Forum Moderators: martinibuster
Now they say these changes were made to help advertisers. The irony is that by getting the publishers mad, you'll have less websites showing more ads. What's the incentive to go with the "new" AdSense now? Its still "free" money but now its getting to be like everything else. Its uniqueness was one of its selling points. Now its just a tad better than the rest. That's not going to cut it in the long term.
My opinion is that Google is my boss when it comes to AdSense. Bosses do some crazy stuff, and you usually have two choices in the free world:
-Roll with the punches, adapt, excel
-Tell him, her, or them to go to hell
My opinion is that Google is my boss when it comes to AdSense.
No way! Google relies on publishers like me and you to make money from AdSense. Without us their business model collapses.
The fact that they pay us is irrelevant. We are as much their customers as are the advertisers
A boss relies on his/her employees to make money from their business. Without employees their business would collapse. So in my opinion the “AdSense is boss” is a pretty accurate analogy.
A truism...
[typo]
A far better analogy is that if the boss [advertiser] doesn't make a profit, you the employee [publisher] won't have a job.
the boss [advertiser]won't make ANY profit without the employee [publisher]
truism 2
How many advertisers are not using content ads because the ROI just isn't there? If publishers are leaving in any quantity it would only be the ones with lower converting sites. This increases the ROI of the content ads across the remaining publishers. The remaining lower converting publishers cost less to the advertiser for the lower converting locations.
This theoretically should bring many more advertisers (back) to running content syndication, which will directly increase per click rates.
The "not converting" complaint is addressed.
That may be their solution, and the problem they are trying to solve. Is it perfect? No. Is it better all around in the long run? I say maybe. Is it "fair" to sites who have become used to the larger earnings? Probably not.
No way! Google relies on publishers like me and you to make money from AdSense. Without us their business model collapses.
Spoken like a true employee.
The AdSense labor pool is practically bottomless. OK, Google's my kind of client: minimal maintenance/overhead, no whining phone calls, and a check every month.
This theoretically should bring many more advertisers (back) to running content syndication, which will directly increase per click rates.
The flaw in this premise is that, with fuzzy math, no advertisers really know whether or not they will do better before or after April 1. To get advertisers back, they need to give them more control or real numbers. For instance, tell them their CPC will be 40% lower than before, and I bet many would love to return and try it again.
So far, I have seen exactly zero advertisers coming back in full force. I have seen a couple who are testing the waters, with unexciting results.
Is it possible that the new plan only gives some of the publisher's price cut to the advertiser, and perhaps Google stays the same. For instance, on a $1 click, let's say the publisher was getting 40c (hypothetically). Let's say the click cost is now lowered to 70c, but Google still keeps their same 60c. Now the publisher gets 10c. Happy advertiser, happy Google, unhappy publisher. IF that were true, nobody could tell due to Google's hide all facts from the publishers campaign.
MQ
What sort of sites with what sort of adverts would the bulk of the population like to see? and what sort of sites in search results and Adwords adverts annoy them?
