Forum Moderators: martinibuster
I just had an interesting conversation with two people I know very well who spend $300k each a year in adwords who have now pulled their campaigns on the content network and the Google search partner network due to their ads appearing on myspace and them raking up some major bills from teenage traffic.
After reading the adwords forums I realized that a lot of people are starting to opt out of the content and Google search partner networks because they do not have a way to exclude or filter different sites.
This will effect a lot of publishers across the board since there will be less $$$ being spent on the content network. If you really think about it, the people who spend a lot of money are selling products that are not geared for teenagers.
If adwords only had a site filter available we would not see this type of issue. I hope Google just realizes that the content network just lost $600k in potential revenue this year and that money is being allocated to yahoo now.
Think of it, these are just two people I know and how many more are out there? How many people have opted out or will opt out due to myspace and very low quality MFA sites.
Thoughts?
If adwords only had a site filter available we would not see this type of issue
There is a site filter available.
Whether it can be used to filter out myspace, I don't know.
Another issue I have heard is that many adwords managers are placing ads where thier customer can see the ad, i.e. google. Many say that thier customer will call them and say "I just searched my keywords and I do not see my ads!".
Still, as the ROLLING STONE campaign in AD AGE used to say, "Perception is reality." I'd guess that perceptions about click fraud and made-for-AdSense junk sites are as damaging as perceptions about MySpace, though.
[EDITED: Looks like KenB beat me to the punch!]
1. Goolge should treated Link units as non content units and treat deam equally as search results on its site. here is why. If your page is about Traveling to Europe. At the bottom of the page there are link units that read, Travel Europe, European Travels... And your visitor clicks on them and sees listed results. Is this not equal to as if the visitor was searching Travel Europe in Google organic search? I am saying there is no reason Google should let advertisers opt out from this, and advertisers should realize that there is a difference in link units and ad units.
2. There are spammers and there are serious publishers who employ people to wor for large publishing companies. Now, these publishers are being hit. However, they mean serious business and spend their time by making good and relevant content, thus building good traffic. ------------ Do you think it would be a good idea, if Google would make some differentiation of "Established Publishers" and "new publishers that yet need to prove themselves."
Those who are in "Established Publisher" group, are those who already earn few hunderd dollars a day, have large traffick and have proved for a year or two of building a very good and relevant content and traffic. These are not people who may call a friend in a different state and ask to make a one click on their ad. These "established publishers" will be presented to Adword publishers as a separate unit saying that these are high quality publishers with high quality content, and Advertisers will see a benefit of not opting out from those sites.
Any comments thoughts? If you believe in these ideas, let's help Google to be informed about these things too. They make sense to me.
Do you think it would be a good idea, if Google would make some differentiation of "Established Publishers" and "new publishers that yet need to prove themselves."
That might have been a useful quality-control technique if it had existed at the launch of the AdSense network, but I don't think it would work now. It would simply help existing spammers, MFAs, etc. to continue profiting while discouraging new (and legitimate) publishers.
The bottom line is that Adsense needs to find a way of encouragin serious, established content sites.
After reading the adwords forums I realized that a lot of people are starting to opt out of the content and Google search partner networks because they do not have a way to exclude or filter different sites.
Logic would seem to indicate if this is accurate and widespread, these people are either stopping/curtailing their advertising or they are switching to other advertising means.
Unless they are planning on going out of business, I don't think it's the former.
So if it's the latter, where are these people going to advertise?
And won't this drive up the advertising costs at the new destination, eventually making AdWords look attractive again?
-------
It seems illogical to me that an advertiser, in general, would stop advertising with AdWords because ads are shown on this site or that site. (Unless there are some moral or religious objections)
The ROI should be the driving factor. If MySpace users click and buy from BMW ads, by all means, keep showing BMW ads on MySpace. Let the ROI make the decision, not what you think will or will not sell.
FarmBoy
Advertisers know that myspace is one of the top five visited sites and google has to fill those ad blocks and if they want to opt out of it they can not right now.
Now, if they sell products that cater to teenagers myspace is great. But if they sell business to business products its a waste of money for them to be on the content network.
They are not happy on the adwords side right now because there is no way to opt out unless they just totally opt out of the content network or just do site specific advertising.
I know they would like to have a filter where they can put urls much like us adsense people have in the competitive filter.
Its going to hurt the businesses selling products and it is also going to hurt the publishers as well.
It will be interesting to see how it effects the publishers over the next few months and it will more than likely be a factor in falling profits for us.
Advertisers know that myspace is one of the top five visited sites and google has to fill those ad blocks and if they want to opt out of it they can not right now.
Are you sure about that? Why can't they use the black list incorporated into the adwords interface?
Is this correct? If so this isn't directly related to AdSense, but even in that case it's hard to see how this could end up being a good thing for AdSense publishers. MySpace is a bottomless pit of traffic.
On adwords, you can not opt out of only one site.
I'm sorry but that's not correct. You can indeed opt out of single sites in the CONTENT NETWORK. In fact google just recently increased the number of sites that can be black listed.
There seems to be some confusion here. If myspace is part of the content network, one can opt out by specifying the domain.
If myspace is part of the search partner network, the advertiser can opt out of the search partner network as a whole, which has nothing to do with the content network.
So, regardless (unless someone can explain) advertisers can indeed opt out, one way or the other, WITHOUT opting out completely from the content network.
I'd check this for youse guys, but my internet connection is dog slow to almost everywhere, and it takes forever to get into adwords
They still advertise, but only on google main or msn/yahoo.
On January 31, Google released its 4Q 2006 results. The press release indicated that "Google's partner sites," "through AdSense programs," showed a 50% revenue increase over 4Q 2005 and a 16% increase over 3Q 2006. So, if advertisers are opting out of the content network, they're being replaced faster than they're disappearing.
This doesn't mean there may not be a decline in the number of advertisers (and the sizes of bids) for certain keywords or for certain sectors. But it does suggest that the tide hasn't turned.
You can indeed opt out of single sites in the CONTENT NETWORK.
What is the site exclusion feature? [adwords.google.com]
If I'm opted into the content network, how do I prevent my ads from appearing on specific websites? [adwords.google.com]
How do I format my list of excluded websites? [adwords.google.com]
It's clear that many advertisers are not clear about their target audiences, and that's where some progress might be useful, so that pages and adverts sing from the same sheet - 'content relevance' just isn't enough.
The age thing is interesting; "the people who spend a lot of money are selling products that are not geared for teenagers" - some of them, yes. But it's a sad fact of life that most advertisers are obsessed with teenagers, who spend endlessly, usually their parents' money. I'd like a few advertisers who want the Boring Old Farts market ...
... Either way, the supply and demand need to be better matched.
But it's a sad fact of life that most advertisers are obsessed with teenagers, who spend endlessly, usually their parents' money. I'd like a few advertisers who want the Boring Old Farts market ...
Generalizations are always risky, but I haven't seen many travel advertisers going after the teenage market (with the obvious exceptions of student-travel agencies and towns that market to adolescent boozers on spring break). Some industries, such as cruising, cater so much to old folks that I'd almost expect them to do cross-promotions with the funeral industry ("If you see Naples and die, we'll ship you home in a free souvenir casket").
Maybe AdSense 2.0 will bring the type of control over audience that traditional advertisers and direct markers expect as a matter of course.
But you're right: Control over audience is the missing ingredient in contextual advertising. Using the cruise industry again as an example, does a luxury cruise line want to promote a free 72-page color brochure to kids (or people of any age) who can't afford $500+ per diems? For that matter, does a company that sells safety systems for nuclear plants want to pay for "curiosity clicks" from a fan site's page about Homer Simpson's workplace?
Let's hope that AdSense 2.0 will bring the kind of control over audience that traditional advertisers and direct markers expect as a matter of course.
