Forum Moderators: martinibuster
My page setup is like this:
============================
Header (logo + navbar)
Google leaderboard
Content
Content
.
.
.
.
===========================
During the couple of weeks between getting paperwork signed and the creative prepared, I noticed a trend in the EPC of my google ads to be on the upswing. It was still much less than the other ad, but I was nervous that possibly taking the google ads offline during the length of the campaign would effect the positive progress my google ads had made in the interim. So I decided to risk alienating visitors with too many ads by going with the following format:
============================
New Campaign leaderboard
Header (logo + navbar)
Google leaderboard
Content
.
.
.
.
===========================
As an aside, to make sure I wasn't alienating members, I coded a new feature to the site, where members could purchase a "hide ads" option, that would hide all the ads on the site for a few bucks a month. Judging by the feedback I got, that decision seemed to work great.
But here's where things got really interesting... after starting the new campaign I noticed that my daily google earnings were TRIPLE the daiy average of the previous month. I was baffled. Why would adding a new ad to the page (which would effectively lower the positioning of my google leaderboard) make such a difference?
Well, after experimenting with how my site looked in different browser resolutions, I quickly found my answer: On an 800 x 600 resolution the google ad now lay directly above the fold. Because I set it to have no borders, the google ads now were in the location where the content normally would be on a standard page, instead of a place you'd normally find the ads. The ads are no longer ignored by new visitors who are used to being blind to ads that are above the page content when a page loads.
Please share your experiences with positioning and succesful ad-colors in this thread. I think we can all only benefit by being open with our positive (and negative experiences).
EDITED FOR CLARITY.
[edited by: asp4bunnies at 4:21 am (utc) on Mar. 27, 2005]
That's very close to my layout on most pages
============================
LOGO - RUN OF SITE BANNER
------ MISC. STUFF
SKY - LEADERBOARD ADS
ADS - CONTENT
RUN - CONTENT
HERE - CONTENT
============================
I'm actually experimenting with some ads in the "run of site banner" area now with an AdSense channel for tracking it of course to compare with my usual Leaderboard spot on the rest of the pages.
Perhaps offering an "ignore the ads" option inadvertently drew attention to the ads from everyone else, bringing more clicks?
looking from the bad side
According to the program policies it is not allowed "drawing any undue attention to the ads". If you have this option somewhere burried in a user profile settings page without adsense on it, it is no problem, but if you have this option on any page with adsense on it, Google might see it as drawing attention to the ads.
looking from the good side
On the other hand you said that EPC trippled, not CTR. If EPC increases such an amount this would rather indicate a change at the Google side, not the visitors side. EPC is dependent of the bid price of the ads and the smart pricing algorithm. I do not remember any threads in the past indicating that the smart pricing algorithm takes the location of the ads into account, so the only reason for the EPC to increase might be a higher bid price for your keywords, or ads displayed for higher paying keywords than previously.
The borders around the ads, imho, make the ads look too separate, and might likely result in the visitor subconsciously flagging the ads as something to ignore, rather than peruse. Plus, the argument of trickery is not a good one, as the fonts used in the ad URLs are usually slightly different anyways.
Removing the border just makes the ads look less obtrusive, less tacky.
The ads are no longer ignored by new visitors who are used to being blind to ads that are above the page content when a page loads.
I do not remember any threads in the past indicating that the smart pricing algorithm takes the location of the ads into account, so the only reason for the EPC to increase might be a higher bid price for your keywords, or ads displayed for higher paying keywords than previously.
Good point... but here is another theory:
Have you seen any difference in the ads that are appearing? Is it possible that the new location pushed the Adsense box closer to better paying keywords in your content, while pushing the google code away from possibly lower-paying keywords in your title/description?
I'm thinking you might not even notice different ads, since companies bid on multiple keywords while sometimes using the same ads on each...
Just a thought.
BTW, this is the first Easter I've felt a twinge of agony. Reason: None of my target visitors will be online today and clicking. Adsense is tanking today and ruining my average daily for the month. LOL
I agree with you (my post was sarcastic), but some posters on this board believe that making ads look like content is trickery.
I run a very small site that appeals to miscellaneous interests, so perhaps it's just the sort of thing people idly come by during leisure-surfing.
...On the other hand I just did a bunch of ad-optimization a few days ago, so my sample pool is therefore somewhat muddied.
But still -- so far it's a very good Easter.
That would increase CTR. I'm failing to see the connection with EPC. Could you explain please?
I'm sorry, I meant ECPM (estimated CPM), not EPC. Thanks for catching that.
My CTR has gone up by .1% (a big deal on a high volume site). My CPC has gone up a lot at the same time, so it could be a combination of both higher bids and more clicks. As far as keywords go, there's no change to my site content: Just everything is lower on the page to make up for the new banner at the top. My only thinking on what made my CPC go up is possibly the clicks on the ads resulted in higher ROI (and a resulting increase in smart pricing), because the clicks were genuinely interested ones by people who normally were blind to the ads in the other location.
That's my theory anyway. Maybe it's all just a blip in the cycle and tomorrow I'll be at a 1/3rd of last month's daily average. Who knows? I'll enjoy the ride while it lasts.
Also, I would think Google doesn't allow you to draw unwanted attention to the ads in such a way that would innapropriately make visitors click on them. Something like "hey, click here to support us wouldn't be allowed." I can't imagine why a tiny "hide ads" button would be considered as drawing innapropriate attention to the ads as it's genuinely there for viewer convenience, not to draw eyeballs to the ads.
It can't be more innapropriate than Google putting "Ads by Goooooooooooogle" because it draws the eye, or changing your text colors to a bright red, that's for sure. This button serves as a legitimate function for site members who otherwise might get annoyed by the ads and leave, not deliberate ad adornment.
EDIT: I guess without a way to show you how I set it up, it might sound like it's not subtle, but it really is. It's about a 20x20 pixel button with just the words "hide ads" in it. It doesn't flash or anything. It's just subtle. You'll only see it if you are already looking at the ads (and are annoyed by them :)).
Whereas it is properly defined as... what? Google permits you to try to trick users into thinking your ads are content, so what's the big deal in being honest about what you are doing?
I told ya they would show up...
My CTR has gone up by .1% ...and you say that your estimated CPM has tripled.
My point of confusion is this: Unless you have a REALLY low CTR, or these figures are based on a LOT of data, 0.1% can't be significant. I see more variation than that every day for no apparent reason. So, unless 0.1% accounts for a substantial increase in your CTR, what you are really saying is that your EPC went up 3X -- which wouldn't have anything to do with banner layout, but rather would be Google's targeting algorithms.
So, is 0.1% a substantial increase to your CTR, or were you just blessed by the smart pricing fairy? (And, as an aside, I normally wouldn't even ask about this since I don't know if we are allowed to talk about even general stats like this, but you brought it up and no one else has complained, so...)
The other thing to factor in is that my EPC last month were terrible. For some reason each click is worth much, much more since the change. Add that, plus the increase in CTR and my earnings have tripled.
I told ya they would show up...
Did you have anything substantive to say, beyond noting our presence?
Not really, just stating the obvious. Every time someone mentions removing the borders we see charges of trickery being leveled. Brains or not, this isn't trickery.
I spend 4 figures a month on AdWords and I have no problem whatsoever with publishers making my ads blend in with the content. I have great sales pages that convert well so I'm happy to get all the traffic I can get at the price per click I'm willing to pay. Sales pages that don't convert need better written (more accurate and precise) ads and/or better written (more persuasive) sales pages.
Time spent falsely accusing publishers of trickery is time that could probably be better utilized coming up with an offer that results in sales.
Point is, with the minimalist, generic approach Adsense has employed (mostly text), sometimes flashier ads, colors, borders, actually add to a page's eye appeal. What may seem takcy to some, may seem perfectly beuatiful to others. It's all in the eye of the beholder.
I think we, as a culture, especially in the US, have become too enamored with tracking, trends, demographics, and targeting, and have forgotten what advertising is all about... selling.
It irks me sometimes, because of the niche I am in, G will sometimes deliver ads that are very generic or trite, though related, when I am looking for very specific, highly sought-after kinds of things. I don't think it's G's fault but that of the advertisers who are not yet creative enough to get into the right keywords, though I have a great deal of hope that as this industry grows, that will change.
Just two more points, which you can ignore at your own peril:
1. I didn't know a thing about newspapers or advertising when I got into the business, 23 years ago. But I read a great deal and learned. Two of the best books ever (IMO) were written by David Ogilvy, called "Ogilvy on Advertising" and "Confessions of an Advertising Man." The man was a pioneer in print ads, which has many parallels to the web. You can find good used copies at your library, or at bookfinder.com, Amazon or ebay. Highly recommended, even just for entertainment.
2. I used to disarm writers, usually when they were looking for more money for free-lance pieces or staff guys seeking a raise, by saying, "the articles are just there to take up space around the ads." I was only half-joking, being that it was, after all, my business and I wasn't in it to impress people (well, kinda), but to make money.
Sorry for being so long-winded (it comes with the territory), but I got my G check today, and I'm somewhat ecstatic.
BTW: Is everybody's check coming out of Buffalo? I'm in Rochester, about 70 miles from there, so I thought I was lucky. Just as an aside, Buffalo is going through a wicked time right now. The county is on the verge of bankruptcy (some ungodly deficit, like $168 million), and they are laying off even essential workers like cops and firemen. It's a real mess, about as close to anarchy as you'll ever see an American city (I hope).
Not really, just stating the obvious. Every time someone mentions removing the borders we see charges of trickery being leveled. Brains or not, this isn't trickery.
birdstuff, the specific context you defend is the deliberate placement of ads such that they are confused with links to content. However you choose to rationalize such conduct to yourself, that is by definition an effort to trick and deceive the user of the website.
I am surprised that you persist in arguing that up is down. It's really not complicated.
I am surprised that you persist in arguing that up is down. It's really not complicated.
You're right, it really isn't that complicated. Marketing 101. Have a product worth buying. Have an ad that entices customers to click. Have a sales page that sells the product with multiple, strong calls for action. No, it really isn't that complicated at all.
Blaming publishers for poor conversion rates and accusing them of trickery as an excuse for an ad campaign's poor performance isn't complicated either. It's called passing the buck.
Blaming publishers for poor conversion rates and accusing them of trickery as an excuse for an ad campaign's poor performance isn't complicated either. It's called passing the buck.
I said nothing about conversion rates. I said nothing about the performance of ad campaigns. All I did was point out that when you try to trick users into believing that ads on your site are links to content, you're very obviously - in fact, admittedly - trying to trick your users. You can choose to call it something else... would you prefer a softer term, like "misdirect"?
Again, I don't know why you are so defensive, as Google has apparently blessed this tactic.
I said nothing about conversion rates.
No, you didn't mention conversion rates, but conversion rates are at the heart of the "trickery" charge (they always are). The argument that ads that blend in trick the visitor into clicking is based upon the flawed premise that it results in lower quality traffic to the landing page. Therefore conversion rates are inherently relevent to your post.
...you're very obviously - in fact, admittedly - trying to trick your users.
I'm not admitting any such thing. It's you that is erroneously leveling that charge.
...would you prefer a softer term, like "misdirect"?
No, because it obviously doesn't apply.
Again, I don't know why you are so defensive, as Google has apparently blessed this tactic.
I'm not defensive at all, I'm just pointing out the inaccuracies contained in your statements. You are right that Google has apparently "blessed this tactic", and there is a reason for it: it works and there is nothing unethical about it.
[edited by: asp4bunnies at 3:30 am (utc) on Mar. 29, 2005]
Removing the border just makes the ads look less obtrusive, less tacky.
I agree. It makes the page look less cluttered. In no way would it fool someone into clicking because they think it's not an ad. The lettering and spacing is completly different. Plus I give the ads a good white space around them. The ad stands out even better with no border. I like how it makes it easier for the visitor to scan the titles and notice ads he or she is really interested in.
