Forum Moderators: martinibuster
In the coming months, we'll be rolling out some new foundational features in AdWords for the content network. These features are intended to enhance your earning potential and the effectiveness of ads we serve to users on your sites. Some of the benefits of these features include:Frequency capping, which prevents users from repeatedly seeing the same ads on your pages.
Improved attribution, to help advertisers identify the best performing sites in the network based on post-impression activity.
Improved ads quality, as we're able to improve ad performance within the Google content network.
You can read about these in more detail on our official Google blog. To enable these features, we'll be implementing a DoubleClick ad serving cookie on the content network. We now have a program policy that covers data usage related to the launch of these new features.
Source: [adsense.blogspot.com...]
The theory of frequency capping sounds great, more variety so more clicks.
Google is doing what I call "Marketing to the Marketers".
It all depends of course on having a large enough inventory of on-topic ads.
For my web property, this is the rub. If Google only had 30,000 high quality presentation $2 clicks I would be a happy camper.
[edited by: Edge at 2:23 pm (utc) on Aug. 12, 2008]
Quality sites will start displaying ads that are lower down the ladder (ie MFA"s and low paying) to their return visitors.Whilst trashy sites will be showing premium ads to their one hit disposable visitors.
[edited by: Scurramunga at 2:20 am (utc) on Aug. 13, 2008]
"If it ain't completely broke, break it more."
YM
Quality sites will start displaying ads that are lower down the ladder (ie MFA"s and low paying) to their return visitors.Whilst trashy sites will be showing premium ads to their one hit disposable visitors.
That's unlikely, since Google's objective is to improve performance and appeal for advertisers. What would be the point in sabotaging their own efforts?
What would be the point in sabotaging their own efforts?
Google's objective is to improve performance and appeal for advertisers.
Google's objective is to squeeze out more money from advertisers (through publishers). A perceived click quality is just the way to achieve this objective.
What would be the point in sabotaging their own efforts?
Google has proven that they can not predict the future, or how their products actually behave in the wild. They MAY have good intentions, but sometimes a product simply does not get acceptance in the market. Certainly, this is sad for some here, while others may cheer about this.
I guess with frequency capping it is similar. They really have no clue how the market will react. They might not intend to sabotage their product, but still may do it.
Scurramunga has hit the nail on the head IMO; the quick clicks coming from MFAs will suggest to advertisers that frequency capping works when in fact it does not. Quality publishers will probably lose.
Quality publishers will probably lose.
I'm always leery of the term "quality publisher." How many members of this forum would claim to be anything but "quality publishers"? And what is a "quality publisher" in the context of AdSense? Someone who's publishing a "Dahlia Sux" blog and forum for frustrated users of the Dahlia 4-5-6 spreadsheet might well be a "quality publisher" from an unhappy Dahlia user's point of view, but if the site's AdSense units are showing ads for Dahlia add-ins, clicks on those ads aren't likely to deliver quality leads from an advertiser's perspective.
Even if we could agree on a definition of "quality publishers," the notion that "quality publishers will probably lose" sounds more like an expression of personal frustration than of logic or common sense. Google may not be averse to culling the herd, but culling the healthiest publishers (as opposed to the weakest publishers) suggests a degree of corporate stupidity that's unlikely from a company that has grown AdSense into a multibillion-dollar business in just five years.
At least I will be now able to see a range of ads in my hunt for MFAs
If your ugly-as hell MFA converts like crazy for a merchantA premise which cannot be tested by us here.
And as publishers are not meant to be building their websites around Adsense, then I think it fair to say that a quality publisher is one which provides useful and meaningful content to it's visitors. So MFAs are excluded.
[edited by: Scurramunga at 12:39 am (utc) on Aug. 14, 2008]
Although a part of me agrees with you, if an MFA converts well, google has absolutely no incentive to exclude it. Doing so would be bad for advertisers and users alike, since the user is ultimately getting what they looked for when they arrived at the MFA in the first place.
if an MFA converts well, google has absolutely no incentive to exclude it
Johnnie, a part of me agrees with you too, because Google has been very slow to act against MFA's. However in my opinion the MFAs don't necessarily convert well. The sheer number of them, plus the fact that they can also be adwords customers (depending on which type of MFA we are talking about) may suggest that they do have some value from Google's point of view.
[edited by: Scurramunga at 12:48 am (utc) on Aug. 14, 2008]
if an MFA converts well, google has absolutely no incentive to exclude it
The proliferation of MFAs cause plenty of problems with the search engine part of Google's business.
The proliferation of MFAs cause plenty of problems with the search engine part of Google's business
Maybe not from an Adsense/Adwords point of view.
[edited by: zett at 6:18 am (utc) on Aug. 14, 2008]
- unique, valuable content
- content is often exclusive
- content is properly licenced from their rightful owners (no warez, ripped videos, MP3s, books, images)
- ads clearly separated from content (no blending)
- ads are positioned in a way to not interfere with user habits (no accidental clicks)
- site is easy to use and to navigate
- content-to-ad ratio at least 2-to-1
- significant content "above the fold"
- site attracts visitors organically (search engines, links, bookmarks, word-of-mouth)
- more than one or two pageviews per visit on average
- positive reviews on the web (by other quality websites)
- ads are just a way to monetize the site; without ads, the site is still useful and fully functional, presenting wide and deep content
Such a quality site is a good framework for ads. People click consciously on ads because the ad promises additional (product) information matching the site content. Yep, as per this definition, I am running quality websites.
Quality publisher
- a person or group of persons creating and maintaining a quality website :-)
As per that definition, I am certainly a quality publisher.
Some publishers will see a decline in revenue. In my view these are likely the publishers that have poor quality sites that have been living off the fat of a poor matching algo and poor targeting controls.
Many other publishers will see a large increase in revenue. KW and Placement targeting working within a single adgroup has given advertisers a high degree of control we have been longing for. We can now effectively lock-in to specific publishers, target their content, and reward them with dramatically higher CPCs.
The technical changes and tactical efforts to weed out bad or poor quality publishers is good for all. It forces poor quality partners to get better or lose money. It identifies bad partners, junk click sites and fraudsters and helps eliminate them. It also allows advertisers to pinpoint the true winners and reward them with high CPC's for their quality website and content.
It will be interesting to see how Frequency capping will play out. I don't believe many advertisers have a grasp on how capping frequency will impact their performance. They may make some very costly decisions. It may take a couple months before advertisers settle down to a consistent strategy and only then should a true analysis be done by publishers. I can understand the concern by publishers as it really is not known exactly what will be shown in place of an ad that has met their cap and is pulled.
Ultimately you have to believe that Google believes that higher quality ads with higher quality publishers really does equal higher profits.
A shakeout is occurring--and just because it isn't happening all at once doesn't mean the end result won't be the same. (Rembember the old boiling frog [en.wikipedia.org] story.)
Some publishers will see a decline in revenue. In my view these are likely the publishers that have poor quality sites that have been living off the fat of a poor matching algo and poor targeting controls.
What if a publisher has a multiple page HIGH QUALITY article spread out over five or six web pages? You know, the kind that after you read a full page you have to click on a "Next page" link to read the whole thing? I think WebMD does this, as well as my site. I spread the article out over several web pages so that my visitors don't have to load a giant web page.
Most folks whom are serious about buying a product or service want details which means - more reading... So, if capping is set at three views per unique visitor, then after the first three pages a lower or next quality paying ad will be shown to the visitor and when they are finally finish reading the article who knows what the ad quality is?
In my view and experience, the faster a visitor clicks on an ad the less impressed they are with the web page or web site – there’s not a good reason to hang around. I suspect that ad view capping would benefit publishers with less quality sites, like MFA’S.
[edited by: Edge at 3:10 pm (utc) on Aug. 14, 2008]
We also don't know what Google is doing behind the scenes to discourage "thin AdSense publishers" (the AdSense counterparts to the "thin affiliates" whose screams of pain could be heard on the Google Search News forum not so many years ago and, more recently, on the AdWords forum). If Google's ultimate goal is to increase the value that advertisers receive from the AdSense content network (an increase that will lead to higher ad rates and revenues), then it would be foolish to assume that Google is introducing new features without giving any thought to the bigger picture.
So if that's the way Google wants to go then let it be that way. More people will find ways to create MFA sites, which will be beneficiary to Google anyways.
And yes is a far fetch observation, but one that makes sense.
So don't come here talking about how publishers that are doing poorly have "poor quality sites"
I can only hope that advertisers will be able to determine that sites with layouts like yours work for them and will then keep the capping off, or target your site.
"Poor quality" does not mean a website is not legitimate. As previously posted "quality" is determined by different standards set by each advertiser. The list of a framework that suggests a quality publisher was excellent. What may work great for one advertiser may be a total bust for another.
Quality publishers you guys got to be kidding me. Let me tell you people Psychic. They do search, they find site if site is not what they looking for AKA "MFA" then they are most likely to click on the ads, And since they are looking for the item to starts with they will eventually purchase the item.
You're assuming that everybody who clicks an ad on a "thin AdSense" or junk site is looking to buy something. In reality, many of those users will be looking for information that they didn't find on the "thin AdSense" site, or they'll be clicking an ad because any content on the page is buried below three AdSense ad units. Contrast that behavior with the behavior of someone who's been browsing a comprehensive information site about digital widgets. The latter reader has already obtained the information he needs; if he clicks on an ad, it's probably because he's interested in buying or at least pricing the product.
There's a reason why an ad in CAR AND DRIVER or PC MAGAZINE costs more than an ad in a throwaway advertising circular. That reason is audience quality. If you're an advertiser who's selling gourmet coffee beans from Tropicania, you'd much rather have your ad seen (and clicked by) a reader of a coffee aficionados' site than by a drive-by searcher who landed on an MFA site after typing "tropicania coffee" into Google while researching a school report.
