I don't think they stand out nearly as well as they used to, but it does mean the there could be more ads on the side bar than there used to be.
Not so sure I like this change. But they still do display adwords on top of the serps in the colored bar.
[edited by: Brett_Tabke at 4:40 pm (utc) on Mar. 29, 2004]
Between GG and archie goodwin in #21, all the points that I would have wanted to make have already been made. And well made too, I think.
Please know that both GG and I will be reviewing this thread often, and neither of us will hesitate to send comments on to the appropriate folks. So we have a pretty good feedback loop going on here.
I'd also think that the first few days stats won't be incredibly accurate while searchers get used to the new format, so we should wait a bit before calling foul.
I very much agree with this comment. Sometimes 'the new' is automatically suspect because it is simply different. I know the feeling: every time my favorite online auction site makes a UI change I instantly don't like it. Funny thing though: it usually turns out that they knew what they were doing after all, and I most often end up being a fan of the changes once I'm used to them.
OK, enough philosophy for one post. ;)
AWA
As an Adwords advertiser, we are seeing overal CTR increase(15%) until now(w/ over 50,000 impressions).
I know it is too small to see the real CTR but it shows the direction at least.
Interestingly CTR of our best keywords category jumped by 25% so far. Since I know the ROI for the category is good, I am happy about the changes.
Because I am getting more quality clicks at the same price. I will have to verify that later with real numbers, though.
I just checked today's figures and CTR is up a little but it's too early to tell.
Like GG says we'll wait a week and compare this week against last. There isn't much movement in our placements and there has been nobody new in awhile so it will be intersting.
Onwards & upwards!
CTR is good for G and ROI is good for me.
If CTR is going up and ROI is going down at the same time it is doubly bad for me!
We'll wait and see how this pans out, but as of now (today) I think it is bad.
That is what happened to the organization I am with. The site used to always be in Top 10 for its "keyword-1" and always #1 for "keyword-2 keyword-1" until last October. This had been so because it is the only organized authority on its topic. After then dropping in organic SERPs, the more we thereafter sought help on forums and so forth, the more the site got further pushed down in SERPs. (If ever there was a reason to start thinking "conspiracy theories," that was it! LOL :)
Because we ARE the only authority site (and including links into the online community) in our topic, and because searchers need to find that (or they'll find nothing of qualified value) for our keyword, the organization obviously had to begin an AdWords campaign ---or forget about ever being found in G again.
Do we like it? No. But we also realize that G has the legitimate free market "rights" to do what it perceives best serves its interests. Obviously, having the best site NOT be at the top of G's organic SERPs ---so that such a quality site will instead pay for it--- is, from G's view, understandably in it's own best interest.
So, with that in mind, since G's organic SERPs are NOT really all as valuable for the searcher as they could be, I believe GG is right. AdWords therefore do ALSO become the only way the searcher can find truly relevant SERPs for a search topic.
It's just unfortunate that this happens with informational sites which are not commercial-oriented.
But that's capitalism for you, and I would not it any other way regulatorily or politically.
In the end, it's best to just realize that the organic SERPs are merely the "lure" to bring searchers to G's site, so that G can then understandably capitalize on the offering of paid SERPs ---i.e., AdWords.
While its marked as sponsored listings at the top, when you start scrolling down the page, they just look like more links, and not paid ads.
While I'm sure this will increase CTR, especially for the 4-8 listings, its not necessarily as relevant.
When I do searches for info, I completely ignore the ads as people really don't advertise for free content sites (yes there are some exceptions) - but I don't want a comercial site for those purposes.
Now, its easy to forget those are paid ads, and with dynamic insertion, the middle ads look just what I was searching for - but they don't necessarily have the information I'm looking for - they just want to sell me something.
Good CTR rates/ROI can be had when they looked like paid listings. I agree that I need to wait more than a week to tell how it affects ROI, but I liked the look where they were definately ads and not just more results.
One thing which I would suggest is adjust/correct this... the page-layout now visually all blends together, losing some of its eye-draw to the AdWords segment of the page. Even as I very much like the change to white background, I think it could be improved upon by subtly adding just a little more negative ("white") space in the rows BETWEEN the AdWords ads. Or maybe insert a little less-than-full-width line (<center><hr width="75"></center> or a GIF that does that, or whatever) in the rows between the Ads. But simply adding more negatgive space should probably suffice, though.
Doing something like that, each Ad would not seem so blended-in with the other Ads.
The fact is Google is obsessed with CTR which is totally the opposite of what our businesses are obsessed with .. which is ROI.
GoogleGuy, AdWordsAdvisor:
In return for all this feedback can you give a little? Is it true that CTR is going to increase for the top AdWords links and decrease for the bottom AdWords links?
I suspect surfers mistakingly believe the ads are regular search results, and that equals more window shoppers, so to speak. This is great for Google, but bad for advertisers with smaller budgets.
Will this corporate greed ever end?
Think of the supply and demand graph from economics. The CPC competition should adjust to the newly modified optimum price. It may just take some time as advertisers react to the change and modify their bids acordingly.
Am I on the mark with this, or "smoking something" so to speak?
BUT, having more numbers of but less relevant traffic runs counter to the beauty and design of the adwords product.
p.s. was it broke? Why 'fix' it?
If our page views remain at 20% less, then G is worth 20% less to us - simple as that.
Will this corporate greed ever end?
Well, I for one think they have every right to be as greedy as they want. I am greedy.....business is business.
However, their product will not be as valuable if the result is more 'window' shoppers in the long run.
Making the ads look less obviously like an ad will increase traffic, but reduce relevancy and therefore the 'trust' the consumer has in the adwords product maybe be watered down.
For our business the ratio of CTR to PV (Page views) is like the 'Adwords Failure Factor' or 'AFF' ifif you will. Lots of CTR with very little PV means the customer ended up in the wrong place. We would drop words with 6% CTR becasue the PV's were very low.
our AFF is now much higher across the board.
This trust has always been the major advantage of adwordsover overture.
The average consumer is not very good at reading they need visual clues.
No boxes may equal confused consumers which may equal less value in the adwords product.
I hope I am wrong.
I know that many on *this* board are doing a much, much better job than most, but what Google's move does is force advertisers to get more out of this traffic. What I've seen is that the only way the majority of advertisers get better and marketing & merchandising (conversion rates) is if there's marked inflation in advertising costs.
Well, here comes the inflation...
You keep mentioning this, but I'm not following - if you get 20% LESS people through AdWords, how is that less useful to you?
Because it says to me that you're dropping off 1/5 of the people who were either clicking by accident or...? As every click through costs you money, you're getting better qualified traffic for less money! Improving your ROI in the end...
20% accident rate seems high. But I'm sure the usability team went up and down all this, and have the stats to prove its the most effective.
Ironically, like many other publishers, this is the same format we've been using for a while. I agree with whomever said that it's about relevancy - if the link is relevant, downplaying that its an ad will encourage motivated people to click through.
Hunter
I really wish people would quit saying this. There is no way of Google knowing what the results would be without rolling it out on us sheep, other than using intuitive logic. Their product 'enhancement' logic however appears to be what ever Google thinks will make THEM more money today without consequence to their users or their corporate future.
I do not understand why Google even sends their reps (what an unenviable job) to this forum because the Google reps appears to only be able to give an ear to people who cheerlead any disaster Google comes up with.
If Google only wants cheerleaders, why bother even coming to an open forum? Just go to a back room at Google and cheerlead with the Google employees about how great a job you have all done regardless of how much many of us think Google has pulled a Howard Dean (gone nuts!) Yeaaaahhaaahaha!
They could always try to trick their users into thinking they are clicking on real SE results instead of paid advertising. Yes, tricking the consumer is the future of the Internet.
There is little doubt that CTR will go up and it will be of a more converting type.
For my sites CTR is up, conversion is up and ROI is up. IMHO - good move Google.
The average user doesn't know what a 'Sponsored Link' is. Most of the people that I meet have no idea of such things as pay per click. I think that with the old layout, the average user did have a sense that the colored box off to the side was not part of the regular search results and was in fact advertising because of its color.
If accidental clicks were truly the cause of the change, there are much easier ways to address that issue - make the title clickable as opposed to the whole box being clickable but keep the colored boxes.
To me, Google is well aware of what they are doing. They are intentionally blurring the line between their search results and sponsored links.
It is the kind of thing I see and expect all the time from other corporations but I was surprised and disappointed to see Google make this move.
I do think Google is thinking of their advertisers (and Google's own bottom line) - and yes, both may benefit. But it does nothing to improve the user experience and in my opinion, it detracts from it with a busier, more crowded page. It was the user that put Google where it is today.
Yes, Adwords may improve some search results but I don't think it improves most searches and I don't want them thrown in my face every time I search. That is why people flocked to Google, great results with very little commercialism presented in a simple way.
I think this is a step in the wrong direction. It is not true to the spirit of Google as I know it, or at least, as I had expected it to be.
First time I saw the new layout, I closed my Opera browser and changed to IE because I thought it was screwing up the screen... but no... it was just the new, ugly adwords layout.
Now, you don't even know where to click!
When I came home today, and went to check my listings I thought I had SpyWare. This new system... Looks wise, sucks. The old system looked more modern, and you could distinguish between ads, and what not.
Some people here are saying that there will be less "accidental" clicks. Why couldn't the colored boxes be like this? Where only the headline is clickable.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
C.K.
P.S. If you want something to tell your higher ups at google, tell them it looks too cluttered now. I really don't know why Google changed this.
Certainly the differentiation between the commercial and non-commercial results is not as clear cut but as Google Guy said:
You want to keep advertisements clearly marked (the green dividing line, the different background color on top ads, the 'Sponsored Links' header that got a little more white space around it to my eye), but there's also an important underlying concept in my mind that AdWords are results for a search as well, and that especially for commercial searches, AdWords can provide as much information as the regular search results.
Because we spent over $200 today only for the keyword...Our site shows average position 3.5 for the keyword and has a thousand clicks on it A DAY.
I wish this layout change happended just a few days ago so that I can see the ROI report today...
20% LESS people through AdWords, how is that less useful to you?
No, I am not being clear. The CTR is up. We are getting MORE hits since the change, BUT the average number of pages that visitors are viewing on our site is DOWN 20%.
This means that MORE of the visitors are leaving after only seeing the landing page.
We interpret this as meaning that they did not understand what the product was or were not looking for it or just 'window' shopping.
Now, of course we can't necessarily blame Google for this. Maybe our ad is unclear.
BUT (and this is a big BUT) the average number of page views dropped 20% instantly after the change in ad layout. And I mean insatantly. Why?
Our ad or site have not changed and the average PV's (which we track closely) has been the same since we began tracking it about a year ago.
The only thing that has changed is the ad layout . So, we are concerned that the ads not being as clearly differentiated as such are drawing 'clicks of confusion'.
More clicks are good for G but only more GOOD clicks are good for us.
We will have to see with ROI, but the service we sell costs thousands and we only get 3-4 new clients per month so it will be many months before we can gauage any change in ROI.
This is why we track page views so closely. BTW i HIGHLY reccomend tracking page views per adword. It is VERY illuminating.
BUT (and this is a big BUT) the average number of page views dropped 20% instantly after the change in ad layout. And I mean insatantly. Why?
Other site owners, probably.
It's only been one day. We need to see the data over at least a week to see if the changes have been of any benefit.
Good luck.
Not necessarily impressed with the new look at this stage, however, I anticipate that the next time G redesigns people will be going "why did they change it - I liked the old version."
As for "if it ain't broke, don't fix it'; on the other side of the coin there is always the innovators maxim of "if it ain't broke - break it..."
"It's not like the old days." only counts when I'm referring to my collection of 60's soul 45's...:-)
I'm of the "let's give it a while" opinion.
Syzygy
Yes, I see your concern from that regard. Maybe a dumb question, but how much higher is your click-thru rate? More than 20% of those leaving? If so, you have a net gain, although it does cost you more... I'm sure you've thought of that.
I do agree, though, give it some time over a few days/weeks to see.
It could well be that it is bringing in legitimate people, not accidental clicks or site owners, but they're folks already using a similar service, or not shopping seriously at this point.
Thanks for sharing your data. I hope you'll come by and update that when you have more data over time.
IMHO, real-time statistics can be more misleading. I know our primary site has spikes and drop-off's, but month after month the average ROI remains the same... traffic is SO different depending on the week / weekend and day vs night surfing...
Anyways, after two days of the new look my ctr has jumped 3 percentage points. I guess you can say that this a good and bad thing. I can combat the new "curiosity clicks" simply by placing my price in the ad. This immediately makes every searcher aware of what they're getting into. (helps keep the ROI up.)
I actually like the new ads. Im getting more clicks, and my ROI is going up since I have been placing my price in the ad.
This is only after about 48 hours of testing mind you.
