Adsense In-text Ad Format

... why don't they create one?

[andrewshim]

The in-text ad network I've been using for the past 2 years have steadily gone down the toilet - going from 20 cents per click to 1 cent for 3 clicks!

I wonder why Adsense doesn't create an in-text ad format. I think it'd be great!

[Lame_Wolf]

I wonder why Adsense doesn't create an in-text ad format.

I think you answered your own question with the previous comment...

The in-text ad network I've been using for the past 2 years have steadily gone down the toilet - going from 20 cents per click to 1 cent for 3 clicks!

Possibly because Google know it's not that good.

[Scurramunga]

It's got to be the most annoying advertising concept ever conceived.

[Lame_Wolf]

It's got to be the most annoying advertising concept ever conceived.

Totally agree.

[andrewshim]

Possibly because Google know it's not that good.

Yeah... I suppose, but they're (the intext networks) NOT Google.

It's got to be the most annoying advertising concept ever conceived.

Actually, I don't find it annoying when its use is controlled - meaning some webmasters go for bang and set their limit to "unlimited" which causes EVERY mouse roll to trigger a pop-up while others set it to "5".

I think if Google were to go for a minimalist approach - no fancy, schmancy animation, just a simple pop-up with Adlinks type of content within the pop up, it might do good.

Just a thought.

[Lame_Wolf]

Yeah... I suppose, but they're (the intext networks) NOT Google.

Yeah... I was well aware of that when I posted.

Google is aware of what other networks do, and how they perform. They probably know how bloody annoying they are too.

[andrewshim]

They probably know how bloody annoying they are too.

LOL! Am I the only one who thinks they're not annoying?

[Lame_Wolf]

LOL! Am I the only one who thinks they're not annoying?

Probably ;)

[Scurramunga]

LOL! Am I the only one who thinks they're not annoying?

It's sure starting to look that way. ;-)

[andrewshim]

LOL! Am I the only one who thinks they're not annoying?

Probably ;)

LOL! Am I the only one who thinks they're not annoying?

It's sure starting to look that way. ;-)

Okay... I'll just go quietly now and roll over some pretty in-text links. ;P

[johnnie]

I think you may have a point in that adsense could use some 'freshness', but the in-text format you're describing has 'gone down the toilet' for a reason.

[nrep]

Out of interest, which in-text network are you using Andrew?

[true_INFP]

I wonder why Adsense doesn't create an in-text ad format.

Google has strict rules as to the ability of the visitor to distinguish ads from the actual content. Ads masked as 'organic-content' links are potentially deceptive, confusing and annoying (even if they are double-underlined or whatever, they are still within the text).

[maximillianos]

I've often wondered this same question. But to be honest, when I was running Adsense and Vibrant (or Kontera) in-text links it just seemed like too much advertising. It was overkill.

Sure the in-text ads didn't seem to hurt my Adsense earnings too much, but I'm sure they annoyed a lot of users, and the payouts declined to the point of me removing them. They were page bloat, slow to load and paid squat.

Removing them was a step in the right direction for our site, so I don't know if I could even use such a product if G came out with one.

[martinibuster]

Is it possible that the way in-text formats have been executed are to blame for the annoyance factor? What I'm trying to say is, perhaps it is not that in-text advertising itself is a negative experience, but that up to now, the way it has been done has not been the best user experience and that it may be possible to do it better.

The reason I say it could be done better is that in text links are classic old school hyperlinks. When you come across a hyperlink within a body of content, if the link is of interest to the site visitor then it will be followed. Whether the link is commercial or not, if it is of interest to the site visitor then it will be clicked on. If classic old-school hyperlinks are acceptable to the average site visitor, then is it possible that the problem with in-text advertising up to now is that the links may not have been interesting, too intrusive, or not relevant enough?

Here is an example of in-text linking that works. It's not uncommon to drop an affiliate link to a product page from within a review of that product. Those links tend to do well in terms of conversions and CTR. So if those affiliate links work well and are not annoying then it may be possible that in-text linking itself is not a dead end and should not be disregarded. The Yugo was a lousy car, but that doesn't mean we should abandon automobiles althogether right?

Could it be that the issue is not with the advertising format itself but with the execution of it?

Possible?

[Lapizuli]

I agree with those who dislike the existing ads, but martinibuster's point is right on target and I think andrewshim's is a great idea. The reason the existing ones are annoying to me, anyway, is simply their irrelevance.

They waste my time as I wait for the popup to appear and disappear. And because they're rarely related to what I'm reading, they feel like an aggressive intrusion rather than opportune offer.

If Google were in charge of it, I'm guessing the relevance would be, um, more relevant.

[andrewshim]

Google has strict rules as to the ability of the visitor to distinguish ads from the actual content. Ads masked as 'organic-content' links are potentially deceptive, confusing and annoying (even if they are double-underlined or whatever, they are still within the text).

Frankly speaking, when I'm searching for something, I wouldn't pass up on a possible link to the information I'm looking for just because it's in-text. The pop-up that appears tells me whether or not to click. No deception there I think. In fact, if you think about it, I recall there was an issue once where Adwords users tried to be smart with their ads to "deceive" people into clicking.

Could it be that the issue is not with the advertising format itself but with the execution of it?

Like I said... how about a pop-up containing an adlinks block? Clearly states "Ads By Google". Visitor is presented with options related to the content or his search and decides to click or not. No deception there me thinks.

If Google were in charge of it, I'm guessing the relevance would be, um, more relevant.

That's what I mean. Google with all its resources can surely make it a viable addition to its stable.

I find rollover images ads that are intentionally placed near the scroll bar and others like it more irritating don't you think?

Yes, I find the time it takes the in -text pop-up to load with its fancy-schancy look and animation tedious (especially on a slow connection). But in the end, if it gives me a lead to what I'm looking for, I'd click.

[Lame_Wolf]

Like I said... how about a pop-up containing an adlinks block?

Aggghhh Pop-ups. As bad as pop-unders.

[true_INFP]

Like I said... how about a pop-up containing an adlinks block?

Again, expressly banned by Google. Read the AdSense Terms of Service and the Program Policies to get an idea why and how much these kinds of ads are disliked by Google (including ads pretending to be the actual content, which I'd be very surprised to see supported by Google in any way).

[andrewshim]

Like I said... how about a pop-up containing an adlinks block?

Sheesh. Should not have used the word "pop-up". I did NOT mean a pop-up window. What I meant was the little "info snippet" that appears when you roll over a in-text link like the description alt-text that appears when you roll over an image.

Besides, Google wrote their TOS. They can re-write it.

Anyway... I was just thinking aloud about this in-text thingy. I mean... I've made my fair share of money from them so I thought it might be a good thing if Google stuck its finger in. They ARE after all Google and if anyone can re-invent in-text, it's gotta be them!

[true_INFP]

Besides, Google wrote their TOS. They can re-write it.

Obviously. But why would they?

Your suggestions are from the potential deception/annoyance department (for many, if not most, users).

[andrewshim]

Obviously. But why would they?

Your suggestions are from the potential deception/annoyance department (for many, if not most, users).

If tomorrow Google decided that in-text ads would be part of their stable of ad-units (whether publisher thought they were annoying or not), they WOULD re-write their TOS right? Then it would be up to us publishers to choose whether or not to deploy them in our sites.

Like Martinibuster said :

Is it possible that the way in-text formats have been executed are to blame for the annoyance factor?

It's obvious that many people are annoyed by in-text ads. However, I'm not. I'm annoyed by the OVERUSE of in-text ads. I'm ALSO annoyed by the many publishers who have more Adsense ad units on their pages than content.

[snickles121]

I used in text ads once and someone told me it looked like spam.

I took them off and I had increased page views greatly and actually increased my revenue.

In my opinion, you want people to click out, but not before they are finished with your site.

If they had them I would not use them again.

[martinibuster]

Scenario 1
If the site content is more interesting than the ad conent then they will read the article and not click an ad.

Scenario 2
If a site visitor hangs out long enough to finish an article, then it's important to have an ad at the bottom of that article because at that point they may have learned that they need a product and understand that they must now move on to the next phase of the buy cycle, which is product research. So they click out on an ad.

Scenario 3
If the ad content embedded above or within the first paragraph is directly relevant to the site visitor and they click out on it the publisher earns income on a site visitor that apparently wasn't interested enough in the content to stick around.

Scenario 4 - In Text Links
In-text links are just hyperlinks. You find them in newspaper articles, you find them in educational web pages, you can even find them on scientific research pages. They are annotations to a web document, extra information about a specific topic or subtopic.

In order to make in-text links work, the system would need to provide a way to give the publisher choice of links to add to a specific block of words.

Is this something Google or another company can do automatically? Or would it be as above, a manual process?

[andrewshim]

I generally use in-text on pages that perform poorly for Adsense. On the few pages that I use in-text in tandem with Adsense, it's because I find that they provide a broader range of links for my readers than what Adsense provides - Adsense doesn't always get the targeting correct.

Actually, this has been working very well for me, providing a tidy side income stream. However, for whatever reason, the in-text ad network I'm using has started to pay really poorly over the past 2 months. I don't think it's the in-text nature that's to be blamed - because I'm still registering a fairly reasonable amount of clicks every day. This tells me that visitors ARE finding the links helpful. However due to the very poor per-click value I'm getting now, I'm planning on plugging out the code as soon as I hit the next payment threshold.

I still think that if anybody can make in-text work, it's Google.

[Lame_Wolf]

I still think that if anybody can make in-text work, it's Google.

They will have to alter the TOS... and maybe reduce the amount you are already allowed.

IMO, we are allowed too many as it is.

I'd rather they spent their time and effort in clearing out the crap, making adverts more related to the page, and different size adverts.

[netmeg]

I'm sure if Google thought there was serious coin to be made while not damaging the whole AdWords/AdSense program, they'd be doing it.