Forum Moderators: martinibuster
In an ongoing effort to provide more transparency to advertisers, Google announced today the availability of a new AdWords report, called a Placement Performance report, which enables advertisers to see the exact sites on the Google content network where their ads appear. Placement Performance reports also provide site-by-site performance metrics – including domain, URL, impression, click, conversion and cost data – as well as aggregated metrics for traffic generated from AdSense for domain sites. With these reports, advertisers have much more insight into their contextually targeted advertising spend and are able to leverage the information to more effectively optimize their campaigns and meet their objectives. Designed in response to advertisers’ requests, Placement Performance reports offer advertisers both increased transparency and greater control over their contextual advertising, which ultimately lead to more relevant ads for users.
NOW, just let me pick my crystal ball and let me get in the right mood... Ah, it's working... Oh yes, it's working... Hold on... There is something... It's getting clearer... I am seeing copy... It's on a web page... It's on a web page by... Noodle? Poodle? What the... No, no, now I see that it's Google...
In an ongoing effort to provide more transparency to its publishing partners, Google announced today the availability of a new Adsense report, called a Placement Performance report, which enables publishers to see the exact ads that have been shown on their sites on the Google content network. Placement Performance reports also provide page-by-page performance metrics – including ad copy, landing page URL, impression, click, conversion and earnings data for each ad and click – as well as aggregated metrics. With these reports, publishers have much more insight into the ads that show up on their sites and are able to leverage the information to more effectively optimize their sites and ad placements and meet their objectives. Together with the newly introduced feature "block by advertiser", which lets publishers block all ads from a specific advertiser, Placement Performance reports offer now publishers both increased transparency and greater control over their advertising, which ultimately lead to more relevant ads for users.
Uhhh - the image vanishes. I'm losing it... It's gone... (shrug)
Five Dollars, please.
allowing the publisher of the photo-tips page fiddle endlessly with lists of advertisers won't change that business reality
Your statement is true, but it completely trivializes the problems caused by poorly targeted, editorially unsuitable or even misleading ads.
Both the equipment review sites and the photo tips publishers might have editorial reasons for wanting to block advertisers who run dubious contests with high entry fees, for instance.
Another example might be a site about military history that gets ads for pearl necklaces or Pearl Jam CDs on its pages about Pearl Harbor. The ability for the publisher to do some blocking by keyword would be an improvement in every conceivable way.
The challenges, of course, include engineering limitations, unexpected effects on earnings, CTR and conversion rates, legal issues, and, as farmboy said, the publishers looking for new ways to exploit the system.
A nice statement. Much appreciated.
How about a quick fix on the filter size? Why not increase the filter size to, say, 500? That should not be too much of an engineering effort.
but we do everything we can to balance both. :)
Everything? To balance? :-) indeed.
Right now I am just seeing tools appearing for advertisers, with tools for publishers being actually removed (click tracking). And the "optimization tips" do not qualify as tool to balance the power between advertisers and publishers.
But thanks for stopping by anyway.
Many publishers fail to understand that the quality and motivation of the audience can be as important as the quality of the content. When Google introduced smart pricing, it used the example of a page with photo tips (less likely to convert) and a camera review (more likely to convert). In the first case, users are trying to figure out how to use their cameras; in the second case, they're researching possible purchases of cameras. The latter type of content and audience are likely to be far more valuable to Google--and to advertisers--than the former, and allowing the publisher of the photo-tips page fiddle endlessly with lists of advertisers won't change that business reality.
@EFV: It sounds like only limited site/content types will convert well for advertisers - if that is the case, it seems odd that Google welcomes publisher sites/content that won't convert well - unless G *needs* low-converting sites (that are 'smart-priced') thus providing a large supply of low-priced clicks...
In any case, I'll admit that I may not be generating the kind of 'optimal' (high-converting) content - but then, I'm not sure what my sites would look like if the content was mainly targeted at people who were looking to buy something.
Maybe it makes more sense to reserve AdSense placement for the smaller number of pages that are likely to convert well based on your example - unfortunately, G does not provide conversion data to publishers, so I have no way of knowing how well clicks from any of my pages convert for advertisers - which is part of what some of the publishers here are trying to get at - we need more info so we can stop wasting our time on irrelevant issues. Given G's historical fear of people gaming their systems, I'm not optimistic but I'll be happy if I'm wrong.
Now I'm wondering if AdWords people have looked at data for different sites, blocked non-performers, which boosted my site's performance. It felt as if I was suddenly 'unsmartpriced.'
Will need to see if it was a one-day anomaly or if it's got traction.
How are you expecting the new data reports for advertisers to impact your sites' Adsense revenue?
p/g
We get very little help, advice, tips, stats, and a very limited interface. It's usually like an afterthought. If there's any time left after wining and dining the powerful AdWords elite, we'll throw the Adsensers a few scraps of left-overs. An automated advice monthly here, a little new feature there every two years.
We get 200 domain filters based on no stats; they get unlimited filters based on full stats. Sorry, but this is really insulting to the average person's intelligence.
'Publishers,' Google says, 'are too dumb, even if we give them full data reports on which companies advertise on their sites, to keep the good ones and trash the junk. They are incapable of doing tests and studying data.'
G has opened a potential can of worms with the new stats for content network. Many publishers will get blocked, b/c their sites don't perform, but will G start giving advice on how to get better performing Ad placement?
The old heat map doesn't talk about conversion rates for the advertiser, does it? If Google doesn't update its guidelines, it's going to lose a lot of money. Once you're banned by an advertiser, that's it for good.
p/g
Once you're banned by an advertiser, that's it for good
Maybe not, they may get a helpful hint - "You may be filtering sites that could increase your conversions"
Even if they only ban ONE site ;)
We get 200 domain filters based on no stats; they get unlimited filters based on full stats.
MFA advertisers will now receive more value for money as they can sort through publishers in an effort to find out which ones have the potential to convert well for them.
This would make sense to me since the site converts very well for our direct advertisers and for the cpa ads we have tested. We have been limited by how many mfa ads we can block. As MFA guys with incredible bs copy get pushed out by people bidding more we should see exactly what we are seeing, cpm rising dramatically even though ctr has dropped a touch. :)
Mixed emotions here, happy that the site is finally getting the advertisers it deserves, angry I couldnt block more mfa/arb junk over the last 4 years.
it seems odd that Google welcomes publisher sites/content that won't convert well - unless G *needs* low-converting sites (that are 'smart-priced') thus providing a large supply of low-priced clicks...
You hit the nail on the head - period
it seems odd that Google welcomes publisher sites/content that won't convert well - unless G *needs* low-converting sites (that are 'smart-priced') thus providing a large supply of low-priced clicks
Yes, I agree and had also reached a similar conclusion some time ago.
Why else would google advocate the liberal use of adblocks and why were super MFA's with multiple domains and tens of thousands of pages tolerated for so long, if it wasn't to encourage a large volume (ad display) infrastucture to exist?
[edited by: Scurramunga at 1:15 pm (utc) on June 13, 2007]
AdWordsAdvisor has 3,800 posts on WW
Don't forget there's actually two - AdWordsAdvisor and AdWordsAdvisor2.
Re. the AdWords-Adsense imbalance of the OP. Just look at two stats which show where G's priorities are: AdWordsAdvisor has 3,800 posts on WW; AdsenseAdvisor has 645. This is not a criticism of the staff; it's an observation about the company. The volume speaks volumes.
AdSense was introduced as a set-and-forget solution: a way for publishers to earn money from their existing sites by pasting code on their pages and letting Google do the rest. AdSense was never conceived as a DIY advertising platform or toolkit for publishers, so why would any publisher expect the kind of support that AdWords/AdSense advertisers receive?
AdSense was introduced as a set-and-forget solution: a way for publishers to earn money from their existing sites by pasting code on their pages and letting Google do the rest.
It isn't working that way - unless you don't care about what shows up on your site. Here comes the "take it or leave it" mantra.
Seriously, how can a publisher set-and-forget AdSense when advertisers can place ads for sex toys on a family-oriented site? Oh, um, take-it-or-leave-it.
Seriously, how can a publisher set-and-forget AdSense when advertisers can place ads for sex toys on a family-oriented site? Oh, um, take-it-or-leave-it.
If something doesn't work for you, why wouldn't you leave it (as I did when AdSense consistently displayed questionable ads on one of my two sites)?
If the suit doesn't fit, get one that does.
It isn't working that way - unless you don't care about what shows up on your site.
It pretty much works that way for me. My ad filter is empty because I just don't get many bad ads.
You're making the mistake of projecting your experience in your sector, to everyone else in lots of different sectors.
...projecting your experience in your sector, to everyone else in lots of different sectors.
Can I get an Amen, somebody?
Can I get an Amen, somebody?
Amen.
Mine come and go (as far as stuff I filter) I have about 125 entries in there now, but I haven't had to add anything new for months.
I never have to filter MFA's. My filter list is about 170, but those are all either competitors or off-topic organizations. Most of which have really good sites/products -- just not for my targeted audience.
I never have to filter MFA's...
Do you only check what ads are displaying in your country or do you check other countries also? The reason I ask is because I have noticed that when I view pages displaying in the USA, Australia (and to a large extent) the UK I rarely see MFA's. It's predominantly when I view traffic comming from the rest of the world that MFA's appear.
Obviously competition for ad space in my niche is stronger in the USA and Australia whereas advertiser competition in India for example, is much is weaker. So even if MFA's are targeted worldwide they might not do well on my site when viewed from much of the USA, as opposed to non competitive markets in other countries where they sometimes thrive.
Do you only check what ads are displaying in your country or do you check other countries also?
Ninety-five (95%) percent of my traffic comes from the U.S., so I tend to only check those ads. However, I do occasionally check ads from other countries (i.e. UK, Germany, Philippines, to name a few).
Either way, it is sometimes difficult to determine what ads are showing on your site. Two persons sitting in the same room may not see the same ads while visiting your site.
Either way, it is sometimes difficult to determine what ads are showing on your site. Two persons sitting in the same room may not see the same ads while visiting your site.
This is very true, this is why I always take the assumption MFA's appearing Spain or India are targeted across the globe are a potential threat to my main markets. I do take the view that because of their generally high adwords ctr, they are likely to find cracks into my main market (the USA) in the quieter hours or when that US competition may experience just enough of a lull to allow them in.
Ninety-five (95%) percent of my traffic comes from the U.S
I also wanted to add that my traffic is global, but I estimate that the greater part so of my Adwords revenue is from the USA. However if there isn't any demand for my ads in Iran or India, I would rather see PSA's showing there than suffer the humiliation of displaying some of the MFA's that I've seen.
So, I'm quite happy to let google do its magic and choose ads for me. That's why I use adsense because I dont have to micro manage advertisers. Just show me the bottom line...
Ohh, but I do agree with one comment earlier. It would be nice to put something in the pages tags to exclude certain keywords, that are related but are off topic. (for example when I do an article about Nissan Island a small place in the pacific. I would like to be able to exclude all adds related to 'cars').
You're making the mistake of projecting your experience in your sector, to everyone else in lots of different sectors.
I don't recall projecting anything to other people's sites. I agree that if things aren't working, then it may be worth investigating other solutions.
As to where the expectations come from, G proclaims loudly and proudly that AdSense will place "relevant" ads that "your readers will actually find them useful". I'm afraid that for some of us, it's not always the case.
