Forum Moderators: martinibuster
[webmasterworld.com...]
The advertiser who started the thread (ddog) makes several interesting points, the most important of which could be summarized as:
1) The number of clicks generated by search ads is finite. Limit your ads to search, and you're limiting your potential income.
2) Content ads may have lower CTR and conversion rates than search ads in general, but so what? The traffic from such ads means additional revenue that wouldn't be generated otherwise. Instead of obsessing about CTR and conversion rates, advertisers should be thinking about the extra money they can make with content ads.
I'm calling attention to the thread in this forum because we often see disparaging remarks about content ads here, and because AdSense publishers may be interested in reading justifications of content ads by advertisers (not just by publishers).
I also wish that there would be a better understanding between publishers and advertisers that we are indeed in the same boat. Sometimes when I am reading the Adwords Forum it sounds like it is them against us, instead of joining forces and try to make it work for both parties.
I also wish that there would be a better understanding between publishers and advertisers that we are indeed in the same boat.
I would put it another way, not the same boat but with similar objectives.
You have to take everybody's comment with a grain of salt and make up your own opinions.
For example, if I were an advertiser getting good return on my adsense clicks, would I want to "talk it up" and maybe get a couple of my competitors to opt-in and either share the traffic or have to pay more money to be competitive? or would I "talk it down"?
Advertisers have legitimate requests that would improve things on their end, but some of those requests would cost Google money and resources.
It is the same with us, We would like better reporting and other forms of payment, but implementing both take time and money.
Good thing is that I am 99% certain that the publishers will get those two things eventually. They are not really that expensive to implement {from the big picture point of view}
Bad things for advertisers is that the changes that they want are really deep structural changes that would take a lot of manpower and resources to implement. I also think they will get some, but they will certainly come faster if the competition really shows up with a good competing product.
Bad things for advertisers is that the changes that they want are really deep structural changes that would take a lot of manpower and resources to implement.
One simple change Google could make would be to give advertisers the same kind of "block by domain" filter that publishers have. Or, better yet, both "block by domain" and "include by domain" filters. This would give advertisers more control over their advertising, which in turn would take at least some pressure off Google's badly overworked quality-control staff.
There's only so much you can do with algorithms - and some kind of human input is necessary to provide algorithm evaluation, if nothing else. And the only way to get human input that scales with the traffic is to involve advertisers, publishers, and users.
Now any such system runs the risk of being misused, but at least with advertisers and publishers there are some controls - Google could weight feedback by the expenditure/income of the participant involved, for example. And with some kinds of feedback self-interest should constrain abuse - publishers are unlikely to block ads gratuitously, for example!
