I am getting tons of clicks, and a CTR % or 5%-15% on most keywords.
My conversion now stinks. Last year at this time, I was getting a sale every 4-5 clicks. Now, it could get 100 clicks without a sale.
My ads are VERY specific, including price. I know for a FACT I am getting fraudulant clicks. But is this really the problem?
The news is not any better for Overture (which fake clicks are much worse).
I feel that maybe CPC as a whole is dead because of dishonest merchants.
Anyone have any comments?
Its strange because some days I can have very good day and others nothing....
I do think that the fraudulent click side is overlooked and is a defining problem.
Overall I believe that they are a lot less effective than they used to be, but that could be down to the increase in competition and broad matching.
£10 per click
yikes! Why not just take them to lunch! : )
In the long term web users will become accustomed to, and immune to, the power of adwords, just as they/we did with banners.
Immunity is an inevitability unless the presentation, delivery and formats available for adwords change to keep up with the progress of time, technology, trends and user tolerances.
Is adwords dead - no. Is it ill - no. Does it have a cold - maybe...
Syzygy
The banner model is and always was doomed because of the near lack of targeting. Unless you are selling BIG mass market general items (Tires, PC's, Time Magazine, etc) Banner ads won't do you much good. (IMO) The are akin to national magazine adverts.
As long as PPC is *relevant* I think it is here to stay and does not have a 'cold'. Of course, as more enter the PPC arena, ROI will slip because of competition, but cest la vie!
I can only speak from my company's experience, but before we 'discovered' PPC we were not doing well because our service is hard to describe and target for on a broad basis. Since PPC we have taken off.
Comments acknowledged and appreciated. My terms of reference were obviously very generalised. However, any form of advertising will become less and less effective as time - and public sophistication and awareness - goes on.
Everything needs to be rebranded/relaunched/reinvented every now and again; it is a standard principle of marketing. At the moment, and in its current guise, adwords is riding the crest of a wave, but I would bet you a very safe 'score' (£20 for the uninitiated) that adwords of two years time, and the way that it functions, will be very alien to the adwords of today.
Adwords will grow increasingly complex in it's possibilities as the months progress, and become increasingly intuitive and sophisticated in terms of delivery and targeting of ads to the right audiences.
However, adwords is (was) evolution's natural replacement to the banner. No one yet sees what the natural replacement to adwords will be...(apart from those clever devils at Goggle!).
At a personal level, adwords is working very well indeed for us. After a few shakey months in the early stages, our use of it has evolved and now I could not envisage web marketing without it.
That aside - Happy St George's Day & birthday cheer to one Mr. W. Shakespeare...
I wonder which will lead and follow? Will SERPS lead PPC or the reverse?
I suspect that as PPC advertising matures consumers will need a way to 'gauage' the relative import of the advertiser prior to clicking on the ad.
When I click on ads when I am looking for something I find myself some times gravitating to either the top spot when I want a big 'mature' company and a low spot when I am looking for an upstart.
However, adwords is (was) evolution's natural replacement to the banner. No one yet sees what the natural replacement to adwords will be...(apart from those clever devils at Goggle!).
AdWords haven't replaced banners; as nyet points out, they're different animals. Banners continue to be useful for branding (especially of mass-market products), while AdWords/AdSense text ads work best for selling special-interest products and services in niche media. To use an analogy, a banner is like the ad on the back cover of THE NEW YORKER, while an AdWord is like a Yellow Pages listing and an AdSense ad is (or should be) like a direct-response ad in POPULAR PHOTOGRAPHY or a newspaper's travel section.
I do think we'll see further evolution of the AdWords/AdSense concept, because targeting by keyword is only half the battle: targeting by audience is just as important. In other threads on this forum, we've heard complaints of referrals from weather or mapping sites that have resulted in zero (yes, zero) conversions. Advertisers obviously won't tolerate such poor results indefinitely, so one can assume that Google will find ways to deliver the right audience for an ad.
Side note: I was talking to a guy the other day about research that showed a positive effect of display ads in a jobs weekly on text classified ads in metropolitan Sunday newspapers. The research was performed by the jobs weekly (surprise, surprise!), but it does seem reasonable that a jobhunter who's seen big display ads for the ABCD Employment Agency or WXYZ Temporary Help would be more likely to notice and read text ads for those advertisers. Moral: Banners and text ads needn't be mutually exclusive; instead, one may reinforce the other.
an AdWord is like a Yellow Pages listing and an AdSense ad is (or should be) like a direct-response ad in POPULAR PHOTOGRAPHY or a newspaper's travel section.
While I agree that is what Adsense *should be* it is far from there yet (for us).
The quality of publisher sites and content (or lack thereof) means that adsense (on average, for us) is somewhere *between* POPULAR PHOTOGRAPHY and the Lost "Fluffy" the dog poster on the neighborhood telephone pole.
AdWords haven't replaced banners; as nyet points out, they're different animals. Banners continue to be useful for branding (especially of mass-market products), while AdWords/AdSense text ads work best for selling special-interest products and services in niche media.
Banners were once seen, and sold, as a useful direct response mechanism. When the value of banners in terms of ctr fizzled out marketeers - desperate to clutch at their investments - came up with the bland notion that "Hey, you might not get any click-through's, but think about the branding!"
I recall having a short piece published in Revolution magazine (UK) some three or four years ago about this very thing, when someone had defended the value of banners by saying that it was not click-throughs that counted - but impressions... As I said at the time - great, my click through's might only be 0.4%, but think of the unclickthrough's, they're at 99.6% - what a result!
Adwords are the response mechanism that banners once were. Adwords could likely be seen by people en-masse in the future in the same way that banners are now. If that happens, will G and the rest of the industry be selling them to us on the basis of 'branding reach'. Perhaps at that stage G will penalise our accounts if we do not reach their specified 'uctr' - that's 'unclick-through rate'!
Syzygy
We would not mind being only listed in PPC and not the SERPS so long as it is the same for our competition.
Maybe that would be better for the consumer, look 'here' if you want info and 'here' if you want to buy something.
I do think that PPC will be the 'thing' until something better comes along that gets buyers together with sellers. 'Branding' only is worth it if you have the money. Sales and ROI are first and foremost! We have mortgages to pay!
The format of adword itself signals: Hey, I don't want to give you free information, I want to sell what I advertise.
This gives less clicks (which is good for reducing the cost for the merchant, and it is good for the user, who does not have waste his time).
The reason for the current dissatisfaction of the merchant with adwords is the success of adwords. Because of the very success of adwords the CPC goes so high that low margin products and marketeers with limited budgets and need for fast ROI will have to opt out of adwords.
So what will be the next thing?
To me it is obvious: Google will offer Pay-per-Conversion.
The big companies do already measure the conversion-rate meticulously and haver already paid for their infrastructure. The smaller shops get a somehow usefull free conversion-rate-measurement from Google for free. Now Google will collect enough information about the conversionrates in a specific industry. There soon Google will be able to make a new offer: Pay only for the results,
CPC was yesterday, pay only per order/inquiry or pay x% of your profit-margin.
It is the logical next step. From less relevant to more relevant numbers. The merchant does not want traffic, he wants sales. And ultimately he wants ROI. If Google takes away the risk, even better. He only worries about dependence on such a clever helper. But: Who is not dependent on Google?
The question will come up: Will Google earn more mony with CPC or with Pay-per-Conversion? May guess is: Google will stay on top of the industy, if they give better ROI to the merchants as well as more comfort to the user. Today Google eliminates "irrelevant" adwords based on CTR. In the short-run this was limiting their profits. But it improved the image of google and made adwords more attractive for users. In future google will eliminate adwords based on Conversion-Rate.
Initially both, PPC and Pay-per-Conversion, will be options, as before there was the option between Pay-per-Impression and PPC. Finally only profit will count - therefore the trend is obvious. Google will create more profit for Google's customers and they will come and stand in line.
Why does everyone think a conversion has to be a cha-ching of the cash register?
Why can't a conversion just be PPV>2?
Or, for example, I'll pay 50 cents everytime someone sends me a visitor that clicks on my FAQ.
Pay per conversion *is* the future. Everything will rationalize at that point.
Rather than trying to mazimize CTR, Google will try to maxmize conversion rates. Fraud will mostly vanish.
The only hurdle, of course, is that Pay per conversion is a bit of a technical speed bump for a lot of people, however Google could just have a fallback plan where they still let people bid on a per click basis if they are not savvy enough.
However, I do have to argue that Google is 50% there.
The quality of publisher sites and content (or lack thereof) means that adsense (on average, for us) is somewhere *between* POPULAR PHOTOGRAPHY and the Lost "Fluffy" the dog poster on the neighborhood telephone pole.
Or worse yet, between POPULAR PHOTOGRAPHY and an "Out of Business" sign (DomainPark) or an unwanted "Have S*x wit Fluffy" spam mailing (gmail).
Still, I think that's more of a problem with some topics or keywords than with others. If you're selling paddleboat cruises in Elbonia, your ads (assuming that they're properly targeted) aren't likely to turn up on low-quality sites simply because there aren't a lot of people turning out AdSense "sites of opportunity" or personal travelogues on that topic.
Pay per conversion *is* the future. Everything will rationalize at that point.
Pay per conversion is nothing new; it's called "affiliate sales." :-)
The idea of paying per conversion with AdWords/AdSense is attractive to marketers for obvious reasons, but Google and publishers won't be willing to assume more of the advertiser's risk (which is what you're suggesting) unless they earn greater rewards for doing so.
Also, who defines what a "conversion" is, and how do Google and publishers ensure that advertisers don't cheat? With conventional affiliate programs, a publisher at least know who he's dealing with and can dump advertisers that don't perform or that don't pay. With a conversion-based AdWords/AdSense system, a site might have hundreds or even thousands of advertisers, some of whose ads the publisher never sees. That means the publisher would need to have a lot of blind faith in advertisers and/or Google's tracking abilities. Also, in categories where publishers are already making good money with affiliate sales, conversion-based AdWords/AdSense ads might be a tough sell.
Google is already using conversion data to determine the payout to adsense publishers. It's a done deal..
The way people are talking about this its like we are so 3 months ago.
How can we put it more simply?
The advertiser defines what a conversion is.
If the advertiser does not pay out on a conversion, then the advertiser does not get ranked and does not get in rotation for impressions / clicks.
This is what pay per click is already, except that Google does not have enough granular insight to determine if one click is more valuable than another, except on the basis of keywords.
The advertiser will define what a conversion is (PPV>2, clicked on a contact form, etc) and then pay out on the basis of that.
If the advertiser is not paying out enough, then the CPC * CTR will keep him at a low rank and they will be "at risk" for that keyword.
The very confusing aspect about this conversation though is not how it would work, but why their seems to be this big mental wall that keeps people from understanding how it works.
Google is already using conversion data to determine the payout to adsense publishers. It's a done deal..
That isn't what Google is telling publishers; at least not in so many words.
If we read between the lines of Google's official explanation of the new variable-pricing scheme, we can assume that Google may be using conversion data to determine what percentage discount an advertiser should receive for a certain type of content (e.g., a forum page, product-review page, DomainPark page, or whatever). That isn't the same as saying that Google is adjusting payouts (as opposed to advertiser prices) on the basis of conversion data, however. Are you suggesting that Google is now doing this? Is that what you were told by Google Support?
Banners were once seen, and sold, as a useful direct response mechanism. When the value of banners in terms of ctr fizzled out marketeers - desperate to clutch at their investments - came up with the bland notion that "Hey, you might not get any click-through's, but think about the branding!"I recall having a short piece published in Revolution magazine (UK) some three or four years ago about this very thing, when someone had defended the value of banners by saying that it was not click-throughs that counted - but impressions... As I said at the time - great, my click through's might only be 0.4%, but think of the unclickthrough's, they're at 99.6% - what a result!
I disagree, branding is certainly not a bland notion. Think of it like this, you are surfing around at work during your lunchtime looking to buy Franz Ferdinands album. You end up on bobs cd warehouse site and find the CD you want to buy. Also on this site you see a ad for Freeserve ISP. You are not looking for a ISP so you don't click on the ad. You finish the sale, buy the CD, look forward to the postman coming tomorrow and pop off home. So the next day your CD comes and you are happy, its lunch at work and the kids have been pestering you all week to sort out a internet connection for the new PC you just bought. You think of some ISPs that can help and you are going to recall Freeserve, can almost certainly find it in a simple search and voila, branding has done its job.
Clickthrough tracking is such a bad way to measure brand advertising, yes it works for some situations, as branding works in others.
This is basicaly a weak form of pay by conversion.
I was told specifically from AdWords that they are using conversion data to help determine the CPC for AdWord advertisers.
That could mean:
1) Conversion data is being used to determine the CPC for specific sites and/or pages (mydomain.com, mydomain.com/widgets_review.htm). Or...
2) Conversion data is a factor in an algorithm that determines CPC for general types of content (forums, text pages, directories, e-commerce pages, etc.).
#2 is in line with what Google told publishers, and it seems more likely than #1 for practical reasons if nothing else.
As an advertiser ( a typical one, I suspect ) I increase or decrease by CPC depending on how I am converting.
The fact is, and there is no way getting around it, I am paying by conversion. There is no way getting around this. Sure, if I am overly optimistic I might overpay (I don't, I underpay and rev up as it makes sense), but I could overpay with a fully automated pay by conversion system as well.
The problem here is that Google doesn't have complete information when it comes to my reasoning. They can't provide me with tools and real time determine with full accuracy what's converting and what's not. They have to make do with incomplete conversion data.
It's my vote, and I am sure the vote of everyone else once they give the idea its due consideration, that Google should move towards a full pay by conversion scenario, and stop trying to optimize on a CTR basis and start optimising on a Conversion basis.
It's my vote, and I am sure the vote of everyone else once they give the idea its due consideration, that Google should move towards a full pay by conversion scenario, and stop trying to optimize on a CTR basis and start optimising on a Conversion basis.
Sure, and while you're at it, why not ask if you can pay per conversion the next time you buy a direct-response ad in a magazine or do a direct mailing? :-)
The point I am trying to make is that we are already at a weak form of pay by conversion.
Personally, I think this is google's boil the frog approach. Where you slowly turn up the heat until the frog doesn't realize that it's cooked.
How if G going to measure these conversions? I'm not giving them my phone records, so just filling out a form doesn't mean a whole lot in terms of conversions % and what its worth to me.
If they were to implement conversion payments, and I'll still be doing PPC because they can't measure these, then how would you do ad placement?
What about companies who don't sell anything online, and just want the branding, so converting is going to their home page? I'd get 100% conversions that way, would that lower my costs?
If G goes to pay by conversion, how would you determine bid placement? Average conversion %, average profit/conversion?, what % your willing to pay G for converting?
If someone sells $1000 tracking software packages, and someone sells $10 ones. The person selling $1000 is willing to pay G more per conversion, so do they get a higher ad placement, or does the $10 one who converts a lot more often becasue its so cheap?
Any way you measure it, each type of system is fraught with a variety of problems.
