Forum Moderators: martinibuster
But, with this latest round of paranoia, I'm moved to post again.
*ALL* Google ads are _labeled_ as "Ads by Google" or the funky "Ads by Goooogle"
There is *NO* way for a customer, or surfer to mistake that an ad is or is not served by google, except if you have it framed in some sort of potentially TOS-violating terms, or perhaps, if you have a side bar and stack "other" ads underneath Google ads.
While Google is certainly Draconian enough to try to claim something like that (by "fuzzing up" the terms), I'm quite sure Yahoo and M$ would be the first to initiate suit against them for all sorts of things from restraint of trade to copyright (google claiming they own the "look and feel" of all textual advertising).
You (we) did not enter into an _EXCLUSIVE_ advertising arrangement with Google, and the promotion was always to increase monitization of your site with _extra_ ads, not use them as an exclusive.
We agreed to *NOT* be deceptive, and to adhere to some commonsense (usually) standard terms of behavior.
Because of their policies, lack of two-way communication, and lack of feedback (standard advertising demographics, returns, etc) they would have a hard time pushing the issue that you fully knew what you were getting into beforehand, and that it was an exclusive. Their full terms and disclosures were *never* fully disclosed.
So, again, we have all this paranoia, speculation, and supposition over something that distracts from the main issues of "lack of feedback to publishers" and even a few people who are going to "add more sites" to combat the results.
On the flip side, what would happen if all the publishers decided to "jump ship" and try Yahoo or M$ as suggested here?.... <snip>
Advertisers cannot advertise without publishers (hence scrapper sites). Publishers (good or bad) are *more* important to the system than anyone gives them credit for.
When Google is setting itself up as the "Bad Guy" and MicroSoft is being looked at as one of the white knights to come and save the day, we *know* things (Life, The Universe, and Everything) are truly screwed up.
[edited by: Jenstar at 5:52 pm (utc) on May 18, 2005]
[edit reason] Absolutely NO calls to action, as per TOS [/edit]
I'm not sure why I'm posting again, after 3 messages it might be time to flip a coin and decide either to be a regular or lose my password.
With an opening paragraph like this, I just had to ask... What?
On the flip side, what would happen if all the publishers decided to "jump ship" and try Yahoo or M$ as suggested here?.... or picked a day to remove all google ads from their sites to see what happened?
I'd love to visit the parallel universe in which either one of those events could occur.
I'm looking forward to the day when Yahoo and MSN get their AdSense alternatives fully functional and open to all publishers--but not because I plan to jump ship. I'm looking forward to that day because from then on it will be much harder to fantasize about how wonderful the alternatives will be, when faced with the reality of what they ARE. Which I expect will be no better than AdSense, and very possibly worse.
*ALL* Google ads are _labeled_ as "Ads by Google" or the funky "Ads by Goooogle"There is *NO* way for a customer, or surfer to mistake that an ad is or is not served by google, except if you have it framed in some sort of potentially TOS-violating terms, or perhaps, if you have a side bar and stack "other" ads underneath Google ads.
Sure, there is. When ads are blended into the page content (as they are on scraper sites, for example), that "Ads by Google" can be almost invisible to someone with middle-aged eyes and a high-resolution monitor. It's certainly easy to miss.
What would happen if all the publishers decided to "jump ship" and try Yahoo or M$ as suggested here?....
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Why do unhappy AdSense publishers assume that they'll be welcomed with open arms by Yahoo and MSN?
<snip
Better read up on labor law before you start talking about organizing unions of vendors.
We have smoke free days, why not google free days, just to remind them _who_ their real customers are?
Google's customers are advertisers and end users.
Publishers are vendors.
Google is your customer, not the other way around.
When Google is setting itself up as the "Bad Guy" and MicroSoft is being looked at as one of the white knights to come and save the day, we *know* things (Life, The Universe, and Everything) are truly screwed up.
As the saying goes, the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence.
Publishers won't know if it's really greener until they've been invited to graze on the other side of the fence--and there's no guarantee that an open invitation will occur.
[edited by: Jenstar at 5:54 pm (utc) on May 18, 2005]
[edit reason] Snipped quoted call to action [/edit]
I'm quite sure Yahoo and M$ would be the first to initiate suit against them for all sorts of things from restraint of trade to copyright (google claiming they own the "look and feel" of all textual advertising).
I don't think Google claimed copyright of the ad formats. They just don't want other ads that mimick theirs on our sites. While this policy may make it seem like they own copyright to the ads, I don't think thats the case. Like many people have said, an ad is an ad. Google will just close your account if you put on ads that mimick a certain type, that type being, the ad formats they particularly use. This is not illegal, we are not forced to use Google adsense. Google can make up any rule they want.
Their full terms and disclosures were *never* fully disclosed.
They don't want to give competitors a heads up.
On the flip side, what would happen if all the publishers decided to "jump ship" and try Yahoo or M$ as suggested here?.... or picked a day to remove all google ads from their sites to see what happened?
I really doubt the big earners will "jump ship". When it comes to money, and Google knows this, publishers will remain loyal for the most part.
Advertisers cannot advertise without publishers (hence scrapper sites). Publishers (good or bad) are *more* important to the system than anyone gives them credit for.
I'd say, only good publishers are important. The bad ones can make Google look bad or lose reputation, even if they make Google money. Reputation of a company is more important I would think.
To solve the problem why don't you just take the adsense code off your site and contact google direct to voice your concerns.
It's that simple....
"I thought about clicking one of my ads. Does Google know this and will they ban me for life? I hear my friend thought about it too. What if I claim he's not really my friend?"
"It's noon and my AdSense numbers are down 20% from yesterday. That $%$& smart pricing! Google hates us webmasters! Now I have to sell one of my kids for medical experiments."
"Just wait until Yahoo and MSN get into the game. They'll just throw money at us webmasters versus that evil Google who just wants to maximize corporate profits. That'll teach them when every webmaster leaves AdSense."
I'm not sure why I'm posting again
Neither am I. What's your point?
"I thought about clicking one of my ads. Does Google know this and will they ban me for life? I hear my friend thought about it too. What if I claim he's not really my friend?""It's noon and my AdSense numbers are down 20% from yesterday. That $%$& smart pricing! Google hates us webmasters! Now I have to sell one of my kids for medical experiments."
"Just wait until Yahoo and MSN get into the game. They'll just throw money at us webmasters versus that evil Google who just wants to maximize corporate profits. That'll teach them when every webmaster leaves AdSense."
LOL - That's good stuff! I too find the paranoia to be the highlight of my day.
I'm looking forward to the day when Yahoo and MSN get their AdSense alternatives fully functional and open to all publishers--but not because I plan to jump ship. I'm looking forward to that day because from then on it will be much harder to fantasize about how wonderful the alternatives will be, when faced with the reality of what they ARE.
hehe, interesting point :)
How sure are we that the these two other companies will give a better revenue split in favor of publishers? We're talking here of Y, people, which has a great talent for milking every possible revenue source they could get their hands on. Also, how do we know that these other companies will be more tolerant of fraud? And do we really think that these two companies will reveal their fraud detection mechanisms? Cmon people, this is business! And both Y and MSN also have shareholders to think about - just like Google.
What'd I miss?
<edit> Roswell...forgot Roswell. They were all involved in covering up the alien body autopsies. THE TRUTH IS OUT THERE! FIGHT THE POWER! </edit>
