (ASA said 3 or 4 months ago he would take the idea of minimum bids to the Adsense team). However, in the end I come to a slightly different conclusion to you: I accept your point that Google are within their rights not to offer this feature, but I think it would be in Google's interests to do so.
As competition hots up in contextual advertising, one of the factors that will affect publishers choice of ad broker is the degree of control they have over the adverts that appear on their site. Google already provide publishers with a lot of control - ad placement, format, colours, banning advertisers etc.. All of these controls, used inappropriately, have the ability to reduce income as well as increase it. However, Google trusts the publisher to learn how to maximise income from their site (and provides some services - eg: heat maps, optimisation - to help). Being able to set minimum bids would, imho, just be one more control for the publisher, one that enhances the service and increases publisher loyalty.
What stops it would likely be practical problems, which are complex. Eg: suppose the two highest-bidding advertisers bid $1 and $10, and a site sets a mininum commission of $5. Under the current system, the top rate paid is $1.01, of which the publisher gets, say, 60c. Under the minimum bid system, has the 'auction' failed to meet the reserve? Or should the advertiser pay $9? What implications does this have for the Google-advertiser contract?
A minimum bid system therefore creates some practical problems that are non-trivial. In my view, it is such problems that are likely to prevent its' implementation. Otherwise, I think it would be in Google's interests to do it.
At the moment such a publisher has only imperfect tools for determining this. (Channels are fine, but of limited value in tracking changing returns for multi-thousand page sites.) So the publisher will make their best guess as to which pages to run AdSense on and which to use their alternates.
As ad inventories change, it might be that AdSense would now be more rewarding - but the publisher won't know that.
If the publisher could just say "My return from alternate ads is X, please run AdSense if the return is >=X, otherwise use my alternate", that would avoid this problem.
Personally I'd like to be able to insist on a minimum *number* of ads in a block - ie, to be able to say "don't show ads in this leaderboard unless there are at least three - otherwise show my alternate". That's because leaderboards with a single ad look tacky to me.
suppose the two highest-bidding advertisers bid $1 and $10, and a site sets a mininum commission of $5. Under the current system, the top rate paid is $1.01, of which the publisher gets, say, 60c. Under the minimum bid system, has the 'auction' failed to meet the reserve? Or should the advertiser pay $9?
Easy: two bids, one meets the minimum, one does not meet the minimum - only the ad that meets the minimum is being displayed. If no ad is meeting the minimum, display PSA or alternative ad. If more ads meet the minimum than spaces are available, select the highest bidding ads for display.
I think this tool will improve revenues for some, while for others (setting the limit too high) it will fail. As in the real world, it is our advertising space, and we should be able to withdraw from the market if we feel we do not get enough money from it.
And before you say "then get out of AS" - no! I don't want to pull out of the AS system. It IS very good. Rather I would like to disable ON MY SITE all those MFA/no content/scraper sites that make a living by clogging up ad space with low-paying keywords and propel users on higher-paying keywords without actually adding to the user experience or adding to the web or doing anything meaningful. - Why don't we see scrapers, for example, advertising in print? Right: because print publishers set a minimum price for their ad space, and this minimum price is too high to be profitable for scrapers. I would like to have the same kind of control over my ad inventory.
Before losing a visitor for a few cents, I'd rather advertise my own services of which I am convinced that users might be interested as well.
Being able to set a minimum price would help tremendously with this.
I too have certain problems in regards of 3 to 5 cents clicks but I know exactly which pages generate low clicks on our site and frankly speaking, I too wouldn't bid 20 cents on those pages.
Just my 2 cents
This solution would be a breach of contract between Google and the advertiser. The Adwords terms are explicit that the price is lowered to one cent more than the closest competitor.
Also, this solution is at odds with the way most auctions work. Whether in real life or on Ebay, it is more the exception than the rule for bidders to be told the reserve price, and often prohibited by terms that are legally binding. If the bidding fails to reach the reserve the item is not sold.
This solution would therefore require a rewrite of the Adwords contract, and the legal implications for those who have signed up to the old terms would need to be investigated. Also, advertisers would probably need to be given the option whether to display ads on sites that place a higher reserve than the result of the auction bid.
Introducing minimum bids is not "easy".
