Forum Moderators: martinibuster
Anyone spotted the above with their ads? Kinda strange I think.
So in essence they are experimenting with your income
And their income also. They make fewer $$$ too if people stop clicking on ads. Perhaps they found something when they were running the beta.
coho75
Why would any company want to dilute their brand with this sort of thing?
They didnt implement this just to annoy webmasters.
Ha- AdSense sites complaining that something looks "tacky".Now I've heard it all!
Maybe you prefer click the monkey?
Myself I would rather see text ads than be drowned in flashing banners and pop ups/unders.... wouldn't you?
They're not diluting their brand at all, Google has always been a little quirky/silly, that is a part of their brand.
As far as I am concerned, Google is a little (actually a lot) STUPID. They are making adsense into a flea market (3 ads per page, are you kidding me?) and screwing with the names. What the hell does adding "GOOOOOGLE" do to anything? It looks stupid and I am ashamed it is on my site.
Please microsoft come rescue us form this joke of a company. I beg you to offer a ad program with a little more honor. Google and Adsense are spinning down the toilet.
Go o o o o ogle
1 2 3 4 5 6
I think this is a great branding idea as far as Google is concerned. It draws a mental connection between the ads and the search engine portion of the business. They are not "diluting" their brand. This is already a (large) part of their brand.
Is it better or worse for us as publishers? I don't know. Do I want them to keep it? I don't know.
It looks like my site was made by a two year old because Google wants to be cute. Well Google, it ain't cute and you are coming real close to losing a good publisher.
The team is definitely all ears to publishers' feedback, particularly all of you at WebmasterWorld. I'll be sure to pass your comments along.
ASA
Edit: Thanks ASA.
What I would hate would be flash ads, compulsory images, animated gifs and the like. That would be worth complaining about.
Geez.
we're testing out new branding features
More like "unbranding" features. Why not just have a random string of text at the top of the ads so nobody can guess what company they're from, that'd be fun...
You'd get a lot less negative feedback if you allowed publishers to opt-in (and then opt-out) to these kinds of experiments. The way image ads have been introduced for example is fine - only add them if you want them.
I wonder, if google want to brand them selves as goooooooooooogle, why havent they registrered the domains that matches? (they are all taken). At least some percent will start typing goooooooooooogle.com in the address bar to find out what the ads are about.
One of the things we're looking at is what impact 'Ads By Gooooogle' will have on the performance of the Google ads. Repeat: this is a test. :)
Thanks ASA, it is reassuring to know that this is only a test. It is even more reassuring to know that you are listening in and will pass on an honest feedback of what the general comments are. A large number of web users are not very web savvy. They will associate the mis-spelling with webmaster error. Spelling mistakes subconciously cause the site to lose some credibility.
One common error I come across often is the use of "your" instead of "you're". Some webmasters cannot even apply the simple rule that if the word can be replaced with "you are" then it should be "you're" and not "your". Whenever I come across a page with a glaring mistake like this I immediately discount much of what is said on it because the writer doesn't come across as very literate.
While regular users of Google may be aware of the quirky use of the ooooos in the SE ...many don't. When they see "Ads by Gooooogle" on my site they could assume I've got a dodgy "o" key and couldn't be bothered to proof my page. The don't know what js is. They don't know you serve that block of text. Webmasters giving you real estate on their site are investing considerable trust in you. (True, it pays them handsomely, but it's still "considerable trust"). In some small way experiments like this serve to diminish that trust.
[edited by: Macro at 5:45 pm (utc) on Sep. 3, 2004]
Oh well, you cant knock em for tryin!
Okay who's the idiot that bought www.goooooooooooogle.com?
I think its funny they are branding for something they don't own... I think they should remove the "ads by" altogether. Or give the advertiser the option to do that.
but then again... look at the management.
Agree... very unprofessional.
but then again... look at the management.
No kidding, management rated something around a .3 out of 100, the lowest of any S&P 500 company. Way to go Google, you are at the way bottom of the pile.
Repeat: this is a test. :)
To ASA: But how long will this test last?
And...what after?
Thanks!
As it is every little change takes days to make because I got a lot of sites and templates to change. Just...ridiculous...
why havent they registrered the domains that matches? (they are all taken)
Or trademarked the word or phrase? They haven't, apparently.
lars
No kidding, management rated something around a .3 out of 100, the lowest of any S&P 500 company. Way to go Google, you are at the way bottom of the pile.
I don't necessarily disagree, but this is about your 10th post expressing your opinion on Google and its management in the last 48 hours in a number of different threads. Enough already, I get the point.
Back to the subject of this thread, someone thought the change might have an impact on CTR by drawing attention to the ads. I've seen no increase on our CTR.
[edited by: Never_again at 8:22 pm (utc) on Sep. 3, 2004]
why havent they registrered the domains that matches? (they are all taken)
Or trademarked the word or phrase? They haven't, apparently.
I rather think everyone already knows who it is....
TJ
I rather think everyone already knows who it is....My visitors think it's a cheap imitator.
Rights management, separate from identity, is generally taken pretty seriously by most corporations. Branding is a corporate asset. Trademarking assures exclusive use of a phrase. It also insures that somebody else can't trademark it and prevent the originator from using it.
lars
Since goooooooooooogle, my clickthrough rate is on low level which I didn't see before.
And goooooooooogle looks simply stupid in my opinion.
PashenG
