Forum Moderators: martinibuster
Waits while everyone runs to check...
What I want to know is how well the ad unit eCPM compares, like for like, between your Site and Contextual targetted income.
For me I'm seeing that Site targetting is giving less than 10% eCPM compared to Contextual targetting in all cases.
1, 2, 3 clicks a day on Site Targeted ads for a few days - 0 (nill) earning, 0 eCPM ....
My average eCPM ~$50, any ideas how those 'targeted' ads where bringing ZERO? not funny...
Because I have a high traffic forum site, I don't have that many new visitors to the site (25% a day or so). So, the regulars that come back day after day get tired of seeing the one big text ad every time they visit the page.
When Adsense decides to serve a greater number of contextual ads than Site ads I make more money... I wish I had some control over that decision.
FWIW, only about 1/2 of 1 percent of my site's ad impressions last month were site-targeted CPM ads, so they're below the radar as far as I'm concerned. If I were getting a lot of low-paying CPM ads, I'd regard those ads as a symptom of bigger problems--namely, the fact that AdSense contextual ads weren't performing well with my site (and vice versa).
I don't know how useful this info can be to you since it is very site specific but here goes:
Site targeted eCPM is 1.7 times the overall site eCPM
CPM earnings is around 10% of total site earnings.
Am I happy with CPM on my site? I am not sure, I think I don't like it, too busy with my content right now to worry about that, will trust Google (for now) to do what's best.
- 16% of my ad unit impressions are from CPM
- eCPM is 505% higher than site targeting
- CTR is 500% higher than site targeting (doesnt make an impact anyway since CPM)
I am amazed at how poor my eCPM is for site targeting than contextual targeting. Would I have been better off if I opted out of site targeting and simply showed contextual advertising?
Would I have been better off if I opted out of site targeting and simply showed contextual advertising?
Not according to Google.
Low-paying site-targeted CPM ads are "filler ads" that get displayed only when even lower-paying CPC ads or non-paying PSAs would show up.
The stats from my site suggest that this was not happening.
Like you, the site-targetted eCPM was a fraction of contextual eCPM before I opted out. But I saw these ads appearing on my site sometimes during prime UK business time and sometimes on prime pages. I can easily fill all the ad space I create, so I'm pretty sure there was plenty of well-paying ad inventory that was being displaced by CPM ads. In view of these stats showing how poorly CPM ads pay, it's no wonder my income level recovered when I opted out.
The stats from my site suggest that this was not happening.
Well, that's how it's supposed to work (according to Google), and it appears to be true on my site. Nothing is perfect, however, and it's certainly possible that the "CPM or CPC?" algorithm may screw up from time to time, just as the ad-targeting algorithm does.
To my mind, if a unit is getting $20 eCPM on average contextually then allowing site-targetting ad which pays anything less than $20 CPM seems wrong?
Should I opt out? I guess it is not really a opt out, but it will atleast get rid of the "Advertise on this site".
Or should I leave it there to contribute to the greater good of Google and publishers, since it will cause more advertisers to sign-up for Adwords.
I guess it is not really a opt out, but it will atleast get rid of the "Advertise on this site".
You can get rid of the "Advertise on this site" without opting out of site-targetting.
It's in the account settings area.
To my mind, if a unit is getting $20 eCPM on average contextually then allowing site-targetting ad which pays anything less than $20 CPM seems wrong?
It isn't wrong; it makes perfect sense. Why? Because site-targeted ads can't be as precisely targeted as contextual ads are, which means they won't perform as well for the advertisers--unless an advertiser is doing a branding campaign, and how many advertisers are going to do branding campaigns with AdSense text ads?
I think site-targeted CPM are meant to be "remnant ads," except in the rare (non-existent?) cases where advertisers are willing to pay top dollar for CPM ads on a handful of carefully chosen sites.
Down the line, that could change, especially if Google is able to make inroads into the broader advertising market where buyers are used to picking their media and paying on a CPM basis. But for now, most advertisers who use site-targeted CPM ads are probably just testing the waters to see if they can save money with the AdSense equivalent of remnant ads.
Which I think is doubly good, as it would appear to mean more money overall for less visitors leaving my site.
In my case, the % share of site targetted impressions has been steadily increasing over the last 3 months.
Also, in the general discussion, I agree in the straightforward case where if you have one block it is probably best to leave it to Google's algos to fill that with contextual or site ads. However, in our case with 2 adjacent blocks with collapsing alternate urls, we would rather have the 2nd block collapse rather than display low paying site ads in that block which may reduce the CTR on the primary block.
Also, are site targeted ads always CPM ads or can they also be CPC?
The new stats made me look hard at the CPM ads and I can't help but think that I might be losing money everytime these ads are shown. Opportunity cost may be high for me, especially given the traffic levels, type of site, and the kind of visitors the site attracts. The ECPM of my contextual ads is 4x higher than that of site targeted ads. I just sent an email to the Adsense team requesting to opt out of CPM ads.
I had previously requested to disable site targeting, but now I am going to have it back because the statistics report tells me the targetting is performing better.
I hope Google can make further improvement to enable the optimization from the publisher sides.
A site with multiple topics will not be very suitable for site targetting?
Advertizers can use section targeting along with site targeting to have their ads show where they want them.
Am I glad I opted out! I think PSA's pay more :)
I am still searching a PSA solution briniging me at last 1% of the eCPM of AdSense ads
Site targeted ads bring in average only 20% of the eCPM of the context ads.
Maybe site targeted ad is used by Google as something between context ads and PSA.
To my mind, if a unit is getting $20 eCPM on average contextually then allowing site-targetting ad which pays anything less than $20 CPM seems wrong?
It isn't wrong; it makes perfect sense. Why? Because site-targeted ads can't be as precisely targeted as contextual ads are, which means they won't perform as well for the advertisers--unless an advertiser is doing a branding campaign, and how many advertisers are going to do branding campaigns with AdSense text ads?
Sorry - I disagree here. It's clearly wrong, and if anything it shows just how seriously flawed Google's "Proprietary technology" actually is.
Google don't have a responsibility to either publishers or advertisers. They use both parties in order to satisfy Google's shareholders. Therefore Google's responsibility to shareholders is to sell the ad space for the maximum advertiser revenue, and minimum payout to publishers.
As the top quote says, if an ad unit is getting $20 eCPM all the time, then the last thing they should be doing from the point of satisfying investors is to ignore the fact there are plenty of ads in the auction to achieve the $20 and giving the space over to a campaign that only pays $1 per 1000! It's nuts to give away a space worth $20 per 1000 to an advertiser that pays $1 per 1000 - yet that's precicely what's happening!
It's insane from the investor point of view, as well as annoying the hell out of advertisers willing to pay the going rate who are bumped off, and publishers whose valuable real estate is needed by both advertisers and Google!
I don't buy the argument they are used as "Filler ads". OK - on some sites maybe, but in the main no. I've been with adsense over 2 years now, and in a tight niche. When I started I saw psa's half the time due to lack of inventory and budgets. After 6 months or so, I ceased to see psa's except for the odd occasion on a nwe page, or in one case when stop words were causing psa's to display.
IMHO, Google's inventory is very, very broad and there is not a shortage of well paying ads. My eCPM averages $30, and there isn't any shortage of advertisers willing to bid for placement. Surely it's Google's duty to investors to sell my ad space for that amount if there are advertisers willing to pay it?
I've opted out of advertise on this site and cpm ads - somebody has to protect Google's investors from Google's stupidity!
On the point of introducing the new feature - it's something we have been asking Google to supply for a very long time. Thanks for providing it Google! It also another example of how Google do actually listen to feedback from this forum (as well as other places) and ideas do get fed back into the program!
It's nuts to give away a space worth $20 per 1000 to an advertiser that pays $1 per 1000 - yet that's precicely what's happening!
I have difficulties to get out from my PSA replacements at last 1% of the eCPM from the normal ads.
If site targeted CPM ads are just something a little bit above PSA, they put it there, because an context ad would have at this place a high smart pricing discount and would bring less than the context ad.
And I have to side with vincevincevince and david_uk over EFV in the debate over the purpose of even having them.
This has not been a clear win-win for advertisers and publishers.
My 2 cents.
