Forum Moderators: martinibuster
[webmasterworld.com...]
A new tool for advertisers is live: a black list for sites you don't want your ads to be published. Because I am both, publisher and advertiser I immediately checked it and I like this new feature.
Will this help quality publishers? Your comments please
I was just going through some results at findarticles.com where they probably have special status with Google and saw an ad that was identical to the rest of the serps. The only way I know it wasn't was the small "Advertising-Sponsored Link" above it.
I noticed but I wonder if the average surfer does.
I don't think much will change as a matter of fact it will make things better. The only people that will mess with this are people that already have content network turned off. So if they turn it on ban some sites there is a chance for new ads that you did not have before.
Do I detect a hint of wishful thinking? :-)
Existing advertisers are already starting to block sites they don't want, if we're to believe the posts in the AdWords forum.
BTW, the new blocking feature is quite limited, and some advertisers have complained that it isn't as easy to use as it could be. Think of it as a baby step or a public beta: If it works for advertisers, and if it helps Google identify publishers who violate the AdSense TOS, it's likely to be improved and expanded as time goes by.
(1) From an advertisers view, if they are willing to apply such nefarious means to build sites (not illegal mind you), they may be willing to go that extra step to fake their clicks as well. True content sites are more than likely in it for the long term and less likely to fake their clicks because unlike scrapers, true content sites can't just buy a new domain, get a new account, and scrape from scratch all over again.
(2) Advertisers are people and are annoyed by them as well.
(3) Many scrapers are structured so that the user just wants to get out as fast as possible, with the fastest possible method being an adsense ad (or back button). I doubt these run away clicks convert.
(4) Many big spenders are concerned about brand image. So a quality site that doesn't convert as well as a low quality site may still be more desirable because the high quality site does not damage the brand image.
also... i wonder if google is going to take note of sites that appear in lots of advertiser's blacklists... if so, will they factor this fact into the smart-pricing algorithm?
EFV replied with this:
Interesting thought. Why not? It would make a lot of sense--and it would encourage publishers to avoid tricks that jack up CTR at the expense of advertisers.
How would Google know why these sites are being blocked? It could be for competetive reasons, personal reasons or conversion reasons. Seems like every niche has a leader that everyone in that niche is gunning for it may be personal or competitive reasons. It would be fairly easy to form an alliance and destroy someones earnings.
For that matter look at this forum, there could 50 members that dont like another member for what ever reason. If all 50 of them put his site on the block filter would Google really penalize his other traffic. I do realize that this is a stretch, but it is easy to see how something like this can happen.
Nonetheless I would hope that any publisher that is blacked out by a large number of advertisers gets a hard look from Google.
I agree with that 100%. Google should review the site to see why this is happening, but I do not believe a automatic filter should kick in.
I don't know EFV, after reading Jenstar's report on the Google Adsense conference she attended, sounds like the adsense department encourages "tricks." Blending ads into content with same background, link color, etc.
The left hand often doesn't know what the right hand is doing, and in some cases the left hand has other goals. To use the most obvious example, AdSense was implemented in a way that caused a flood of scraper sites in the Google SERPs, resulting in more work and expense for the Google Search team and a reduction in the quality of Google's core product.
AdSense was implemented in a way that caused a flood of scraper sites in the Google SERPs, resulting in more work and expense for the Google Search team and a reduction in the quality of Google's core product.
This is so true. Is Google in denial over this or do they really think that TrustRank, if implemented, is the answer. It's like Google is being so short sighted. It certainly questions their current motives and values.
[webmasterworld.com...]
There's a civil war going on in Google and the departments are just creating more work for each other. Since they can't talk to customers (proven in surveys) I'm not surprised they can't talk to each other.
quality for an advertiser means conversion
True with many advertiser, but it certainly is not a universal truth.
There are two broad types of advertising: direct response and awareness. An ad that seeks a click that leads to an immediate sale, newsletter subscription, request for more information, etc. (a conversion if you will) is direct response advertising.
As you said, quality for this type of advertising means some type of conversion.
Awareness (often called branding or image-building) advertising seeks to create positive awareness of a product or company in the minds of the target market. In doing so, your create a positive feeling about the product or company so that when the target market is faced with a future decision, they are more likely to go with your product. Can you say McDonald and Coke?
Quality for this type of advertising isn’t measured by a conversion, but by the number and demographics of those seeing the ads and the improvement in the image and awareness of your product or company.
Therefore, if you are using AdWord as part of your “Awareness” campaign, the quality of site that your ad is going to appear on is very important – and scrapper sites don’t fit the bill IMHO.
The vast majority of web surfers wouldn't know a scraper site if it bit them on the butt... And why should they? After all, the term scraper site (and what it represents) only exists in the webmaster arena.
I'm blocking my ads from showing on scraper sites on general principal, but it has nothing to do with "brand awareness" or conversion rates (my ads have historically done very well on scraper sites). But as far as damaging a "brand", I don't see it happening.
But as far as damaging a "brand", I don't see it happening.
Not for you or your brand maybe, but Kraft certainly thought their brand could be damaged when their AdWord ad appeared on a Neo-Nazi site. They took immediate action to protect the “brand.”
I think the reason many WW members don’t think of brand or image issues is because they don’t have a brand to promote or protect. They have products or services to sell and therefore only think in terms of direct response advertising. But I can guarantee you that in the larger world of commerce, image is extremely important and is a significant factor in all advertising.
Assumming you're not tarred with the scraper brush, which many (myself included) over in the Adwords forum are using to ban scrapers left right and centre, if you've got a well converting, content site, do you think this new tool is going to make you more money or do you think you'd expect to stay where you are?
Given advertisers are set a very low limit of just 25 sites they can ban, the effects of this should be pretty well dispersed, but assuming Google increase the quota to something more reasonable (I for one could do with about 250) then the effects may become better felt.
Not for you or your brand maybe, but Kraft certainly thought their brand could be damaged when their AdWord ad appeared on a Neo-Nazi site. They took immediate action to protect the “brand.”
I haven't seen any Neo-Nazi scraper sites and I wouldn't want my ad on one if it existed. We're talking about mainstream scraper sites, many of which wouldn't harm a brand in the least.
It's easy to select a rare and extreme example to try to prove a point, but this one doesn't do it.
The web is chock full of crappy looking content sites running affiliate links for "household brand" companies. If these companies are willing to let their ad run on those sites, they wouldn't give a 2nd thought to running ads on many of the good looking scraper sites.
True, many advertisers are banning scraper sites, myself included. But in most cases it's probably because of the principle involved with the way those sites get their "content", not a branding issue or concern over conversion rates.
Ad spend down 20%
Visitors down 25%
Adsense Revenue at all time high
This feature is applied at the ad campaign level. So an advertiser with multi-ad campaigns, he/she can develop a multi-list of negative sites to filter unwanted websites completely.
[adwords.google.com...]
Anyone has seen any effects on the earnings so far?
It's not like Google shows you anyone is blocking or sends you an email saying:
"10 Advertisers have blocked you. Neener Neener."
It's all purely guesswork figuring out which new Google trend du jour is impacting your site.
We're publishers, the ugly stepchildren that live under the stairwell, we take the scraps thrown us and smile.
I blocked the first 25 sites I found which I didn't want my adds on (didn't take long), but once I realised there was a limit of 25, making the tool pretty much dysfunctional, I haven't given it much thought. I'm not going to wate my time trying to decide which are the 25 all-time-shockers in Google's content network -- so instead I'll just give them another month to see if Google raise the limit, else I'll just turn content off.
