Forum Moderators: martinibuster
and that's no good.
i started my website not too long ago, and i've had adsense for almost 2 weeks. i've been lurking around here for just as long.
anyways, i've started getting some (what i consider to be) "real" traffic now; 1300+ unique hits in the last 2 days, but my CTR is miserable.
i understand it's against the TOS here to mention the website i run. it's a content based site, and i use one link thin list at the very top, and a Leaderboard (728 x 90) at the very bottom of every page. i also have a Banner (468 x 60) at the end of content pages, before the blogstyle comments section.
my colors are very nicely blended to fit in with the rest of my site.
i'd love to hear some suggestions from all you amazing pros on how to improve my CTR. according to my channel info, the ads that are the winners for me are the Banner (468 x 60) at the bottom of each article, before the comments. but again, very poor CTR for that. should i consider trying out different ad formats? less blending in colors?
ideas? help? please?
someoneeeeeee...
If it's search engine traffic, what are the keywords they are using? If you were searching for those keywords, do you think you would be likely to click on the ads that are appearing there?
If it's not search engines, then how likely is it that those visitors are going to be highly interested in those exact ads?
Regards
R
Next follow the readers' eyes. People are already programmed to ignore stuff at the very top, so put your logo there and forget about ads up there. As you've already discovered the ads right at the end of where they are finished reading are doing best, sooo perhaps put some more immediately BEFORE where they start reading (on the sides don't USUALLY do as well, but no harm in testing them. If possible, the best location is sometimes in a position interrupting the flow of reading such as between paragraphs/chapters on a page. It is acceptable to say something like "story continues below" or "more below" (at least that's what GAd told US). Or even better, between your MENU buttons, where people are looking when they are ready to leave your page, without making it appear misleading of course. There are a number of ways to do this, but difficult to explain without giving too specific of examples. Think about it a while.
Finally try to make the other clickable links on your page identical in color and SIZE (or at least as close as possible) as the GAdsense links (not just the text and background... THE LINKS).
Good Luck
as to visitors, the absolute vast amount of the traffic i'm getting is from other websites in my niche linking to articles of mine.
And, if your site attracts a loyal following, don't expect your regular visitors to click much.
Your low CTR may also be due to the nature of your site. If visitors are coming to your site looking for information on digital cameras you'll probably get more clicks than if they're looking for political insight.
that's a great point, Knappster, i didn't think of that.
I've developed a few sites (20+) specifically to target Google AdSense traffic (The primary source of revenue).
I make the "true" menus and options totally the same as the Google Ads. I spoke to my Google Rep on how legit this strategy was, and she said......"Do It".
So now I have some sites where it is very difficult to know what is a Goggle Ad and what is a genuine menu option. It has to be confusing to the visitor, but, that is what I/We wanted to achieve!
Yes, the "Ads By Google" thing exists, but you have to be looking hard to see what it applies to.
My CTR is great, Google seem to be happy. The visitors may or may not be so happy, but is doesn't seem to deter them.....So my advice is do it:)
I spoke to my Google Rep on how legit this strategy was, and she said......"Do It".So now I have some sites where it is very difficult to know what is a Goggle Ad and what is a genuine menu option. It has to be confusing to the visitor, but, that is what I/We wanted to achieve!
I hope you have this in writing from the rep since it "reads" extremely dodgy to me!
i'm still thinking of experimenting around with the shape of the ad at the bottom of each article though. i'm thinking that maybe a square ad might be more effective than the small banner i have now?
I hope you have this in writing from the rep since it "reads" extremely dodgy to me!
It's called BLENDING, we've all been doing it for a very long time but Percentages is trying to make it sound like some cloak and dagger nonsense.
I suspect the reason Percentages' strategy sounded "dodgy" to Optirex is because the former talked about the surfer being "confused". Confusion, imho, is both unethical and counter-productive (it will lead to low conversion rates).
However, integrating onsite menus with google ads is not a matter of creating confusion; both are offering offpage options for the surfer to go to next. Such blending is putting pages 'at this site' on the same smorgasbord as 'google ads', with a small label to distinguish one from another.
I think Percentages is in error in thinking this creates "confusion". I see it, rather, that you are giving the surfer choices about where to go next. Wonderful though our sites are, if we are honest very few surfers have site loyalty to the extent of being worried whether an attractive looking link is on this site or another; what matters to them is whether there is a match between those links and what they are looking for.
Hunderdown's site is one of the most skilful examples of blending, of this type, that I've seen (see his ID).
No! It creates confusion, and I'm sure Google appreciates why!
Yes, they call it blending, I personally think of it as "too close to the line of marketing". It exists on TV today in abundance, so we shouldn't get all high and mighty about anyone's ethics on the net!
Yes, I have it in writing from Google that this policy is an approach that is acceptable to them. If it wasn't I wouldn't bother with Google AdSense, it is this policy that makes it work for me (us!).
We are in a migration. In 1960 you wouldn't have seen a TV Ad for something that was plainly dumb but buyable. The net is now migrating into that area and although I consider my product as very tangible, the advertisers will inevitably allow some scope in order to make an extra buck.
surfer being "confused"
You politely call them "confused" but most people are just STUPID and I see nothing unethical about making a design to capture the most money from the most room temperature IQs that land on the site as long as it's topical to the subject and drives traffic to the right web sites.
Proof that most people are stupid: QVC still exists.
Those same people falling into Google ad traps might as well share a few extra nickels with us before splurging it all on the "AS SEEN ON TV" products they crave from the Barcalounger.
Not my fault they aren't smart enough to know the difference between site navigation and links that blatantly say "Ads by Goooooogle" but I won't shed any tears over capturing their clicks.
In 1960 you wouldn't have seen a TV Ad for something that was plainly dumb but buyable
Incorrect - they showed cigarette ads on TV
Plainly dumb, potentially fatal, but buyable.
Yes, they call it blending, I personally think of it as "too close to the line of marketing". It exists on TV today in abundance, so we shouldn't get all high and mighty about anyone's ethics on the net!
There's one obvious difference: TV advertisers aren't paying by the click.
I just keep feeding them the same cacophony of blue links they see everywhere else, including G search results.
I know they are confused because they call me saying they keep getting taken off my site. (click click click :)
IMHO 80% of internet traffic ain't sure what are links and what are ads (and I'm occasionally one of them). 50% of those don't understand the concept of link ads.
Not arguing a point here- just clarifying, as I prepare to work on this technique you guys are speaking of.
As they say:
"...these quality guidelines cover the most common forms of deceptive or manipulative behavior, but Google may respond negatively to other misleading practices not listed here (e.g. tricking users by registering misspellings of well-known websites). It's not safe to assume that just because a specific deceptive technique isn't included on this page, Google approves of it. Webmasters who spend their energies upholding the spirit of the basic principles listed above will provide a much better user experience and subsequently enjoy better ranking than those who spend their time looking for loopholes they can exploit...".
In other words, just because we don't explicitly say you can't do it, doesn't mean you can.
Otherwise known as blending- if its in the middle of a navigational menu, with no text such as "Sponsored Ads" separating links from ads.
Seems as though Google would have the final say, as you pointed out.
If you're doing it to deliberately confuse users by making it hard to tell the difference between ads and navigation links, then Google may well object.
Or maybe not. Different people or teams at AdSense may have different agendas, just as Google AdSense and Google Search obviously have different agendas.
From the perspective of a publisher who's concerned only with his own immediate revenues, there may still be a reason to exercise self-restraint. It's called "smart pricing," and it's Google's way of tying ad pricing (and publisher earnings) to value for advertisers. If referrals from your site don't convert well, or if Google's smart-pricing algorithm assumes (even if only from on-page factors) that your clicks will convert poorly, then you'll become one of the publishers who complain about smart pricing in the "My EPC is declining" threads that we often see on this forum. Smart pricing obviously doesn't hurt advertisers, and it doesn't hurt Google as long as enough clicks are being delivered to use up advertisers' budgets. One can even speculate that Google needs a good-size pool of heavily discounted clicks to fill up "Ads by Gooooogle" boxes and serve the widest possible range of advertisers. That would help to explain why Google allows publishers to use techniques such as blending that result in lower conversion rates.
I joined adsense about a month ago, and Google had this video that I watched and the guy in the Google video said that "Blending" was the most effective way to get click results.
So, I made up a test site and made all my ads look just like my links - lots of blue anchor.
But one day someone came in and went "click mad". I think they must have used the back button quite a lot.
I was so paranoid about fraudulent clicks that I actually wrote to Google to notify them of this.
It's funny when I think back on it, but I was a bit worried at the time.
Smart Pricing point noted...
No! Of course they are!
Look at some recent US TV ads.....their websites are of the form 34.great_TV_offers_for_crap.com. They change the 34 bit on every station, and period, so that they can monitor the effectiveness of each ad and each station.
They are paying for TV ads based upon the per-click performance, and they NOW understand that they need to know what the numbers are!
TV adveristising only works on a pay-per-click model. If you can't measure it, you are a loser. The methods employed to date are somewhat simplistic, but, the desire is there!
It is all about the numbers.....it is all about the Percentages of success rate!
In my view, although confusion and blending have some aspects in common, they are different. One is good and the other bad (being unethical, and unprofitable because of the smartprice impact).
Conflating them (as you appear to be doing) can lead to a couple of problems: you may misunderstand permission to blend as being permission to confuse; and at some point you might inadvertently and unwittingly cross a Google TOS threshold.
Having said that, the way you've described the design of your site makes it sound more like 'blending', to me. Google gave you the thumbs up to blend, but not to confuse.
Where is the line in the sand?
I certainly can't give you the answer!
Google can't give me the answer either. So we proceed on the basis of doing stuff that I personally consider as confusing, and they consider as "blending".
Who am I to say they are wrong? After all it makes us both money!
The only possible "losers" in this equation are the Advertisers, and possibly the surfers, but it only costs the latter time! If it doesn't work for the former they will back out.
The Advertisers may like this approach of "blending" and "confusing". The surfer may not, IMHO, but they aren't really paying in tangible terms so who really cares about them?
That's a rhetorical question....before y'all flame me to death!
