Forum Moderators: martinibuster
Anyway, usual disclaimers:-
Mileage may vary, get permission from whoever pays the bill before you use the phone, mobile networks may charge differently from landlines and so on.
In a nutshell, looking at the period of this month to date, with the last 9 complete days being cpm free, impressions are up 1%, clicks up 7% ands ctr up 2% over the previous part of the month with cpm ads.
Nothing stellar there, but the other metrics are quite interesting.
EPC up 35%
eCPM up 33%
Earnings up 34%
These figures are site wide, as the removal is sitewide. I would say that the improvement in some of the smaller channels has been better than the higher traffic pages, but no real pattern to it. I've seen the usual daily ups and downs, but in general I prefer to look at longer term trends. I will keep monitoring of course.
I've known you can remove cpm ads for a while but never bothered. Reason being that the stats show miniscule numbers of them being shown. So the obvious question is what other changes have happened.
Well, I've done NO work on the site the last week or so. I wanted to make no changes whatsoever so as to rule out the effect of changes I've made. There haven't been any "Upgrades" during the period of the test, and I've not seen an improvement in ad targeting. So it's difficult to see what has caused this particular rise in fortunes. However, the fact that dumping site targeted ads coincides with an immediate eCPM rise of 33% can't be dismissed as a coincidence either.
For all we know, the earth could be flat, the moon could be made of cheese, and Mars could be home to little green men.
Well we know enough to know that they are not. Nobody is hiding the obvious beyond smoke screens.
First, a cpm site targeted ad is a SINGLE ad in an ad block.
How do you know that?
How do you know that?
Ok. I've tried. I wish people would spend a little time reading what google has to offer so they understand the programs they are inexpertly trying to comment on.
Try the google help files, but just to make it easier, site targeted ads use extended text ads, and image ads, ONLY.
I really don't mind helping people understand both the adwords and adsense systems when I can, but sheesh...you know, it's there for the reading if you simply GO LOOK.
I have run a number of site targeted campaigns and as far as i could see (after following a couple of referrals) the ads looked like normal text ads appearing ALONG SIDE other text ads in the same ad panel on the site i visited.
I am not talking about image ads. I am talking about site targeted text ads. I would still love to see a link reference to official information that clearly notes that site targeted ads are a "one ad in one ad panel" thing.
GO LOOK is not good enough ... and if that's the best you can come up with then maybe you should refrain from replying to posts around here...
[edited by: Web_speed at 5:44 am (utc) on Oct. 31, 2006]
I have run a number of site targeted campaigns and as far as i could see (after following a couple of referrals) the ads looked like normal text ads appearing ALONG SIDE other text ads in the same ad panel in the site i visited.I am not talking about image ads. I am talking about site targeted text ads. I would still love to see a link reference to official information that clearly notes that site targeted ads are a "one ad in one ad panel" thing.
..and I still suggest you go look to find the official information you want. Can't post links here anyway.
Do you not know what an extended text link is?
Maybe someone can help you out and direct you to the google help files.
My new policy re: providing help to adsense and adwords people is to not do their work for them. It's become a totally losing battle, and I'm truly amazed at the number of people who go merrily along without bothering to read even the basic information. Maybe that's why people end up banned.
How do you guys get anything accomplished at all? It's like owning a car and not really having a grasp of what tires are!
Heck of a way to run a business.
How do you guys get anything accomplished at all? It's like owning a car and not really having a grasp of what tires are!
Smoke screening as usual...I’ve been in this business since 1999 and with adsense/adwords since their inception. Don't you go preaching ME about cars and tires. I know exactly what i (and no doubt more and more publishers) are seeing recently. The mere existence of this thread is yet just more evidence of the seriousness of the issues i highlight.
[edited by: Web_speed at 6:19 am (utc) on Oct. 31, 2006]
I’ve been in this business since 1999 and with adsense/adwords since their inception. Don't you go preaching ME about cars and tires. I know exactly what i (and no doubt more and more publishers) are seeing recently. The mere existence of this thread is yet just more evidence of the seriousness of the issues i highlight.
We're going afield here. You indicated on Oct 26 that you were removing adsense from your sites because of the low return. In an earlier message you also indicated problems with your SERP's.
Here's the thing. The more you understand about the google systems, the better you are likely to do. It appears you've had problems, and it might be that you haven't done all the homework. Maybe. Maybe not.
But you seem to think that there are large numbers of advertisers paying > 20 cpm to site target, and that site targeted ads are displayed along with other cpc ads. Neither is true. These aren't speculative issues.
There seems to be a HUGE contingent of people who join adsense, don't read what's available, have really poor understanding of the basics, and fail badly, THEN post saying how "bad" google is, or espouse some conspiracy theory to explain their failure. It's kind of sad because blaming google for failing isn't going to make you a success.
Taking what amounts to a very few minutes to understand adsense and adwords REALLY does help. You can't depend on others to do your research for you, unless you're willing to pay for that expertise.
I'm sorry you've had your difficulties, but maybe you'd have less of them by reading what is available, yes?
Back to topic, dumping site targeted ads "may" improve things for people, but it's really going to depend on current ECPM, the effectiveness of the google optimizing process, the arrangement of adblocks on a page, CPC advertiser pool, site targeted ad pool, and on and on. Understanding how the system works really does help in deciding what to try, since there's a lot of blind alleys. I find it doubtful that removing them will result in any significant increases, but I suppose it's possible in certain very specific situations. But NOT as a general rule.
Whether removal will work for someone is actually fairly predictable.
But you seem to think that there are large numbers of advertisers paying > 20 cpm to site target,
No i am not saying that there are advertisers paying > 20 to site target (you need to read my posts again. You missed my point). I am saying that i strongly suspect big G to be making > 20 from site targeted ads while handing publishers a few of pennis (at best).
I am saying CPC is out there as a bait right now...i am saying CPM is the new direction.
[edited by: Web_speed at 6:50 am (utc) on Oct. 31, 2006]
Note: Reporting by targeting type is now only available for reports at the ad level, not the ad unit level.
Below Google's eCPM explanation? I'm afraid they don't have the math right for lower traffic pages, and somehow CPM is impacting smart pricing.
[google.com...]
Why did Google ad the show data by "Individual Ad" stat (Not Ad Unit)?
Show data by [?]
Individual AdShow data by targeting type - contextual or site [?]
Why? So when they get around to fixing it (if ever) the statistics can show they are blending CPM ads into the Ad Units themselves. They just aren't showing the data correctly yet. The first quote from Google hints that the stats are not accurate.
Why wouldn't they blend CPM ads into the Ad Units individual ads? They don't say they are not doing this.
Remember many of Google's documentation pages may not have been updated recently, and may be somewhat inaccurate. Sometimes you have to find the most recent documentation, and from there take inferences, if you want to stay on the "cutting" edge.
Apart from the fact that you might not want your visitors to see badly targeted ads, why else would you care?
Here's the thing.
I have a common border on every page. In many cases it's the only ad I can put on the page. Along comes Mr. cheap flights to India. My numbers plummet. I block him and the ad space returns to normal and my earnings go up.
That's why I care.
I don't have any idea how much he is paying per thousand impressions.
I do know that the system is not showing the highest potential earnings.
So I'm happy to leave them running.
I do know that the system is not showing the highest potential earnings.
Ho, rest assured it is showing the highest potential earnings for G.
[edited by: Web_speed at 12:21 pm (utc) on Oct. 31, 2006]
re:
and I still suggest you go look to find the official information you want. Can't post links here anyway.
affter extensive examination on the TOS here and based upon the evidence contained in many many posts and threads ..
people can and frequently do post links to precise sections and even lines in the google adsense help files ..and they dont get snipped by mods nor admins ..
thus martinibuster is unlikely to ban you ;-) if you did indeed post the direct link to what you affirm to be the truth ..
and it might serve to stop some of the bad feeling in here ..and increase the knowledge to noise ratio ..
and serve to increase your credibilty when citing sources ..
Even linking to a blog is OK from WebmasterWorld ..( in order to clarify /prove a point ) ..provided it's Matt Cutts's blog of course ..
seen it done :)
You don't need a secure communications protocol to look at the Google documentation. It's just for convenience on their part that they use "https://" protocol for everything. Just get the "s" out!
Just to get this back on track, is this thread saying that if you have say 100 site targeted ad impressions against say 300,000 contextual ad impressions, it could seriously damage your earnings?
No, but one member seems to think Google is somehow going to get rich (at your expense) off those 100 site-targeted impressions. :-)
No i am not saying that there are advertisers paying > 20 to site target (you need to read my posts again. You missed my point). I am saying that i strongly suspect big G to be making > 20 from site targeted ads while handing publishers a few of pennis (at best).
Where exactly do you think this pot of gold is that google is tapping into?
You think google is making > $20.00 CPM from site targeted CPM ads. Now, where are they getting that money, or do you believe they are printing it themselves (conspiracy, ya know).
And while you're at it, how are they separating it from advertisers (that's a hint about the first part of the question)?
[edited by: jatar_k at 5:37 pm (utc) on Oct. 31, 2006]
[edit reason] fixed quote tag [/edit]
and serve to increase your credibilty when citing sources ..
Thanks, but a) I don't care about my "credibility" here, and b) if I haven't made it clear enough, I'm not spending my time looking up a url for someone who's been in the business for seven years, and is too lazy or unable, to check for himself.
I will be glad however, to offer my research services for a fee of $100 CPH (Cost Per Hour), or on a CPC basis (Cost Per Crackpot) for such people.
I will be glad however, to offer my research services for a fee of $100 CPH (Cost Per Hour), or on a CPC basis (Cost Per Crackpot) for such people.
Why bother, when Google will find a way to grab most of the fee and leave you with only pennies? :-)
CPM ads are usually bought to get exposure, not clicks, and my understanding is that $1 to $2 is a "good rate." I know there are exceptions--I've seen my site targeted for more than that--but you can't build a theory on exceptions.
Or can you?
david_UK's original post intrigues me, because it makes me wonder about a possible glitch in the algo. If one has a site with good content and a high eCPM, is it possible that being site-targeted, even if the ads show only occasionally, could screw up the pricing for the CPC ads and drag down earnings?
CPM ads are usually bought to get exposure, not clicks, and my understanding is that $1 to $2 is a "good rate." I know there are exceptions--I've seen my site targeted for more than that--but you can't build a theory on exceptions.Or can you?
david_UK's original post intrigues me, because it makes me wonder about a possible glitch in the algo. If one has a site with good content and a high eCPM, is it possible that being site-targeted, even if the ads show only occasionally, could screw up the pricing for the CPC ads and drag down earnings?
Probably my last post on this stuff for a long time.
First, traditionally, and economically, you use CPC ads for branding (by writing ads that people will NOT click but display your brand), and CPM for ads you want people to click. You don't brand the other way around because it's too expensive. This seems to be knowledge that was well known in the banner era, but seems to have been lost these days.
I agree with your assessment with what advertisers are paying for CPM.
The glitch explanation is certainly possible, but there are others that explain David_UK's data. Here's an example.
Let's say that the algos are set up to respond to major changes in what a publisher does. Let's say that when a publisher changes something significant (level of traffic, use of site targeted ads, any other manual, human adjustment requested), the algo says: "OK, I need to RESET smart pricing to null (no discount), and recalculate it over the next few weeks or months". It resets to no discount, because that's actually the fairest way to do it, because it recognizes that the previous data is no longer appropriate. By resetting to null, advertisers won't be offended, because they won't know, and publishers (who would know) don't get offended because it's to their benefit.
In this scenario (and it's testable), a major change that resets will result in increases in rev/cpm either TEMPORARILY, (most likey) or permanently (if the new data it collects is different).
The upshot is that if this is the case, SP will eventually tend to return to it's former levels, and income will revert. HOWEVER, if one then has site targeted ads ADDED, then it may trigger another increase (once the earlier one has petered out).
If this kind of thing happens, it may explain why, for example, when I removed ads from an entire site for months, then put them back, the effective CPM increased 2x - 3x, but is now reverting.
Or the effects of any major change that appears to have unexplained benefits for a while.
yup, i'd agree with that, and so does google:
"Some advertisers want the flexibility to reach customers early in the advertising cycle, with ads designed to increase awareness but not necessarily generate clicks or traffic. (These are sometimes called 'branding campaigns.') Many larger corporate advertisers also prefer the traditional industry metrics of CPM campaigns... Site-targeted campaigns are primarily a good choice for businesses who want to promote a brand or a new product to a specific audience. "
[google.com...]
wrt to cpm pricing... it's all over the map, so it is possible that google could be getting $20 per thou in some niches:
"FM's eight-person sales force has been aggressively approaching big marketers, armed with detailed and persuasive demographics. The data has helped FM steadily boost ad rates on its sites. The average CPM doubled in the past six months to roughly $8. The aim is to get rates between $20 and $30, which, Battelle says, would put his blogs on par with sites like CNET and NYTimes.com."
[money.cnn.com...]
danimal, thanks, that supports my argument about CPM rates. How many sites like cnet are there, after all? Most sites won't get advertisers to pay that much.
junk traffic... but look at the new google site-targeted advertising channels, and what it'll do for improving targeting and competition for valuable channels... afaik, an adwords advertiser could pick just the channel on a website, and not advertise anywhere else... get a couple of advertisers bidding on that channel, and the cpm rate goes up.
more proof that cpm is for branding:
"Brand advertising is where the money is. A CPM (or cost per thousand impressions) from a brand advertiser pays many times more than a pay-per-performance ad.
Today, brand advertisers pay an average CPM cost of about $3 to $5, according to industry watchers. However, analysts believe that as more brand advertisers enter the fold, competition will increase for premium ad placements on the leading sites, causing overall CPM rates to rise. Indeed, the demand for Internet ads will likely result in “high single to low double digit,” price increases, according to Piper Jaffray."
[atvcapital.com...]
wrt to cpm pricing... it's all over the map, so it is possible that google could be getting $20 per thou in some niches
Sure, it's possible, but when that happens, the publishers aren't getting "pennies."
As for CPM being used mostly for branding, a more accurate statement might be that "brand names prefer CPM" or "brand names prefer display ads."
Big-name brand advertisers often use display ads for non-branding purposes, such as special offers and promotions. On a travel site, for example, you might see an airline ad for winter transatlantic air-hotel packages, a hotel chain's ad that promotes free room upgrades for people who enroll in their loyaly program, etc. These ads help to build awareness for the brand, but they also invite a response. If they're targeted correctly (instead of merely being distributed by FastClick or some other generic ad network), they can be effective branding and promotional tools for advertisers.
you can't prove that, so it's just an opinion... our opinion is that google is indeed paying us "pennies" on cpm ads that they get $20 per thou for.
and it makes sense, given the huge profits google just posted, vs. the dwindling income that the majority of posters out here have reported.
promoting brands with cpm advertising has been around for over a century, a heck of a lot longer than google, the internet, or any of us... lately it's been tv, but before that it was cpm branding with newspapers, magazines, outdoor advertising, etc.
next i expect we'll see somebody out here telling us how cpc ads were used for branding when kennedy was president ;-)
The problem I have with the $20 CPM rate theory is that I've never heard of an advertiser willing to pay that high a rate.
rbacal and EuropeForAdsenseClicks have done such a great job of obscuring my posts, misquoting and taking them out of context that i don't blame you for not understanding what i have said.
So here, I’ll repeat it in very clear English to ensure everyone is fully aware of what really is going on regardless of what the above couple of paid clowns have to say.
1) I have not said that advertisers necessarily pay $20 CPM rates. I just gave an example of how ONE AD PANEL containing 4-5 site targeted text ads can fetch > 2 cents per one impression (multiply that by 1000 and you get a $20 CPM! - for big G, not you). Not to mention pages with up to 3 ad panels on. Do the math.
2) My experience with Adwords has been that site targeted ads are not necessarily image ads filling up an entire ad banners. In a few instances i saw them appearing along side other text ads in a 4-5 ad panel on a given site. I have no doubt that there are other adwords advertisers that can attest to seeing the exact same.
3) Adsense reports only show the number of impressions per one ad panel. NOT how many cpm paying ads were shown inside that ad panel.
Draw your own conclusions.
[edited by: Web_speed at 12:50 am (utc) on Nov. 1, 2006]
I thought the only way we could tell that an ad was a site-targeted CPM ad was when it was one of those ads that takes up the whole ad unit and has a centered "Ads by Google" instead of the normal one...
Just curious: If you saw a CPM ad as one of the ads in a multi-ad adunit, how did you know that one ad was a CPM ad?
It was my OWN ad (as an adwords advertiser) on a site i targeted. It showed up alongside other text ads in the same ad unit panel.
[edited by: Web_speed at 12:57 am (utc) on Nov. 1, 2006]
