Forum Moderators: martinibuster
Anyone here care to share if you were one of the unfortunate today? And if so provide some more details?
heyday
[adwords.google.com...]
[google.com...]
They imply that, if you choose the search network, your ads will appear on exciting sites such as AOL, shopping.com, Ask and other well known sites. Nowhere does the term "parked" appear. I have argued that it's a bait and switch ploy. It's still my opinion that it is. Perhaps it's technically legal somehow but to dangle those sites in front of you without mentioning the full truth but doing so stinks to high heaven, in my opinion.
The following can be found on the FTC's website regarding bait and switch practices:
Sec. 238.2 Initial offer.
(a) No statement or illustration should be used in any advertisement which creates a false impression of the grade, quality, make, value, currency of model, size, color, usability, or origin of the product offered, or which may otherwise misrepresent the product in such a manner that later, on disclosure of the true facts, the purchaser may be switched from the advertised product to another.
(b) Even though the true facts are subsequently made known to the buyer, the law is violated if the first contact or interview is secured by deception. [Guide 2]
[edited by: Atomic at 6:56 pm (utc) on Mar. 27, 2007]
The CTR on direct navigation domains can make the CTRs on the contextual network look feeble.
Isn't there a computer wiz who makes over $180m per year from DNDs (Direct Navigation Domains)? He owns lots of top domains. Read an article a year or two ago; the author had contacted the person who written his checks.
p/g
What a terrible argument. You are saying that if someone doesn't reach a website by typing a domain directly into their browser that they simply give up?
No, that's not what I'm saying. With great respect to you, I think you may be filling in blanks in a statement that were meant to be blank.
I'm saying, "a hotel in that city missed an opportunity for a sale." In other words, at that particular moment, after having direct navigated to a site that does not exist, a sale was lost. There is nothing there about what that searcher does after that point, so uhm, I didn't say or imply anything more.
Obviously that searcher may do something else, they could bake a cake or call a travel agent but that's beyond the scope of what I was discussing. You're disputing something that isn't there, I guess.
You're disputing something that isn't there, I guess.
One of the biggest problems is that these domain owners are promoting these parked domains, funneling traffic to them
As to the above I suggest that you read the service agreements of most first tier domain parking companies. Most have agreements that specifically prohibit efforts to direct traffic to parked domains. If you see it happening you likely have the option to report it, just like people are able to report Adsense infractions.
So far as content network ads appearing on the domain parking network I keep hoping to read that - like the content network - advertisers wishing to target specific parked domains will soon have that option.
At the end of the day it still gets down to ROI. I hope for targeting based on the belief that the targeting of my portfolio will offer a better ROI. At least those targeting the general subject matter of my generic domains can type. ;0)
Call it whatever, but it is another topic and deviates the attention of the thread intent.
I vote for a split.
SLEYAAAA
As far as for direct navigation, --- no type ins are not an ARBITRAGE its is GARBAGE. Have you ever seen a wrapper for a pack of hundreds and picked it up? Same feeling, like damn that was something, here I am talking about registered type ins, not expired ones.
expired ones, I am not sure about this but I think once the exp-cancer gets them that is pretty much it for the domain name.
The thought that you are about to loose another AD account due to your site being an MFA is horrifying, isn’t it?
Is that specifically to someone?
If type-in traffic from parked domains is all that great, why isn't Google up front about where an advertiser's ads will show if they opt to show ads in the search network?
If you have nothing to hide, why hide anything? And it is, in my opinion a curious thing to never mention how lucky advertisers are that their ads will show on parked domains in those links I posted a few back. What's up with that? Why do so many that realize what the search network really is later feel cheated?
[edited by: Atomic at 1:44 am (utc) on Mar. 28, 2007]
I also never hear an answer to the question:
If type-in traffic from parked domains is all that great, why isn't Google up front about where an advertiser's ads will show if they opt to show ads in the search network?
Here ya' go!
[adwords.google.com...]
Will my ads show on parked domain sites?A parked domain site is an undeveloped webpage belonging to a domain name registrar or domain name holder. Our AdSense for domains program places targeted AdWords ads on parked domain sites that are part of the Google Network.
Users are brought to parked domain sites when they enter a search query or unregistered URL in a browser's address bar rather than in a search engine such as Google. Previously, parked domain sites were blank pages, which meant that users arriving at one of these sites had to renew their search query.
Now, parked domain sites offer ads that can be relevant to a user's search query. Some parked domain sites also include a search box, which allows users to further refine their search.
Depending on the design of the site, a parked domain site will be classified as either a search site or a content site. That means your ads may show on parked domain sites if your campaign is opted in to the search or content networks.
Google is up-front about it. End of discussion for you. ;)
Why do so many that realize what the search network really is later feel cheated?
Statements about people being cheated or defrauded by parked domains are never substantiated with sraightforward and reasonable answers that make logical sense. But atomic, feel free to give it your best shot. ;)
(Oh, and please no evading the question by quibbling over something I didn't say. Thanks.)
Google is up-front about it. End of discussion for you. ;)
WHO was cheated by parked domains?WHAT financial loss to the advertiser was incurred in this cheating?
HOW did a parked domain cause an advertiser to be "cheated"?
When you see your ROI decline from these clicks you are cheated. Financial loss? Are you kidding? You keep track don't you? You see where you lose money don't you? I ask you: Why doesn't Google put this on the page new advertisers see when they click the help icon in AdWords? Why do they have to go looking for it? Why isn't the fact that ads in the search network appear on parked domains explicitly spelled out? Why are AOL and Ask logos on that page and there is no mention of parked domains? Still waiting for that one. Been waiting over a year now.
I've given it my beast shot. I think there are unethical ways to make money. This is one of them. I still can't believe you posted another URL when I asked where it was on specific URL's a new AdWords user is likely to click instead of a URL they may go searching for when they suspect something is up.
[edited by: Atomic at 4:27 am (utc) on Mar. 28, 2007]
[edited by: martinibuster at 4:45 am (utc) on Mar. 28, 2007]
[edit reason] Removed inappropriate language. [/edit]
I still can't believe you posted another URL ...
The page you cited is a general overview. It doesn't mention specifics because it is an overview. You might as well claim they are hiding Gmail ads because it's not mentioned there either. But you would be mistaken to do so because that page is a general overview. Citing that URL and claiming it's proof that Google is hiding specific search partners is disingenuous because that single page does not represent the sum total of information given to advertisers.
The AdWords URL I cited demonstrates that Google discusses parked domains. That URL reveals the speciousness of your argument. You are using a single general overview page to represent everything Google tells it's advertisers. That single page is not everything Google communicates to it's advertisers. Google AdWords explains to advertisers in detail what parked domains are. Nobody is being misled.
And by the way, Direct Navigation sites generally are considered Search Partners because Direct Navigation is search.
From the page you are flogging:
Opting into Google's search network lets your ad be shown on the search results pages of our high-quality partners. These partners include search sites as well as shopping comparison engines.
Anyone that had a single click on a parked domain is cheated if they are misled. I have shown over and over that they are.
You cited one general overview. That page is not the sum total of what AdWords tells their advertisers. I don't know why you keep insisting that a single page represents everything that Google tells it's advertisers. The URL I cited proves that Google discusses parked domains with their advertisers. No one is being misled.
When you see your ROI decline from these clicks you are cheated.
That is your opinion which is based on nothing factual. The fact is that Direct Navigation clicks convert higher than run of the mill contextual sites. If your intellectual capacity for comprehension is unable to grasp that a consumer searching for cheapshoes.com is in the buying phase of search and likely to convert when landing on that domain, then there is nothing I can say to help you see the invalidity of your opinion which is based on nothing factual.
This is what I meant when I said that people who claim parked domains are related to fraud are dealing with assumptions and opinions, not fact. What can be done if someone chooses to believe the earth is flat, despite all factual evidence to the contrary?
[edited by: martinibuster at 5:54 am (utc) on Mar. 28, 2007]
Sec. 238.2 Initial offer.(a) No statement or illustration should be used in any advertisement which creates a false impression of the grade, quality, make, value, currency of model, size, color, usability, or origin of the product offered, or which may otherwise misrepresent the product in such a manner that later, on disclosure of the true facts, the purchaser may be switched from the advertised product to another.
(b) Even though the true facts are subsequently made known to the buyer, the law is violated if the first contact or interview is secured by deception. [Guide 2]
> WHO was cheated by parked domains?
> WHAT financial loss to the advertiser was incurred in this cheating?
> HOW did a parked domain cause an advertiser to be "cheated"?Anyone that had a single click on a parked domain is cheated if they are misled. I have shown over and over that they are. You might not see that an ethical line has been crossed to make a buck but others do. I know you've followed these topics so you know there are many that have posted here about how they felt cheated. How they were new advertisers lured into the search network like so many others.
I agree with Atomic on this one. I think it is very much misleading to show "search-distributed" ads on parked domains. BTW, I happen to have some experience on the other side of the fence (as an AdWords advertiser) and believe me, the difference between parked domain clicks and search clicks is noticeable with "parked" clicks being much worse. I admit, this is only my personal experience, but I suspect I am not the only one.
It seems that G may not be behaving very ethically here, although I am confident their lawyers made sure the "disclosure" quoted above was enough.
