Forum Moderators: martinibuster
My understanding is that the integrated script would return a combination of AdSense results and organic results, and that the AdSense results will somehow be automatically branded with the AdSense publisher's account identity. Meaning that the publisher's account would get credit for the clicks received from these searches.
High traffic sites with a broad user-base will absolutely benefit from this if it holds true. As opposed to the old rules regarding search result pages and AdSense, it seems that Google has realized that if publishers are going to place the code on search results, the results may as well be powered by Google.
This information was provided by someone who would know, as I do not purport to be any sort of big insider. I am praying it comes and I can't wait to read everyone's thoughts on the implications.
If this is old news that I somehow missed, I apologize.
I'm in the position of needing a new site search, having more pages now than the free version of Atomz handles. I really don't want to take the time that it would take for me to learn how to set up the search that is available through my hosting account. My spare time is precious.
If Google is now sharing revenue that was once 100% the property of Google, either ad price is going to increase (doubtful) or payouts are going to be less than for traditional ads.
By "traditional ads" I assume you mean AdSense. From an economic standpoint it might cause the supply of ads to increase faster than the demand, which would tend to lower prices. I suspect the payout would be dictated by Google's "smart pricing".
How would additional revenue be realized by google if more people use a Google GUI Search product? If anything it is going to cost them more, as they must now share the revenue off adwords AND pay for the additional bandiwdth / servers / programmers to make this project work. I see no way for google to generate additional income when they are reducing the income they already had and forced to spend more money on increased expenses, such as servers, etc.
I believe you must be making a number of potentially flawed assumptions since you are suggesting that 1. Google's per click earnings will decrease, while total clicks will not increase. Such a partner SE interface that shares revenue has the potential to greatly increase total searches and AdWords clicks for the following reasons:
1. Publishers that had no SE interface are likely to add this one.
2. Publishers that had a different SE interface may consider adding this one.
3. Publishers with a non-revenue generating Google SE interface may consider adding this one.
4. Publishers in #2 and #3 above will likely do more to promote usage of the SE interface.
5. Total searches are not static. This would likely boost total searches and by extension total searches through Google.
Total searches are not static.
richmondsteve, Wisely put.
Pretty much everything Google does these days, adhere to this.
"I believe you must be making a number of potentially flawed assumptions since you are suggesting that 1. Google's per click earnings will decrease, while total clicks will not increase. Such a partner SE interface that shares revenue has the potential to greatly increase total searches and AdWords clicks for the following reasons:
1. Publishers that had no SE interface are likely to add this one.
2. Publishers that had a different SE interface may consider adding this one.
3. Publishers with a non-revenue generating Google SE interface may consider adding this one.
4. Publishers in #2 and #3 above will likely do more to promote usage of the SE interface.
5. Total searches are not static. This would likely boost total searches and by extension total searches through Google.
"
I am well aware of that.
Explain how google once took 100% of adword revenue from a site search, and now much share that revenue, and what the break even point for that would be. Total searches are not static, and each additional search has a margainal increase in cost. Google is asked to do the same thing they were doing before, increase the total searches, increase the customer service and server load, while sharing the revenue that the once had 100% control over.
Point is, Google incurs additional costs for each additional search that is done. Google will most likley have greater COGS (in this case cost of a service and not a good) while splitting revenue, something they did not have to do before.
I would find it very hard to belive that google will calculate payout prices before figuring in the costs for running the program. Click prices would be adjusted by the click bid amount, minus the costs for the program, and then a percentage taken by google.
I just have a hard time seeing how publishers expect similar payouts with this as opposed to traditional adsense payouts. My guess is that they will not only be reduced (or google takes the brunt of the increased costs on the other end) but users will be given a page that says google all over it, and not your site name. I would rather have people searching on my site for pages on my site first than the whole internet, which contain millions of pages by other adsense publishers with ads just waiting to be clicked on.
Sending visitors away from your site instead of into pages with adsense on it is similar to electing to have each adsense click be worth $0. It makes no sense to me why anyone would want to give away hard earned traffic to competing sites.
I am very intersted in seeing how this program works, as I think it would be a royal disservice to publishers wishing for the most clicks possible.
"By "traditional ads" I assume you mean AdSense. From an economic standpoint it might cause the supply of ads to increase faster than the demand, which would tend to lower prices. I suspect the payout would be dictated by Google's "smart pricing". "
Explain to me how this has anything to do with price sharing? Be careful too, I've taken years and years of economics courses and seminars............
By no means would price sharing have any effect on the supply of ads. Ad supply is totally independent of this. Google is forced to earn less per click with this "new program" as they did with the old one. The ad supply can be the same, but the same nuber of clicks will net google the exact average percentage of the google cut per ad. Maybe this would be around 50% just to make it easy on us.
Google now has to increase the total number of clicks by ****% while battling increased marginal costs per search on the new platform. The click ammount must exceed the increase in cost per search. If a CTR is 1% (again, just an easy number to figure) than it will take 100 searches for one ad click. If this ad is only worth 5 cents, and google keeps 50%, it has 2.5 cents to pay for that last 100 searches. They are coming very very VERY VERY close to having costs exceed price, and if that is the case they will either be paying out more money to publishers than they are taking in from advertisers (doubtful) or they will lower the click payout to publishers until they are the ones making more money than it costs them to run the program. With the old plan they would be taking in double (since they do not have to pay publishers).
A flood of low paying ads can move the equalibrium very close to the break even point. You think google is going to sit there and pay out more than they are taking in after expenses? No, I did not think so. They will lower payout percentages to ensure they cover their own expenses and turn some profit beforehand.
None of us can really tell what the payout percentage will be, what the costs will be, etc, but I know they are banking on increasing the total number of searches on this program a lot more than the percent decrease in revenue they will realize as a result of paying publishers as well. It is not simply cut and dry, a proportional increase to the decrease of realized revenue will not cut it, costs are increasing at the same time and must be taken into account.
I hope this is itemized in a future Google 10k so we can see exactly the COGS associated with this porgram and the payouts.
For now i will certainly stick to my site matching search with traditional adsense, as i am very doubbtful with this program
I think Google may find this as a way to put back the 'related keywords'.
Wouldn't that be a great help. Overall Google is doing a good job of matching ads to the topics of most of my articles but there are a few that just don't match up very well. It may be because the words in them are so varied.
This one takes the cake. Note the lost widgets ad. It gave me a good laugh when I got up this morning.
<snip>
[edited by: engine at 7:25 pm (utc) on June 11, 2004]
[edit reason] No urls, thanks. See TOS [webmasterworld.com] [/edit]
I just have a hard time seeing how publishers expect similar payouts with this as opposed to traditional adsense payouts. My guess is that they will not only be reduced (or google takes the brunt of the increased costs on the other end) but users will be given a page that says google all over it, and not your site name.
If it's like the current Google site-search page, it will have the publisher's logo at the top and the Google logo below that. I have no problems with that. The Google logo and "look and feel" on my SERPs are a plus for users--and for the impression they convey about my site.
I would rather have people searching on my site for pages on my site first than the whole internet, which contain millions of pages by other adsense publishers with ads just waiting to be clicked on.
Google's site search doesn't search the whole Internet. (Or even the whole Web.) It searches only the pages on the publisher's site unless the user wants to search the larger Web.
Sending visitors away from your site instead of into pages with adsense on it is similar to electing to have each adsense click be worth $0. It makes no sense to me why anyone would want to give away hard earned traffic to competing sites.
As I stated in an earlier post, the Web is called the "World Wide Web" for a reason, and Web traffic isn't supposed to flow in only one direction. Google has been successful by being part of the Web, not apart from it--and that's also true of many publishers, for whom the AdSense network was designed.
We have been in need of a search feature for quite some time, but various issues has stopped us from adding it. Our easiest way out would have been to just add a Google site:www.domain.com search box, but the fact that this would be a way out for visitors, has stopped us.
However, if Google would let us in on a piece of the AdWords revenue, I wouldn't hesitate to add it tomorrow. Even if it had to be a global search, and even if we couldn't customize it a bit.
However, we are doing quite well in the Serps, and since we get well over 95% of our incoming traffic from Google searches, we do feel quite confident...
If you want to give out some links to my site for free be my guest!
I dont recall you being the one who inveted the protocol for proper internet traffic flowing. Google has been successful by building a brand name that people are familar with, and turn to often for search requirements. Google has been profitable in sending people through adwords links and making money, not by handing out free links to people. If no one clicked on adwords ads, Google would not relaize any revenue, and thus not be a company. I cannot belive you would say something so idealistic when the topic of this thread is about an attempt for google to get more people to click through adsense ads AS WELL AS PROMOTE THE GOOGLE BRAND. Saying how the WWW is supposed to work is like Al Gore saying he invented it, it is idiotic and childish.
Your posts are conflicting in this reguard. I am a successful adsense publisher because i have traffic flowing in and traffic flwoing out through adsense and other revenue streams. Any financial success you have works in the same way.
Leave the ideology at home.
I am questionable as to the actual payout through this service. With some low paying words (which is the bulk of adwords customers), the costs of supporting the system could be very close to or above the revenue recgonition. I am skeptical as to what the actual payout will be to customers for some lower end paying keywords. I propose that until we know, i am happy with putting adsense on my search system and stick with what has worked in the past rather than gabmle on what actual payouts may be.
Google's success is based on providing users with commercially untainted search results, and PageRank--which leverages the organic nature of the Web--is a key ingredient in the "secret sauce" that helped Google build the huge audience that generates revenues through AdWords. First came the search results; the revenues came afterwards. (And no, that isn't an ideological sermon--it's an objective statement of fact.)
You're welcome to disagree with Google's philosophy, and no one will force you to use AdSense SERPs on your site. But that doesn't mean other publishers are foolish for being intrigued by the potential benefits of AdSense SERPs, especially if they're already linking to external sites for editorial reasons and have learned that providing valuable links is a good way to earn high-value inbound links and attract repeat visitors.
I propose that until we know, i am happy with putting adsense on my search system and stick with what has worked in the past rather than gabmle on what actual payouts may be.
No one is saying that you shouldn't, assuming that Google continues to allow AdSense ads on internally-generated search results.
We would jump on this opportunity as soon it goes live as I believe it would improve the users experience and as well our earnings.
Leave the ideology at home.
To think that ideology does not come into play when Google makes business decisions is wrong. Few companies show the type of restraint that this one does. While it is clear that some of it has been bent {I am a Google fan, but I am not blind}, it is clear by their actions that they truly do intend to be an engine of change.
To think that ideology does not come into play when other webmasters make decisions is also wrong. I have dozens of outgoing links peppered through the site. No cgi-redirects or compensation required, if I find a good resource, I see no reason in not promoting it. TARGET="_BLANK" of course.
While I understand that this would not be a good thing for ecommerce remember that not all of us are into that facet of ebusiness.
