Forum Moderators: martinibuster
1. Retire Smart Pricing
2. Go back to the very basics that made Adsense great.
3. DO NOT ACCEPT ANY SITE TO THE PROGRAM UNLESS THEY HAVEY 5000 DAILY VISITORS.
This last point will fight click fraud perfectly.
we're talking about a company that earns bazillions a year and hasn't even got a proper customer service department (unless you're already earning them money, in which case they'll give you one). they hide their telephone number on their site, and take weeks to reply to your emails... 9 times out of 10 you'll only get a canned response anyway.
considering how free and easy they are with other people's privacy, they sure do like their own.
there's nothing wrong with asking them questions. we're not asking for a magic formula, are we -- just a bit more info on changes that affect our earnings.
There's nothing wrong with Google's choosing not to answer those questions, either, if answering isn't in the best interests of Google or the network as a whole. After all, freedom isn't a one-way street, and Google gets to decide how to run its ad network--just as we get to decide how to run our sites.
About a year ago I read a blog post from an advertiser that complained about needing to pay 75 cents per click to advertise on a site only to read forum posts on that very site complaining that it can't get more than 5 cents a click. I can't verify the story of course but the sentiment is out there of a large gap between price and payout.
That's what id fix with some transparency.
Roll back the Adwords user interface to where it was in 2004.
I don't like it when I need a degree in rocket science to start a simple ad campaign. The interface now seems to have more buttons, controls and windows than a space shuttle cockpit Every time I log into my campaigns I see this little message: "We have added x new features since your last log in." You are now able to adjust the appearance of your ads to the constellation of jupiter and mars and the tide in San Francisco bay. Or something like that.
1) supply and demand - many AdSense Publishers, with fewer AdWords Advertisers (as a ratio) with lower bids from years ago.
2) Google has dropped the revenue share % drastically from roughly 80% Revenue share in BETA to roughly 50% for the longest time, now it's a "black box" and from what I've seen and been told it can vary anywhere from 1% to 50% while additionally smart pricing allows from clicks to cost anywhere from max bid down to as low as 5 cents.
Everything else is just a detail.
I don't understand the people who constantly defend Google's lack of transparency with publishers. However, as long as Adsense has no competition, Google can do whatever they like.
Why don't MS and Yahoo try to compete with Adsense?
Anyone?
I know from comparing my Adsense earnings to other networks that claim to payout 50-60% that Adsense beats them all hands down. So from perspective, I think they are still paying out around 80%.
Regarding the changing of the system over time. Don't we all strive to improve our sites and services over time? The market is constantly changing, and if G does not adapt to those changes, none of us will making money from Adsense.
I just try to focus on making my site more valuable. How can make my content more accessible? How can I make my pages more intuitive and useful? How can I help someone find what they are looking for more easily? These are all things I can control and improve which all help keep my site competitive, and making money.
Google's Adsense program has given us all the time to focus on improving our sites, rather than spending all our time selling ads and managing advertisers.
Since G brings to the table more advertisers than any other network, I think they are doing their part very well. Our part is to focus on our sites and improve the user experience. This is the beauty of what they have created.
I read a blog post from an advertiser that complained about needing to pay 75 cents per click to advertise on a site only to read forum posts on that very site complaining that it can't get more than 5 cents a click. I can't verify the story...
If I were that advertiser, I'd be contacting the site owner about advertising direct for less than 75 cents per click but for more than 5 cents per click. Google has no obligation to narrow the gap for the advertiser.
And if I were the site owner, I'd be concerned about getting booted from AdSense for calling attention to the ads.
FarmBoy
I don't understand the people who constantly defend Google's lack of transparency with publishers.
Well, care to make a guess? Why would someone take the time, for which he will receive no compensation, and provide information to his competitors and the information may be interpreted by some as a defense of Google? Can you think of any reason someone might do that?
Why don't MS and Yahoo try to compete with Adsense?
They already have PPC products. And so do a number of other companies.
FarmBoy
[edited by: farmboy at 2:30 pm (utc) on May 25, 2009]
They already have PPC products. And so do a number of other companies.
Yes, both in Beta and limited to US Citizens/Companies.
Why is it taking so long?
I think he meant on the publisher side.
So did I. And it's not just MSN and Yahoo. There are a number of companies that offer PPC programs "on the publisher side." In fact, I use one on my main site and it outperforms AdSense.
FarmBoy
I would like to recommend that we aggregate and vote the suggested improvements there.
Since this is not for self-promotion and it is of the interest of all AdSense publishers, I hope the moderators will not mind showing here the link to the AdSense wishlist page there:
I don't understand the people who constantly defend Google's lack of transparency with publishers.
Just because you don't understand something doesn't make you right and the other guy wrong. And just because you think Google should make it easier for publishers to game the system doesn't mean Google has a moral obligation to obey you.
Let's face it: Those who constantly complain about the AdSense network (even though they've willingly agreed to its terms & conditions and program policies) are never going to be happy with anything Google does. So why should Google listen to the chronic complainers at all? Especially when the network is doing just fine as it is?
Those who constantly complain about the AdSense network ... are never going to be happy with anything Google does.
I always assumed most of the complainers were those making many thousands from Google, that large amounts of money had been lost. Over the years I learned that wasn't usually the case, a few big AdSense earners got hit hard now and then, but most of the complainers sometimes didn't even make the monthly payout minimum which definitely won't get as much attention from AdSense IMO.
Think about this, if Google has tens of thousands of accounts that only make a portion of the monthly payout minimums they probably have many millions of dollars of float money earning interest until those payouts must be made.
Why would they be in a hurry to pay out all that money floating in underachieving accounts currently earning interest regardless of how much they complain?
That in itself is why you also won't see minimum traffic requirements or anything else because at the end of the day, Google will always get paid.
Just because you don't understand something...
Gosh. Just predicting to understand Google doesn't make you right either. And just because you think Google can't do wrong doesn't mean we have a moral obligation to listen to you.
Let's face it: Those who constantly defend Google and the AdSense network (for whatever reasons) are never going to be critical with anything Google does. So why should we listen to the chronic defenders at all?
Why would they be in a hurry to pay out all that money floating in underachieving accounts currently earning interest regardless of how much they complain?
I'd think that G had a vested interest in having EVERY publisher getting a check EVERY month. Surely, on average, the profit on the amount of extra income they'd get if every publisher earned at least the minimum to get paid monthly would be more than what they get in interest on the unpaid amounts when a publisher doesn't get a monthly check.
Let's face it: Those who constantly defend Google and the AdSense network (for whatever reasons) are never going to be critical with anything Google does. So why should we listen to the chronic defenders at all?
I don't know of anyone here who "constantly defends" Google. Some of us are capable of looking at the bigger picture and realizing that our interests aren't always the same as Google's (or vice versa) and that complete "transparency" (a.k.a. helping owners of "AdSense businesses" game the system) may not be in the greater interests of the network.
I'd also point out that the subtext for nearly all of the complaints that we see here boils down to a simple message: "Give me more money." Unfortunately for the gimme crowd, AdSense isn't an entitlement scheme; it's an advertising network. Telling the gimme crowd how to game the system, or making them angry by revealing that John Doe is earning a bigger revenue share for whatever reason, or helping them profit at the expense of AdSense publishers who'd rather focus on serving users than on squeezing every last dime out of AdSense wouldn't be good for Google, for advertisers, or for the vast majority of AdSense publishers who use AdSense on their sites instead of building their sites around AdSense.
3. DO NOT ACCEPT ANY SITE TO THE PROGRAM UNLESS THEY HAVEY 5000 DAILY VISITORS.
The last feature seems to me good :)
Think about this, if Google has tens of thousands of accounts that only make a portion of the monthly payout minimums they probably have many millions of dollars of float money earning interest until those payouts must be made.Why would they be in a hurry to pay out all that money floating in underachieving accounts currently earning interest regardless of how much they complain?
Good one incrediBILL. Profitwise it would make more sense to increase the number of those not recieving monthly payments by lowering their income to a point below the payout level. Larger accounts, those previously making thousands of dollars, could eventually be whittled down to this level also.
This is fun. No matter where you want to stand, it's just opinions.
It seems that because of bad publishers where the most of the click fraud comes from, the good publishers do suffer. And it seems that the good publishers are punished because there are bad publishers too, instead of finding ways that can preclude the entrance of publishers who's sites have the characteristics of the bad publishers.
Keep in mind the best universities have the most demanding entrance examinations and requirements.
It's harder to get into Harvard or Oxford than a state university in Timbaktu. is it not?
3. DO NOT ACCEPT ANY SITE TO THE PROGRAM UNLESS THEY HAVEY 5000 DAILY VISITORS.
Add me to the folks who disagree with this - advertisers can get valuable leads from the legit sites of small businesses and organizations, who in turn can use Adsense to cover some expenses.
Want to clean up the MFA's and "get rich quick" wannabes really fast? Just drop every site running Adsense w/o a privacy policy!
[edited by: MamaDawg at 10:41 am (utc) on May 26, 2009]
It seems that because of bad publishers where the most of the click fraud comes from, the good publishers do suffer.
It isn't that simple. To the advertiser who's measuring ROI, the real issue isn't click fraud, it's invalid clicks of any kind. You could have a perfectly good publisher with a great site that's generating useless clicks because most of its readers are in a poor third-world country or are children who know how to click but don't have credit cards. Is the solution to eliminate all sites that get traffic from poor third-world countries or kids under 12?
Keep in mind the best universities have the most demanding entrance examinations and requirements. It's harder to get into Harvard or Oxford than a state university in Timbaktu. is it not?
When being an AdSense publisher counts for as much on your CV as a degree from Harverd or Oxford does, it may be time to tighten the entrance requirements. (I hope they "grandfather" existing publishers, though--I'm too old to take the SAT again!)
I am sure there are tons of MFA sites that do well over that and have no "real" content.
Cutting out the little guy is never a good business model to follow.
