Forum Moderators: martinibuster
I'll give you this: Ads that are off-topic for the page where they are displayed are a bad thing. Site targeting, without content sensitive in-/exclusion, in many cases will produce worse results for both advertiser and publisher.
However, for advertisers that don't wish to engage in direct deals and who don't wish to have their ads run across the entire content network, isn't the combination of content network bidding and site targeting just what's needed to remove a barrier to new advertiser's coming aboard?
Granular site targeting - down to the page and directly relevant to the page - would be a good thing, yes?
If this is G's aim then it strikes me that the ROI to all parties would increase - setting aside the debate about websites that also have their own direct advertiser base.
Am I missing something? Sounds like a best of breed solution.
The current problem is that site targeting produces run of site ads that are off topic on a page-by-page basis? So, unless the site is monolithic, site targeted ads that are not page topic sensitive are bad and, right now, site targeted ads are not proving to be page content sensitive? Higher bids, so they get listed, but since they're off topic for many pages lower CTR and likely a negative smart pricing effect?
As concerns separate bidding for content network, IF a publisher elects site targeting - which makes sense - and that results in an improved ROI - then it seems to me that competition amongst advertisers will tend to drive up the revenue for a given website that shows a good ROI.
Someone slap me about the head to get me to focus if I'm missing something.
Bottom line: When site targeting matures to page optimized ads site targeting will be a good thing?
We are not there yet, but since I have a site with good content I like these changes. The reason, IMO, that so many people are posting with concerns is that these changes aren't good for all sites. They may not even be good for a majority of sites....
I had to opt out of site targetting because it brought down the earnings and cannibalized my regular ad spots. You would think they'd REWARD you for being site targetted, not vice versa. So now my visitors get an ad "Advertise on this Site" and they can't even do that! It's just sending them to Adwords. And G won't even give a referral fee.
YPN looks better with each passing day. And YPN is not implemented with near the professionalism that Adsense is.But with YPN, I feel like I'm being told the truth, not some phony spin. At least not yet.
Coming back to the point, the day these features are implemented in a decent fashion, G will turn me from a critic to an advocate. I'm afraid it won't happen, but I wish it would.
How ironic it would be if the advertiser's heightened expectation of increased ROI from site targeting only serves to exacerbate advertiser disappointment when the returns are only marginally better.
Granular is where it's at.
OTOH, I'm not looking forward to the day when G puts up ads on the next website I visit that say "Hey, Jeff! We know you've been visiting websites about Elbonia River Cruises. We know your income! We know where you live! We know what type of car you drive! Have we got a deal for you on discount Elbonia River Cruises with a rental car included!"
Be careful what you wish for.
I'm not sure if it's worth it to get down to page targeting, unless of course the page is one where you could whack up a few thousand impressions fairly quickly. (Or maybe if an advertiser could buy a package of specific pages across different sites.) Might be a logistical nightmare.
But some sort of section targeting for Adsense should be possible, maybe using channels.
He he he. Seems like everybody's talking about those Elbonian River Cruises. I'd sure like to take one. Hey EfV, where do I book? ;)
...would reward sites with good content.
Apparently I need to stop publishing crap!
Would mediocre do?
