Forum Moderators: martinibuster
It's easy to blame the content publishers for low conversions.
It might be wiser, and a much better, more profitable use of time, for advertizers to look at their own pages and ask why they don't convert this traffic better.
It might even be a good idea to design seperate landing pages for content traffic.
Remember the URLs of content sites are now shown in tracking software . . . for advertisers
I'm sure that helps the advertizers to know which sites are sending traffic that converts, or doesn't convert.
But it doesn't answer the question of why some traffic doesn't convert.
Untill everything possible has been done to try to get the traffic to convert, turning off the traffic source may be short sited.
This is definitely true in some cases. Landing pages that are confusing to read, landing pages that load very very slowly, etc. However, if they're measuring what they get from search and what they get from content and there is a huge disparity, it says a lot about the general quality of the content network. Of course, I am talking about the gazillions of crud sites that pop up each day stealing clicks and stealing content.
These ads have no indication in them of where they are located. My visitors assume, quite correctly, that they are ads serving our area. Many content advertisers would have much better converting ads just by putting their area in their titles.
For others, great.
Test, test, test & survey lads!
Yes, let's throw some blame on Google here.
Yes, let's throw some blame on Google here.
Even if I do not get to see the 'real' landing pages (some advertised URLs even return 404s), their homepages speak volumes. Some sites seem to be made by people who know nothing about the web and how it works. No/bad content, bad navigation, flashing images, slow loading, grammar mistakes, and so on and so on. The list of issues is endless.
And? I think that my visitors are so satisfied with my content that they will immediately spot the weaknesses of the advertized sites. Or, to use a metaphor, if you drive a Porsche and start looking for a new car, and the cool dealer with the glitzy shopfront takes you to the back of the showroom and shows you a used Volkswagen with dents - honestly, why would you want to buy that car? Nope. That visitor won't convert.
Of course, publishers are part of the problem, too. Each attempt to trick visitors into clicking a link (e.g. by blending the ads totally with content) will usually be punished by bad conversion rates. Visitors are not dumb. They basically know what they are doing, what they want, and what not. If they want to click an ad (because the content appeals to them), they click the ad. If they click 'accidentally', they use the back button to get back. It's as simple as that.
On my site, the best converting ads are visually separated from content and can be easily identified as ads. My visitors seem to like that.
To summarize -
1) Ads must be written well and on the topic [task: advertiser]
2) Targeting must be perfect [task: Google and publisher]
3) Ads should be identifiable as ads [task: publisher]
4) The landing pages must be superb from all points-of-view, e.g. content, navigation etc etc [task: advertiser]
If only one of these factors is wrong, ads won't convert.
But of course, this is what works for me. I would be interested to hear other opinions.
-- Mark
What bugs me to no end is that many advertisers seem to believe that everyone spends all their time online using the search engines. Personally, my use of search engines is and always has been kept at a bare minimum. There is a lot more to the internet and a lot more to do online than spend all ones time searching!
Ads should be identifiable as ads [task: publisher]
Google disagrees as they want you to blend the ads into the web site to trick people into thinking it's content and click more often than not. The only hint Google wants is the little easily overlooked "ads by Google" somewhere above or below the ads.
Best I can tell the whole game as defined by the rules for both Google and Publisher is to encourage as much clicking on ads as possible without overtly coming right out and saying to your visitors:
"HEY! YOU! CLICK THIS AD YA BIG DUMMY!"
The Grand Prize for the most useless clicks generated by following all the rules is the infamous email informing you your AdSense account was terminated for invalid clicks. That'll make you scratch your head and go "HUH?" once or twice won't it!
I feel it makes MY site look bad to have bait-and-switch type ads!
But it must be converting because they've used that tactic for a few months so far.
What bugs me to no end is that many advertisers seem to believe that everyone spends all their time online using the search engines. Personally, my use of search engines is and always has been kept at a bare minimum. There is a lot more to the internet and a lot more to do online than spend all ones time searching!
The "search only" strategy may work well for advertisers with limited budgets who can live off a small segment of the marketplace. It's less likely to be viable for big advertisers, or for advertisers of specialized products and services that can't get enough impressions and clicks with search alone.
Yep. The "reaching the niche" thing
[webmasterworld.com...]
difference?
at least the scrapers have SOME content....
There are many ways people get to domains and SE's are just one of them.
"Each attempt to trick visitors into clicking a link (e.g. by blending the ads totally with content) will usually be punished by bad conversion rates. Visitors are not dumb."
Errr, this should read...
"Each attempt to trick visitors into clicking a link (e.g. by blending the ads totally with content) will usually be punished by bad conversion rates if the publishers site is actually a useful, honest web site or web service. Visitors are not dumb."
Main point being here that indeed visitors are not dumb. Exactly as they are able to identify quality content that attracts them they also identify bad content (e.g. scrapers) that do not help them achieving their goal. There is no point in going back to a bad site where all you can expect is more useless content and more AS ads.
Final conclusion? G needs to fix the "quality issues" on the content network. Fast. Otherwise they miss a great opportunity to turn this into something good for all.
All I am wondering, though, is: What is the rationale behind not doing this? Why the heck don't they simply fix it? Can't be a technical thing - they could do that, maybe by introducing a new manual check of each site. No, it must be the money - extreme pressure from that ultra-high stock price (I knew this would cause problems to them), i.e. extreme need to provide satisfying numbers to the analysts. If they are earning money with scrapers or anything else, they simply can not turn this down. There must be a lot of discussion going on at G right now what to do about this. I am afraid they have realized that they cannot simply go back to the good old days before the IPO (and focus purely on quality), at least not if they care about the value of their company.
Somehow this is sad.
-- Mark
Main point being here that indeed visitors are not dumb.
I have significant stats that would disagree with your assessment.
I see your point. Thus I will further refine my statement... *bg*
"Each attempt to trick visitors into clicking a link (e.g. by blending the ads totally with content) will usually be punished by bad conversion rates if the publishers site is actually a useful, honest web site or web service. Visitors are not dumb."
...should read...
"Each attempt to trick even remotely intelligent visitors into clicking a link (e.g. by blending the ads totally with content) will usually be punished by bad conversion rates if the publishers site is actually a useful, honest web site or web service. These visitors are not dumb."
But seriously, I think G is in serious trouble. They can't get rid of the ghosts they called with the IPO. I feel they are shutting their eyes in front of the probs coming from AS - they would LOVE to increase quality on content network, but when doing so, they KNOW that they will loose revenue. On the other hand, if they keep their current approach (i.e. tolerating scrapers and zero content sites), advertisers will bark louder every day and opt out of the content network. And publishers will leave the party as well. We see the first signs for all this here and in the AW forum.
Maybe as long as they have a positive balance on new, unexperienced advertisers and publishers (i.e. more coming than leaving), it will work for them. This will change once serious competition is available. Then they will see advertisers and publishers leaving, and AS revenue will drop.
Then again, it will drop anyway (see above). It seems to be just a matter of time.
-- Mark
It's not the publisher's fault if your site doesn't convince people who are in your target market.
Obviously if someone clicks on my ad because of click fraud it won't convert... but if your site is about widgets and I sell widgets, I can convert those clicks into sales.
My niche is tourism, my sites are high quality unique content, I am in a small area and know most of the advertisers in this area, some I have pitched for work when asked, they just dont want to pay, they would rather pay PPC or adwords and HOPE.
I cant see them dropping publisher sites as its their CHEAP way of getting traffic to their homemade poor quality sites, thats my niche, does anyone else see the same sort of thing?
In my niche, a large proportion of advertisers with POOR quality sites are resorting to PPC or adwords to sell their services rather than PAY for seo or proper advertising, they see it as a quick fix, as stated earlier in this thread, its not the publishers fault the traffic doesnt convert, its probably because you have a crap web site.
I'd change "probably" to "maybe." As with so many things, it depends.
There's probably as much diversity in the advertising ranks as there is in the publisher ranks. On my site, I see AdWords/AdSense advertisers that range from Bud's B&B or Al's-affiliate-site.com to long-established niche travel companies (ones that I've seen for years in the NEW YORK TIMES Travel Section or THE NEW YORKER) to major airlines. Now, it's true that Bud and Al may not know much about copywriting or direct-response advertising in general, but those larger advertisers probably do--and the niche travel companies in particular have built multimillion-dollar businesses with direct-response ads. If the clicks that they receive from a publisher's Web site aren't converting, it probably is the publisher's fault to the degree that the publisher isn't delivering the right audience.
Fact is, audience is important. Why do advertisers pay higher CPMs to advertise in THE NEW YORKER or CAR AND DRIVER than in WALLY'S WEEKLY SHOPPER or the FERNVILLE FREEBIE? Simple: Those higher-priced publications can deliver audiences whose demographics and/or demonstrated personal interests match the advertiser's needs. Google has finally recognized that basic fact of advertising, and the forthcoming "site-targeted" CPM ads are a response to the demands of the larger (and more demanding) advertising industry.
Side note: Not long ago, a hotel-booking service in a certain European country approached me with an affiliate proposal. I said "no thanks" and suggested that they try Google AdWords/AdSense. The booking service wrote back and said they'd tried AdWords, but they'd spent more than $300 on clicks before getting a single booking. Now, maybe they didn't know how to pick keywords or write copy. But I suspect that poor audience quality was a factor, too.
Google has finally recognized that basic fact of advertising, and the forthcoming "site-targeted" CPM ads are a response to the demands of the larger (and more demanding) advertising industry.
Except those graphics banners have very poor conversion compared to text ads. It's like they take one step backwards because big advertisers can't grasp the fact that the graphic web ad is more or less dead.
I can put the same advertiser on my site, banner ad and text ad and invariably the text ad delivers 300% more clicks at a minimum.
Except those graphics banners have very poor conversion compared to text ads. It's like they take one step backwards because big advertisers can't grasp the fact that the graphic web ad is more or less dead.I can put the same advertiser on my site, banner ad and text ad and invariably the text ad delivers 300% more clicks at a minimum.
I've used affiliate banners, and they've had about the same clickthrough rate as text ads, probably because they were targeted to my audience. If banners have acquired a bad reputation, it isn't because the format is bad--it's because too many banners are run-of-network ads for dating services, credit cards, home mortgages, and the like.
Also, clickthroughs aren't the only measure of an ad's success. CPC ads are obviously direct-response ads, but a CPM ad may be intended to convey a branding or sales message without necessarily generating a click. For example, a cruise line might run high-class, visually stunning banners on a cruising site to make people think of Platinum Cruises instead of Croesus Cruises or Foie Gras Lines when they're in the market for a luxury cruise. A cruise travel agent, on the other hand, would probably run CPC ads with a message like "Save 20% on Platinum Cruises" that's designed to generate inquiries. It's just like offline advertising, where Apple Computer might run full-page, full-color magazine ads for the latest model while working with dealers to reach local prospects with personalized direct mail.
Lack of quality control on SERPs, advertisers, publishers = a load of CRAP.
My earnings have become a joke and I am still seriously considering removing all AdSneezx ads, but I am keeping them there while reworkng my site, rebuilding my traffic and hoping against hope that the Great Googly-oogly will actually get up off their collective Ph.D. arses and DO SOEMTHING about some of this.
I'm sticking to my marketing plan, now with changes, because I cannot trust Google to deliver any kind of reliable results. Over the past two weeks, my opinion of them has fallen from "not so good" to "completely useless, and possibly harmful."
I've used affiliate banners, and they've had about the same clickthrough rate as text ads, probably because they were targeted to my audience. If banners have acquired a bad reputation, it isn't because the format is bad--it's because too many banners are run-of-network ads for dating services, credit cards, home mortgages, and the like.
I do the same, but as a percentage of pages people have software blocking the affiliate banners so they just don't get the same coverage they used to, and the banners were VERY targetted.
Put the same ad in text and it outperforms it every time - just the way it works for me.
