Forum Moderators: martinibuster
For example, a click on an ad for digital cameras on a web page about photography tips may be worth less than a click on the same ad appearing next to a review of digital cameras.
[edited by: markus007 at 8:08 pm (utc) on April 1, 2004]
Relevancy is really something both the publisher and the advertiser should expect. Somehow Google is giving relevancy a dollar value:
Current earnings + better relevancy = previous earnings
There may be a few cases of people making more than previously, but based on the number of people resonding to this thread, it is obvious those people are the exception, not the rule.
It seems we have taken a pay cut. Google is counting on the idea that they will still be the best service even after the pay cut.
As competing products come to market, Google will be forced to change.
Their email is actually reminiscent of an Overture email I got a long time ago telling me how word matching was going to help me to make more money, yet I didn't make more money. But somehow I felt like Overture actually believed waht they were saying, but I got a bad feeling in my stomach, and later left Overture.
The scariest thing to me is wondering if this is the start of a pattern. Will Google start finding more and more ways to make the deal not as good, all the while justifying every bit of what they do, somehow making it seem like the publisher is benefiting when in reality they are not?
So Google may be sheltering behind a sorta-kinda true statement (in that they may be using the conversion data from the 1% or however many sites have set up full tracking) but it's not THE reason why the adsense program has stopped paying out.
Hmmm...and just how many spies do you have in the Googleplex? :-)
Seriously, one doesn't have to be a genius to recognize that a "one bid fits all" approach isn't viable when the same ads are appearing on SERPs, special-interest editorial sites, general news and entertainment portals, e-commerce sites, forums, parked domains, gmail inboxes, etc. Publishers and Google may have different opinions on how ad rates should be tied to lead quality, or how lead quality should be measured, but it simply isn't realistic to pretend that "one bid fits all" is a viable long-term revenue strategy.
Seriously, one doesn't have to be a genius to recognize that a "one bid fits all" approach isn't viable when the same ads are appearing on SERPs, special-interest editorial sites, general news and entertainment portals, e-commerce sites, forums, parked domains, gmail inboxes, etc. Publishers and Google may have different opinions on how ad rates should be tied to lead quality, or how lead quality should be measured, but it simply isn't realistic to pretend that "one bid fits all" is a viable long-term revenue strategy.
My point, which does not contradict yours in any way:-
Google in reality still can't track conversions for the vast, overwhelming majority of sites so it can't be THE reason for the drop in earnings.
I'm not saying "they can't track conversions" since of course they can, IF the site has cooperated by implementing the tracking code.
I'm not saying "they're not factoring in conversion data" since having made a public statement about it I'm confident they're using every datapoint they can get their hands on.
What I am pointing out is that at this time, right now, today, the number of sites implementing the full tracking code is insignificant compared to the overall number of Adwords advertisers, so it's a smokescreen to explain a massive reduction in revenue for a huge number of affected parties on the basis that they've started using conversion data to adjust bids.
Have to agree they have limited data via adwords tracking to base the relevancy on. Let me see, no notice, many publishers rates down "a lot", a soft letter not really explaining anything? So I assume that adwords rates must have dropped April 1 also?...no....so google has found a way to pocket higher revenue/click under the guise of "some sort of targetting"?
And all this time we thought the politicians were the best spin doctors out there. We all stand and welcome Google into the world of corporate america....and kiss the money goodbye.
The publisher community as a whole would have to pull out in a unified manner to make a dent, and I don't see that happening.
MS will come along sooner or later giving away free money, and it'll make google's look like peanuts.
2. If one is given the chance to trust either Google or Microsoft, anyone going with MS is ready for a nice long visit with a vacuem cleaner salesman.
"Our technology looks at signals to determine which pages convert more than others," said Salar Kamangar, Google's director of product management. "We'll charge people less when they convert less well." An e-mail Google sent Thursday warned its partners that ad revenues could drop or rise, depending on convergence rates. It said the changes should also make ads more relevant.
The big problem I see with this attitude, converts to the same reason that for years, I refused to place "click to pay only" ads on my sites. Exposure is worth, at least, something. Just because a visit via a click does not convert to an instant sale, the clicker/visitor to that site, might well bookmark it for future visit and make a purchase at a later time. Where do we fall out in this scenario?
Absolutely nowhere is the answer.
While I can understand the value of a direct click/sale, that's an awfully off handed way of analysis of value in a clickthrough.
One can only hope they do not discount this sort of visit too harshly or, the income from the ads could drop drastically.
Personally, when I find a site that sells something of interest to me. I will generally do as above, bookmark it, and then, if needed or I make the choice to use them, buy something later.
IMHO, this is not a very good way to do things...
Shortz
