Forum Moderators: martinibuster
Theory: for a lot of market niches, minus the Yahoo effect, the rampant increase in AdSense web sites has dropped EPC for many webmasters. This may be due to the fact that a lot of lower quality sites are being brought into the fold due to Google's aggressive recruiting. The lower quality sites lead to the AdWords advertiser turning a negative eye towards non-SERP Ad display, because of poorer sales conversion rates.
If that theory is true, then the only thing that would change things would be if Google took on the humongous task of tracking conversions for their AdWords advertisers, by AdSense publishing site (voluntarly participation).
Then web sites would get a ranking number, a sales "conversion rank". This could lead to AdWords keyword bid amounts having a minimum "conversion rank" filter setting.
"I want a maximum CPC of .50 cents and a minimum conversion rank of 7".
Right now, lower converting sites are punishing (not intentionally) higher converting sites by draining the ad budgets of the AdWords advertisers, on traffic that results in little or no sales.
This could reverse the AdWords advertisers opinion on web site contextual ads to one of coveting them. If you knew that a site with a sales "conversion rank" of 7, converted on average 5% of their web traffic to sales, you would jump through hoops to get your ads on rank 7 sites.
Another powerful synergistic effect of this, would the change in AdSense publisher behavior. For those that are trying to manipulate page content to attract certain AdSense ads, this would be a powerful disincentive. Instead AdSense webmasters would be very concerned in "pre-qualifying through content", their traffic, to insure or achieve a high sales "conversion rank" . Similar to the motivation to increase the AdWords CTR on a keyword phrase, on the AdWords advertiser side of things.
Just a late night thought.
Thanks.
AndroidTech
Like I said before. I am just trying to understand the thoughts here. I've noticed a few posts from folks who make more from AdSense on a CPC and a few folks who make more from affiliate ads. I guess it depends on what works for who more than anything.
I have an affinity to the whole contextual advertising thing and I think it is the correct thing to do. It just seems strange to hear some content sites say who cares if the advertiser doesn't make a sale as long as I get the click amount. The flip side is the advertisers who would like to keep advertising and read those threads along with the ones on how to increase the CTR.
Both go hand in hand IMHO and both sides should be equally concerned and equally interested in finding what works best.
Advertisers really only had to only worry about the competition clicking on ads when they were within the tightly controlled Google partner network. Now they have to worry about some unethical webmasters as well.
JAG
It just seems strange to hear some content sites say who cares if the advertiser doesn't make a sale as long as I get the click amount.
There's a much simpler solution than changing Google's business model for contextual ads: Just give advertisers greater control over where their ads appear. That will encourage the development of quality sites and discourage opportunistic let's-make-a-quick-buck-with-Adsense entrepreneurs.
The flip side is the advertisers who would like to keep advertising and read those threads along with the ones on how to increase the CTR.
What's wrong with trying to increase CTR if the publisher is doing so by legitimate means? Most of the discussions I've seen on that topic have to do with questions like "Should I use a banner or skyscraper?" or "What color scheme works best"? In other words, the publishers aren't trying to do anything crooked; they're just trying to make sure that readers will see the ads.
Both go hand in hand IMHO and both sides should be equally concerned and equally interested in finding what works best.
Traditionally, "what works best" is an editorial environment that reaches the desired target audience. The publisher provides the space; the advertiser provides the ads. That's how AdSense was designed to work.
Advertisers really only had to only worry about the competition clicking on ads when they were within the tightly controlled Google partner network. Now they have to worry about some unethical webmasters as well.
The "tightly controlled Google partner network" doesn't offer immunity from fraud, either. (I remember when, a few years ago, several About.com guides had their contracts terminated because they'd allegedly used bots to increase their earnings.) In any case, Google has fraud controls in place, as some WW members have learned the hard way.
And again, letting advertisers have more control over ad placement would be an easier solution than reinventing AdSense. IMHO, that's bound to happen at some point; either that, or Google will come up with a system that lets advertisers buy what might be called "run-of-network" AdSense ads or ads that appear only on sites which have passed a human check or meet an algorithm-based standard.
changing Google's business model for contextual ads
I don't think I said they should change it. My apologies if I did. I just was curious why people here would be against an extension or alternative flavors that could include affiliate type ads.
What's wrong with trying to increase CTR if the publisher is doing so by legitimate means?
Nothing. But perception is everyone's reality and if advertisers even *think* things are done to increase revenue then it's already a bad thing.
Traditionally, "what works best" is an editorial environment that reaches the desired target audience.
Correct. AdSense lacks the desired audience that traditional advertising has a clue about. The only thing AdSense does is find the desired content.
The "tightly controlled Google partner network" doesn't offer immunity from fraud, either.
This is true but there was no incentive for anyone but the competition to click which can be caught now after years of refinement. Now there is the competition and less than honest webmasters to worry about.
In any case, Google has fraud controls in place, as some WW members have learned the hard way.
Correct again. But I have to wonder how many less than honest webmasters, or even the curious ones, click on ads just once. Multiply it by thousands of web sites and an advertisers budget can be drained significantly if not completely. I doubt any fraud detection can catch one click.
JAG
Correct again. But I have to wonder how many less than honest webmasters, or even the curious ones, click on ads just once. Multiply it by thousands of web sites and an advertisers budget can be drained significantly if not completely. I doubt any fraud detection can catch one click.
I doubt if most advertisers' ads are running on thousands of Web sites. That may happen for some topics or keywords, but for every advertiser who's selling Sony Walkwidgets or Macrosoft Doorways, there are probably a dozen advertisers selling products or services in niches that don't attract the get-rich-quick crowd. And as long as fraud remains at minimal levels (e.g., below the level of invalid addresses on rented mailing lists or newspapers that never get read), it's no more of a problem than waste circulation in other media.
I doubt if most advertisers' ads are running on thousands of Web sites.
This may be true and again I apologize if I said or implied *most*. I meant *an* advertiser whoever or howmany that may be.
The point is that there is now one more person (the unethical webmaster) in the mix.
As I have said before.....I do think contextual advertising is good. It is just is a different critter.
JAG
I am an AdWords advertiser and I'd be happy to use AdSense if I only had to pay on conversion.I don't think you'll find many publishers who are willing to assume your risk and subsidize your business while you learn how to pick keywords and write advertising copy.
EFV is right on. Conversion is much more dependant on how you write your sales copy than it is on me sending you a good prospect. I'm not about to rent you space and assume the risk when a site can't convert sales. My job is to get you good prospects. Your job is to make the sale.
and what people are talking about conversions?
i think if that comes into action, it will make adwords like double click or any other low paying network.
Why don't people understand that adwords is the best thing for publishers
and advertisers are just fighting to get on the top slot for dvertising on good websites.
Only thing google can do is to have good quality websites and not every tom taken harry's website that comes with 30 pages.
regards,
dhaliwal
a) IF YOU ARE NOT PAYING YOU ARE NOT PLAYING.
Rank = CPC * CTR. It is all about Results. This law of the universe does not change, conversion or not.
IE: Google's ALG will punt Ads / Advertisers who are not converting.
Put another way, who cares if your ad copy doesn't work or your links suck or whatever at the end of the day if you do not convert you will not be put on anyone's website for them to get pissed off about.
Put yet another way, Publishers do not have to worry about how well the advertisers can sell cause if the advertisers do not convert than they will not be in Google's ad rotation.
Once last time, there is NO GREATER RISK using conversion for the publisher. Currently, if you pay money you get air time on people's websites. If you do not pay you do not get air time. With conversion, it is exactly the same. If you do not pay(ie convert) you do not get air time. If you do not pay(ie convert) you do not get on a website and you do not get traffic. In order to get more ad rotation, you will need to pay more for conversion so that you will get on people's websites.
Many apologies for how that sounded, but it has been said a 100 times and yet people still argue "oh but what about those dead beat advertisers that don't pay up or can't convert" (I bet there will be another one, just watch).
I was getting a little exhausted reading it.
b) Publishers will stop getting punished by dead beat publishers.
The fact is, there are publishers there who have found a way to shuffle low quality traffic to AdSense. What this does, in affect, is piss off AdWords advertisers who leave the system and you, the viable, honest publisher suffers because of lower bids on ads and lower EPC.
Pay on conversion will ENSURE that the money goes to the websites who are actually doing the RIGHT things (creating quality leads) versus the click bot / click circle / traffic creating losers.
c) This is a very SMALL CHANGE for Google. Everything is already in place (just set up an Adwords account and you'll see why). They just need to hook up the payment from the Conversion tracking to the billing section. Very minor engineering change .. I can only believe that they know this and they set it up all this way for when they need to turn it on.
d) With pay on conversion, you will get MORE advertisers, more money, and higher EPC. I know it seems hard to believe, but it is the truth. It's a closed end system, that money is not going to evaporate into thin air.
And finally, though this really has absolutely nothing to do with AdSense people, a conversion can be many many many things, not just a KA-CHING of the credit card checkout.
A conversion can be
a) a click-thru (which is what it is now)
b) a click-thru with multiple page views
c) a visit to a particular page on the website
d) a download of a particular white paper
e) a query for a follow up
f) one search on the search engine
g) a download of a trial demo
h) a paticular click-stream which signifies a real user
etc etc ad nauseum.
Again, many apologies for the tone of this article, but there is a creeping frustration here about the constant lack of appreciation for what conversion can bring to Advertisers. It also worries me that Google reads this and thinks it's the consensus opinion when it most definitely should not be.
Btw, one reason why I suspect that this all may come about is because I do believe that Yahoo is suing Google over patents on bid PPC. Moving over to pay on conversion will help them avoid that nonsense.
Pay on Conversion doesn't fit what google adwords is about. (or adsense). We are about sending leads and visitors to your site based on ads that you wrote. We are not selling stuff for you or trying to convice people to use your services - that is your job :) We are merely running sites that target the visitors you are after by the keywords you choose and manage.
Adsense does a darn good job of that and is getting better every day.,
also, don't complain when you get knocked out of adsense when someone sets a click bot on your website.
Thank you for explaining, in such good detail, what I didn't have the time to explain.
AndroidTech
But there is a system in the middle. The system is the one that actually does the work. It's the system that says that an ad should be displayed on a site. The advertiser can only pick keywords and the ad copy is limited to what works on SERP pages so it's limited to just a few words. This works great on a SERP because people are making quick decisions and those decisions are based on what they were looking for.
So, again, on one side you have content sites saying it's the advertiser for not selling when a user gets there and on the other side you have the advertiser saying it's the content site that sends the unqualified leads.
Who's fault is it really? I'm not sure. I am pretty sure though that both sides that blame each other don't trust each other. That's the sad part of this whole thing. If each side (I hate to even use that term) trusted each other than CPC, CPM, CPS or CP? would work just fine. Or, if the system in the middle could monitor and function good enough it would work.
JAG
Yes, well, I believe in the middlemen.
So do I. They are very important and they do a lot of the work. This thread seemed to take a turn that happens a lot where there are sides. Us and them. Advertiser and content site.
JAG
clickthrough - well, just like now, may vary anywhere from 5 cents upwards
sale - 20-30 percent of the sale is ok with me
lead generation/subscription to newsletter, etc - minimum of $1, preferably $5
etc etc.
Advertisers advocating a pay for conversion should be willing to pay for it. Not demand pay for conversion while paying for mere clicks. Then of course a system like Commission Junction where I can go, see how the advertisers are converting and make my decision based on how their ads are faring before I let them ran their ads on my site. No way will I give space to an advertiser who does not know how to write ads that attract customers.
1) Falling EPC is a widespread problem, and...
2) The problem is caused by advertisers being leery of AdSense.
I'd contend that falling EPC isn't as near-universal (or even as widespread) as some people on this forum seem to think. Some publishers have seen their EPC drop, others have seen it grow, and I'd guess that many (perhaps most) have witnessed the same ups and downs that occur in any business. Also, EPC is of less importance to publishers than effective CPM and bottom-line revenues are.
Second, it's impossible to make valid generalizations about "advertisers," just as it's foolish to make generalizations about "content sites." In some categories, a flood of low-quality leads may cause a drop in demand for content ads. In other topic areas, demand may be growing.
The suggestion has been made that "pay on conversion" could be an optional alternative to "pay per click." That might work in categories where advertisers are gunshy and publishers' page topics are hard to monetize. But wouldn't it be simpler to just let the market decide what a click is worth? In the end, advertisers are going to pay what they can justify paying, whether it's so much per conversion or a CPC that's based on conversion rates or perceived value per lead.
But EFV, lets try it from a different tact.
AdSense already IS pay on conversion. A click thru is a conversion in the eyes of an Advertiser and he is willing to pay a certain amount for that.
By letting the AdSense advertiser extend the definition to something a bit more complicated then 'click thru', the advertiser is allowed to reduce fraud dramatically not just as it affects him/her but also as it pulls down the general AdSense publisher EPC.
However, that said there are two things I must admit to.
One, I believe Google is *already* using conversion data to detect fraud in their network.
Two, Google could also seperate out the bidding process like Overture has. However -> good for the Advertiser, bad for the Publisher.
Traffic is up and revenue is down since last year is the general consensus as far as I know.
I doubt if I'd be alone in disputing that claim.
BTW, anyone who's been around forums very long knows that complaints outnumber posts by happy campers--and by a wide margin. You won't see a lot of new members joining Webmaster World to express happiness with the state of Google search, their joy over AdSense revenues, or how delighted they were to receive a check on time. You will see people taking the time to join if they have problems, complaints, or concerns. That's just the way support forums work.
One, I believe Google is *already* using conversion data to detect fraud in their network.
Could be. I have no idea. Whatever works is fine with me. :-)
Two, Google could also seperate out the bidding process like Overture has. However -> good for the Advertiser, bad for the Publisher.
Also bad for Google, because of limited search inventory.
I too witnessed the a 50% decline per-click between early Feb and last week, for similar traffic patterns and CTRs. However, in my case it is very obvious the ads have gone very, very stale, so I can't project based on my data alone.
but might the decline be related to end of month exhaustion of ad budgets?
It makes sense. At the end of Feb, my EPC dropped some, but today (March 1st) it went up to usual level.
Traffic is up and revenue is down since last year is the general consensus as far as I know.
I follow all the posts on this board and I know of no such consensus. We just finish one of our best months yet and there have been many other posts confirming similar results. Does that mean there is a consensus that revenue is up? Not at all. The point is that you can't draw any consensus because results are unique to each site. Some up, some down, some flat.
Getting back to one of the original concepts put forward...
Then web sites would get a ranking number, a sales "conversion rank."
The basis issue I have with this concept is that converting a sale has more to do with how well the advertiser writes his copy than it does with the lead coming from a publishers site. Just look at how poorly many of the Adword ads are written. Then take a look at the "landing page." One wonders how they sell anything at all.
Now I'm not suggesting for a moment that leads don't vary in quality. They do and advertiser should have better control over which publisher sites they want to appear on. But a conversion rank isn't the answer.
"I follow all the posts on this board an...."
Wow! An awesome feat for sure! You must be exhausted! :-)
