Forum Moderators: martinibuster
Have any of those who opted out (hunderdown, Mthiessen among others) still found it to have been beneficial? Even with a very small percentage of site targetted ads, opting out raises EPC for the content ads?
efv, you failed to provide any statistical data that would show how many shoppers for european vacations are going to be buying cars in europe.
do you even understand concepts like gray market importing of vehicles, and the hassles involved with it? very few people do that, so your claims are not valid.
just admit that the site-targeted ads in your sector, like all banner ads, are almost always untargeted and irrelevant.
>>>with ads in publications that range from newspaper travel sections to THE NEW YORKER to Web sites that reach apropriate audiences.<<<
once again, efv, we see this inability to differentiate between print and the internet... it appears that you don't understand the advantages of targeted advertising?
today i saw this phrase, "calcified brochure-style web thinking", lol... how appropriate it is for this thread.
just admit that the site-targeted ads in your sector, like all banner ads, are almost always untargeted and irrelevant.>>>with ads in publications that range from newspaper travel sections to THE NEW YORKER to Web sites that reach apropriate audiences.<<<
once again, efv, we see this inability to differentiate between print and the internet... it appears that you don't understand the advantages of targeted advertising?
I understand Contractor's position on relevance. Since we also consider the ads a value-added part of our websites, provided they aren't too off-topic, I can see his point, but as I've said, I'm not concerned that with limited ad blocks on each page, unobtrusive, that occasional off-topic ads are a problem for our visitors. Different perspective.
But this thread is wandering all over the place. The irony is that when danimal says "it appears that you don't understand the advantages of targeted advertising?" it's really a kind of non sequitar, since...
..well site targerted advertising (note the name) IS targeted advertising. Both site targeted advertising (again, note the name), and contextual advertising are TARGETED, but in different ways, one by a rather loose algo (controlled by google) that works on the basis of site themes, and the other by the advertiser's DIRECT choice.
Now, the website owner may not like the accuracy or relevance of the targeting (I often don't like what's displayed via contextual, and many other web site owners also have concerns) for EITHER site targeted or contextual.
Re: opting out (original question), BOTH targeting methods can result in good or less good ads. I believe that if google is serious about meeting the needs of advertisers re: site targeting, that they have to and will improve the ease of use for them to do so.
I think the major reason we get less relevant ads via site targeting the advertiser system is just horrible. It's really really hard to find sites, check them out, etc. I suspect if google improves that end, we'll get more relevant site targeted ads on the adsense side. Which is one reason I just leave things the way they are.
In any event, there's NO evidence to show that having site targeted CPM ads shown on a site CAUSES lower revenue. It's far more likely that low revenue CPM site targeted ads are a symptom of poorly designed, poor niche sites with too many ads blocks on each page, and too many ads on each page.
Obviously numbers will vary from site to site, as will the results of opting out. Figuring out WHY one gets low priced cpm ads and addressing that if probably a much more productive way to improve revenue than to opt out.
So your belief is "contextual" advertising like AdSense/AdWords is not needed and ads do not to be targeted to the content to be just as successful to the advertiser. I'm afraid most advertisers would disagree, along with most users of PPC, and site owners where the ads are displayed.
It isn't a case of "either/or." Conceptual and contextual ads can complement each other on a Web site in the same way that display and classified ads can complement each other in an enthusiast magazine, a newspaper, or a trade publication. It all depends on what's being advertised, and on the advertiser's objectives.
people who don't properly implement channels will be unable to grasp the concept.
rbacal, contractor and i have posted at least 3 examples of site-targeted ads that were untargeted and irrelevant... proof enough that banner advertisers seldom target sites by content, which is why it doesn't pay well.
low-rent cpm works well on those calcified sites... you know the kind, they spam the index with over 4,000 cloned banner pages that all look alike, and google rewards them by sending 85% of their junk into supplemental... google doesn't want it, and neither do the advertisers.
people who don't properly implement channels will be unable to grasp the concept.rbacal, contractor and i have posted at least 3 examples of site-targeted ads that were untargeted and irrelevant... proof enough that banner advertisers seldom target sites by content, which is why it doesn't pay well.
On channels: This is something you've mentioned a number of times, so danimal maybe you could give those of us who have thousands of pages a hand and perhaps do a simple tutorial about how we can implement page by page channels given that there is a limit on the number of channels google provides.
I'm sure many would benefit from your wisdom on this. Perhaps you could start a new thread so your advice doesn't get lost.
On examples. 3 examples out of what must be tens or hundreds of thousands of site targeted ads on the network doesn't prove anything.
In any event, you seem to mix up a number of things in these messages. In the above quote you talk about "banner advertisers", and of course site targeted ads aren't necessarily banner ads. You've repeatedly suggested that site targeted ads (note the name) aren't targeted, and you also mention they are irrelevant. To whom are they irrelevant? You? Me? Visitors? Which visitors? Clearly advertisers feel they are effective, since they ARE paying for them. Clearly there are some advertisers who feel they can better TARGET site targeted ads (again, not the name) and get better ROI that way, than to rely only on google to target. Clearly some advertisers feel they are RELEVANT enough to users to provide ROI to the advertisers.
You have also never explained WHY site targeted ads are so low paying, and neither have you shown much evidence at all that they are low paying, and exactly how low they pay.
SOME sites get low paying CPM site targeted ads. OTHER sites get reasonable paying ads of that type. We don't know the exact ratio except to say some do well, some do not. YOU may not do well with them, and that may be a function of your site design and other problems (see my previous post). Others do better, obviously.
rbacal, i never claimed that page by page channels were necessary.
the fact that you thought it was necessary proves my point, tho :-)
>>>Clearly there are some advertisers who feel they can better TARGET site targeted ads (again, not the name) and get better ROI that way<<<
wrong... as we stated many times before, they are looking at demographics, not relevance.
just like efv, you don't understand that relevance is a lot more expensive than demographics... see if you can figure out how publishers benefit from that.
>>>The range of CPM rates that we RECEIVE... run from about $2 - $6 CPM.<<<
btw, rbacal, why did you break the adsense tos with that post?
just like efv, you don't understand that relevance is a lot more expensive than demographics... see if you can figure out how publishers benefit from that.
You've made the mistake of assuming that "relevance" is a synonym for "targeting by keyword." That's like calling an ad for Nikon cameras "untargeted and irrelevant" if it appears on a Popphoto.com page that isn't about Nikon, or claiming that an for Goodyear performance tires is "untargeted and irrelevant" if it runs next to an automotive review on CAR AND DRIVER's Web site. Real advertising professionals and publishers know better.
Fact is, contextual targeting is only one type of "relevance," and in a network where advertisers have little control over audience, it's unattractive to a good many name-brand advertisers and their agencies. Site targeting alone won't attract the majority of those advertisers to Google's "content network," but it's a step in the right direction, and it offers an opportunity for publishers whose sites meet those advertisers' standards.
wrong... as we stated many times before, they are looking at demographics, not relevance.
Danimal, you can talk about THEY as in the advertisers, but I happen to be one of those advertisers in adwords. So, WE (as in advertisers) sometimes look to target demographically, but also target specficially to content of sites. WE (as in us advertisers) would also like adwords to be easier to use to implement content site targeting.
WE (as in advertisers) will up our spending on site targeted content oriented ads, also, when it doesn't involve a lifetime of research to make that work through the existing adwords system.
Anyway, for you advertisers are THEY. For me, advertisers are US.
i never claimed that page by page channels were necessary.
I guess that means you won't share your expertise on the channels thing with the rest of us since you didn't provide an answer. Too bad. I'd love to learn how to remove ads from low performing pages using channels and across 1000+ pages. You've made such a point of using channels to improve revenue, I'd have thought you'd want to help out with this.
Please please start a thread expanding on your oft suggested use of channels so we can all benefit.
You've made the mistake of assuming that "relevance" is a synonym for "targeting by keyword." That's like calling an ad for Nikon cameras "untargeted and irrelevant" if it appears on a Popphoto.com
You are beating a dead horse here. The example I gave with complete statistics shows the chance of your site or anyone in your niche showing the "Overseas Car Program" to anyone that cares is beyond calculation when it is shown on hotel, cruise, and other completely unrelated pages. You cannot come back with examples like honeymoon destinations on wedding planning pages and Nikon camera ads on a photography site, which make perfect sense and compare it to the example I gave.
The mindset that untargeted ads gets results as good as relevant/contextual advertising is completely unsubstantiated. You give advertisers too much credit based upon the size of the company involved, advertising budget, or how long they have been in business.
Do I think people that have huge amounts of advertising cash could learn something or are out-of-touch, you bet. Ever watch some of the "Family" programming/station on television? It's amazing how many times we have to pause and then fast forward through commercials because they are completely inappropriate for children younger than their teens. We watched "Mary Poppins" on cable over the holidays and the commercials where unbelievable (Cialis, etc.). So, no, I don't give a lot of credit to people just because they have a large budget for advertising - that surely doesn't make them smarter.
Now, if you want to talk about the "photo" site and unrelated ads - I see an advertisement from a well-known domain registrar advertising their services. Would I allow that ad above the fold taking up 300x300px? No way, sorry. Yes, you can tie almost anything together and say it's related, but sometimes you have to tell yourself you are stretching to do so.
EFV, sometimes you have to admit when you are wrong. In this example, you are wrong.
True story: I noticed in last year or so ago my AdSense income was dropping over the course of a month or so and like a rock over a two-week period. I looked at the stats for a single page (has it's own url channel) that gets approximately 2-3k page views per day, and normally makes say low $xx.xx per day and in the two-week period it hadn't made what it normally made within a day. I never browse my site except after adding content/making changes. I started browsing my site and went to that one page in particular. On that page and throughout the site there were ads taking up the entire adblock (all from the same 6-10 advertisers), which were completely unrelated to the page subject. I immediately wrote AdSense and asked them to remove site targeting. After the confirming email and about 24 hours later things started to improve and was back to normal within 10 days. This is my only AdSense site and the income is so steady that it makes you think they pay xx amount for this site as it is so steady (improves a bit over time).
So, this discussion is about whether CPM ads are good/bad for a site. The only real answer is, you won't know until you try both ways and give each a chance. Every site is different and every niche is also. I can only say if you see totally unrelated advertisements - you may want to ask them to remove site targeting and give it a try.
The only real answer is, you won't know until you try both ways and give each a chance. Every site is different and every niche is also. I can only say if you see totally unrelated advertisements - you may want to ask them to remove site targeting and give it a try.
very well said
