Forum Moderators: martinibuster
This thread has started me thinking that I should be using Adwords, it clearly works.
The question isn't whether it works or doesn't work, but what your ROI will be. The ROI will obviously be lower on a true content site than on an arbitrageurs' site (which is optimized for "buy low, sell high" and clickthroughs) or on a site where every page is selling something.
Double your income
Get a bunch of new links
Get a different mix of visitors
Get site-name recognition
Get your content stolen by the MFA'ers (more often)
ps. recommendation: don't send adwords visitors to a landing page that has advertising on it.
recommendation: don't send adwords visitors to a landing page that has advertising on it.
I'm not sure if that was meant as a cynical joke or not, but there's nothing wrong with sending AdWords visitors to a landing page with ads, unless you are gaming the system as per the arbitrage threads mention.
What those landing pages require, however, is good solid content. The ads are incidental in that case, and offer the viewer an alternative, aswell as the publisher a source of income.
I'm off to the Adwords section of webmeasterworld! Do any of you feel the same?
This is just my opinion, but if I weren't already using AdWords, I'd hold off for 2-3 weeks until after this June 1st thing does whatever it's going to do.
Of course, there is nothing wrong with reading the threads on the AdWords section to start learning.
For content rich webistes, adWords will not necessarily be profitable unless, the site is geared towards preselling.
If you have a site where visitors tend to make return visits, the initial cost of getting that new visitor to your site might be high, but over time, it might be worth the expense.
Get your content stolen by the MFA'ers (more often)
As I discovered, that certainly is a concern.
FarmBoy
I'm just an average Joe and when I am looking for something on the net and click an ad on google search and then see adsense on the landing page I usually hit the back button.
Don't you think there are a lot of other average Joes who do the same thing?
joe.
I'm just an average Joe
I don't think the average Joe reads, let alone posts, here at WW.
Nor do I think the average Joe is especially put off by a page with AdSense on it, no matter how s/he gets to that page.
Yesterday i was searching for diabetic supplies.
I visited about 30 sites.
I clicked on 3 adwords ads on google search. Everyone of them had adsense on them and were piles of cr*p - just gaming the system.
That's why 98% of the time when I see adsense ads I click the back button - usually before looking further at the content.
As we all know, google is 3-years too late for cleaning things up and repairing the adsense image. I don't know if it will ever recover.
Nor do I think the average Joe is especially put off by a page with AdSense on it, no matter how s/he gets to that page.
The average Joe's behavior when confronted by AdSense ads on my site hasn't changed for the worse. If anything, CTR is up somewhat these days. Why? I think it's mostly because the quality of the ads has improved in the last year or so, with fewer obvious affiliate ads than I'd seen previously.
I wonder if the average Joe's behavior varies according to the experience he's had when clicking on certain types of ads (e.g., on ads from no-name advertisers rather than ads from obvious legitimate advertisers). On a travel site, for example, an ad for a national tourist office or a name-brand travel vendor may look more appealing (and less likely to lead to a junk page) than an ad from no-name-advertisers-site.com.
If this hypothesis is correct, it may suggest that MFAs have poisoned the well for unknown mom-and-pop advertisers but not for name-brand advertisers whose reputations are enough to overcome whatever inherent skepticism the average Joe feels when he sees an AdSense ad.
I'm just an average Joe and when I am looking for something on the net and click an ad on google search and then see adsense on the landing page I usually hit the back button.
Almost everyone that I know of, don't even know what the heck is adsense. None of them have any idea that someone has to pay when they click on that cute little link.
If this hypothesis is correct, it may suggest that MFAs have poisoned the well for unknown mom-and-pop advertisers but not for name-brand advertisers whose reputations are enough to overcome whatever inherent skepticism the average Joe feels when he sees an AdSense ad.
That's true for me. If I see a brand's domain name in the ad, there's nothing the ads beside it can do to make me think the brand ad is illegit.
With the other ads, if something looks good, I usually copy the URL, or type the dn into google.com. This way I save the advertiser money.
Almost everyone that I know of, don't even know what the heck is adsense. None of them have any idea that someone has to pay when they click on that cute little link.
This is what I liked about goto.com, back in the day, before it was overture.com. It always had a little notice affixed to the ad, right below/beside it: "Cost to advertiser: $0.25," or some such fee.
Adsense was based on the same idea, but Google, to my knowledge, has never been so forthcoming. Even Overture has dropped the info.
I think it's fair to put the note by the ad. Searchers will know it's an ad, visitors will be more careful about clicking, and the advertiser will get more serious clicks.
I would love for an independent group to test the public with Adsense ads to determine what percentage realized the links were ads. Test for all ad formats and sizes in various page layouts. Test different age groups.
Despite the "Ads by Google" graphic, above or below, I suspect on some sites it could only be 65%; quick surfers, for example, overlook the graphic. Then there are those clueless net newbies, the foreigners, etc.
How else do you explain extreme CTR?
p/g
This is what I liked about goto.com, back in the day, before it was overture.com. It always had a little notice affixed to the ad, right below/beside it: "Cost to advertiser: $0.25," or some such fee....I think it's fair to put the note by the ad.
How about:
"Cost to the advertiser: Full retail $0.25, but only $0.05 after Smart Pricing Discount!" :-)
