Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 34.204.194.190

Forum Moderators: buckworks & eWhisper & skibum

Message Too Old, No Replies

If Google's going to revert back, they had better do it fast.

     
1:56 am on Jul 12, 2006 (gmt 0)

Preferred Member

10+ Year Member

joined:Nov 8, 2005
posts:402
votes: 0


I'm trimming the fat as we speak. And I would imagine that a lot of us are deleting words left and right. That's on going revenue that will potentially never come back for Google. If this is a mistake, Google better figure it out pretty quick.
3:32 am on July 12, 2006 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

joined:Dec 26, 2002
posts:724
votes: 0


Doing exactly the same thing right now. but nope do not expect it to get rolled back... ever.
3:36 am on July 12, 2006 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

joined:Nov 29, 2003
posts:875
votes: 0


That's on going revenue that will potentially never come back for Google.

No. You don't know that. What you DO know is that if you leave, they will no longer receive revenue from YOU. Believe it or not, that doesn't mean google will earn less. Neither you or I or all the other complaining adwords advertisers can possibly know whether the money you stop spending will be replaced immediately by other advertisers, be replaced at a higher level, or end up as lost revenue to google.

I understand why people are upset here, but there's this constant flow of faulty conclusions and people believing they know how google works, without having even minimal information to draw any conclusions.

3:48 am on July 12, 2006 (gmt 0)

Preferred Member

10+ Year Member

joined:Nov 8, 2005
posts:402
votes: 0


I do know that if there were other advertisers to spend money on these adwords, they could have and would have done so by now. I'm not sure where you think these advertisers you speak of are going to come from. Any decent advertiser is already here.

I definately do not claim to understand google's thinking - few people do. But recent numbers show that google may not understand it either.

4:01 am on July 12, 2006 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

joined:Nov 29, 2003
posts:875
votes: 0



I do know that if there were other advertisers to spend money on these adwords, they could have and would have done so by now. I'm not sure where you think these advertisers you speak of are going to come from. Any decent advertiser is already here.

I definately do not claim to understand google's thinking - few people do. But recent numbers show that google may not understand it either.

I like the last bit.

As for the advertisers, you are assuming a great deal. Try assuming some different scenarios and see if you can figure out if it's possible for existing advertisers in the system to end up making up for, and perhaps exceeding the lost revenues resulting from your leaving.

Try it as an creative exercise (here...make it an open challenge for the webmasterworld bright folks).

4:21 am on July 12, 2006 (gmt 0)

Preferred Member

10+ Year Member

joined:Sept 18, 2002
posts:432
votes: 0


No way G is gonna role this one back. If you pull your money out, there are lots and lots of hungry advertisers waiting to jump in to take your place.

I'm really really sick of this but what can I do now? Yahoo? MSN? They are not real at the moment.

Looks like G is squeezing the last bit of juice from us...

6:27 am on July 12, 2006 (gmt 0)

Preferred Member

10+ Year Member

joined:Nov 8, 2005
posts:402
votes: 0


see if you can figure out if it's possible for existing advertisers in the system to end up making up for, and perhaps exceeding the lost revenues resulting from your leaving.

It would be rather simple if I were the only one complaining. Why don't you do a poll on this board on what the complainers here are spending. Then Multiply it by what you think the actual number of those being effected negatively by this change are.

I'll start it off - I'm on the verge of spending 400k this year on adwords.

Do you still think it will be easy for them to make up the money? People were thinking yahoo would never loose advertising revenue when Yahoo was on top. Google like any other company is not infallible. And they are proving that more and more recently.

6:35 am on July 12, 2006 (gmt 0)

Full Member

10+ Year Member

joined:Nov 12, 2005
posts:227
votes: 0


If tons of advertisers are shut out of Google, others will appear to fill the need. G is not the only adv. channel (or website) on the web.
6:51 am on July 12, 2006 (gmt 0)

Preferred Member

10+ Year Member

joined:Nov 8, 2005
posts:402
votes: 0


If google was really concerned with quality, they'd take a closer look at the crap they let into their search network.
7:16 am on July 12, 2006 (gmt 0)

New User

10+ Year Member

joined:July 1, 2006
posts:4
votes: 0


Nothing works well these days and Google is a living proof.
I am an estate agent from Eastern Europe and I used to spend up to 1000 $
per month in order to advertise my company. My clients ware mostly from UK and US
interested in buying properties in my country. My site is online since 2002.
I used to pay up to 0.35 c per click. For the same keywords, Google charges as high as 10.00 $!
And speaking about quality landing pages…this is another big bad joke.
This “sophisticated” “improved” quality score, algo bla,bla, it reminds me about so called “surgical” US bombings using sophisticated weaponry in Yugoslavia, when they destroyed the Chinese Embassy and a train full of innocent passengers.
Sorry, I don’t mean to offense anyone (these are facts of real life) but I believe Google is not what we all expect to be. They are not so perfect, they are not so clever, they are money orientated, and it is us who kept him alive by giving him the credit.
We made a myth out of him, when in fact he is just another imperfect machine and nothing more.
To prove my point I will list 2 websites which Google consider “high quality landing pages”.
<edit>Please don't list specifics, See TOS</edit>

These are the home pages, but he advertises different pages which are not linked to the home page, and you will not find them unless you do a search on google with the relevant keywords. For example: <specifics removed>,; than the ads will show up.
As you can easily see both websites belong to the same guy and Google consider these quality landing pages.
He uses many thousands of keywords and he has also other similar websites designed for different keywords, not related to the real estate in order to reach a larger segment of users.
The purpose? He is making money from PPC. It is solely intended for google adsense.
He pays let’s say 0.05 for adwords and gets in return the money from adsense, which usually is much more.
So I rest my case about the so called quality landing pages.

[edited by: eWhisper at 1:11 pm (utc) on July 12, 2006]

3:27 pm on July 12, 2006 (gmt 0)

Junior Member

10+ Year Member

joined:Jan 11, 2006
posts:52
votes: 0


Completely agree with Venrooy, in a nut shell Google are just being more greedy & are on the verge becoming their own victim.

Why bother deleting all the inactive keywords - they will still trigger on the content network will they not?

3:30 pm on July 12, 2006 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

joined:Nov 29, 2003
posts:875
votes: 0


It would be rather simple if I were the only one complaining. Why don't you do a poll on this board on what the complainers here are spending. Then Multiply it by what you think the actual number of those being effected negatively by this change are.

I'll start it off - I'm on the verge of spending 400k this year on adwords.

Do you still think it will be easy for them to make up the money? People were thinking yahoo would never loose advertising revenue when Yahoo was on top. Google like any other company is not infallible. And they are proving that more and more recently.

I think it is quite conceivable the changes will be revenue neutral or close to it. THINK about this in terms of systems. Now, none of us can know the outcomes because we don't have the data google does to model and predict with.

Here's some hints, if you want to try thinking through some scenarios where google will NOT end up with less money.

1) It seems that what's being hit is accounts which rely on volumes of low priced clicks. The unhappy people are those that have been getting the most visitors at the lowest prices.
2) High bidders remain unaffected, and are in fact happier.
3) Consider HOW ads are chosen to show, and how removing the lower end stuff will affect the click rates and revenue for the higher end bidders.
4) Consider the real possibilities that a lot of the high end bidders have budgets that are not (or weren't) being spent.
5) Consider the effects of huge range of bids on a keyword, let's say from 5 cents all the way up to $12.00 and what that means in terms of value of clicks to google.

In other words, and here's another hint. If they shift revenue source from the high click, low value ads to the lower click, high value ads, AND as a result they increase the CTR of the high value ads, they don't necessarily lose income OVERALL.

The might. They might not. We don't have the data.

But there's one more thing, and that's the longer term issue. I'm betting they've seen the financial effects of MFA's, and misleading ads on visitor behavior ALREADY. We, of course, don't see that. If they see that revenues are falling over the last months with MFA infestation, they may see this as fixing a fatal problem for them that will only show up in the reported fiscal numbers later.

3:54 pm on July 12, 2006 (gmt 0)

Junior Member

10+ Year Member

joined:Mar 27, 2005
posts:152
votes: 0


If Google is so concerned about their image and visitor experience, then why don't the put in bold font right above the PPC listings "sponsored links - we are not responsible for the content" instead of just whacking many advertisers. They need to make it clear that these are paid advertisers (...just as they require in their own quality guidelines for landing pages..).

You know why they don't do this? The number of total clicks would drop tremendously and they would lose money. They make money by blurring the boundry between paid and natural listings. Why even place them off to the side? Why not just add them to the top of the normal listings?

4:20 pm on July 12, 2006 (gmt 0)

Senior Member from US 

WebmasterWorld Senior Member netmeg is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:Mar 30, 2005
posts:13012
votes: 222


rbacal, I agree with pretty much every posting of yours I've seen in the last few days.

I do know that if there were other advertisers to spend money on these adwords, they could have and would have done so by now. I'm not sure where you think these advertisers you speak of are going to come from. Any decent advertiser is already here.

That's SO not true. I have a waiting list right now because I don't have time to take on any new clients at the moment. I get calls or emails EVERY DAY. Granted, most are not of the big spending type - but I get at least one or two of those a month. Even more new web clients who don't even know that AdWords exists yet, or what it could do for them. They're nowhere near saturation point on "decent advertisers."

As mentioned before, none of my client accounts were affected by this last change, for which I am glad. But if they had been, ALL of my clients would have said go ahead and spend the $5.00 or $10.00 per click. My orders are basically to DO WHATEVER IT TAKES. I already have some clients paying $27/word because that's where the market is. And that's (for the most part) the type of client I take on.

As long as there are people out there that intent on getting their name/message out, Google can only gain revenue, not lose it.

4:25 pm on July 12, 2006 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

joined:Oct 27, 2001
posts:10210
votes: 0


I do know that if there were other advertisers to spend money on these adwords, they could have and would have done so by now.

Google's attention span (and strategic timeframe) may be longer than a few days.

I'm not sure where you think these advertisers you speak of are going to come from. Any decent advertiser is already here.

Not if we're to believe the many research reports about online advertising's percentage of the total advertising marketplace and projected growth over the next few years. Like it or not, Google may well feel that--to achieve growth among mainstream advertisers-- it needs to do some housecleaning. If so, that's a pragmatic business decision (just like the decision a while back regarding direct-to-merchant affiliate ads).

I think we've got two groups of unhappy advertisers here:

1) Advertisers who don't fit into Google's strategy going forward, and who will be hurt permanently by the recent changes;

2) Advertisers who do fit into Google's strategy going forward, and who may be hurt temporarily by the recent changes (i.e., until the implementation bugs get worked out).

Over the long term, Group 2 may benefit from the changes that are hurting Group 1, but in the meantime, at least some members of both groups have reason to be unhappy with those changes.

4:26 pm on July 12, 2006 (gmt 0)

Senior Member from US 

WebmasterWorld Senior Member netmeg is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:Mar 30, 2005
posts:13012
votes: 222


If Google is so concerned about their image and visitor experience, then why don't the put in bold font right above the PPC listings "sponsored links - we are not responsible for the content" instead of just whacking many advertisers.

Because that's not enough. They can disclaim all they want, but people still have some kind of unconscious expectation that a link that Google offers them should include, if not actually an endorsement, at least some filtering for quality. A sense that Google wouldn't offer the click if it were a scam. Of course we know that's not true, but we're a very tightly insulated group of insiders - try talking to people totally unconnected to any of this except as normal Google users. I have, and that's what they have told me.

I filter MFAs and irrelevant AdSense ads off my personal site because I absolutely believe that the advertising on my site reflects on me and my site, and no amount of disclaimers would make that any different.

6:11 pm on July 12, 2006 (gmt 0)

Junior Member

10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:May 20, 2005
posts:175
votes: 2


I also don't think they're going to be doing any roll backs. I'd like to think they're going to lose a lot of money off this, but the reality is they may not.

They're giving people the chance to show their ads at a greatly increased cost, so what better way at improving your own ROI than to cut out the little guys and help the big guys.

If they have a keyword that generates 15 affiliates all pushing .05c per click, then they do this change and one guy can afford the $1 per click, they're not only making 0.25c per click more from that one affiliate than they were from the 15 low guys, but they're getting rid of affiliates. What that does is allow them to cut on customer support (once they're done calling and complaining), cut on the revie staff, save on bandwidth, etc.

Think about it. Most people would rather deal with one big spending client than 15-20 low spending clients.

Even if Google didn't cut you out on this round, this should be a wakeup call for everyone. I think this is just the start of their efforts to 'trim the fat' from their expenses and in the long run increase profit. If you weren't effected this time, next time your number may be called.

I don't think that's 'tin foil hat' stuff either. It just seems like common business practice. It's a slimey thing to do to the 'mom and pop' shops of the Internet, but I believe they're out to make Google better, not worry about how good 'mom and pop' shops do.

6:38 pm on July 12, 2006 (gmt 0)

Preferred Member

10+ Year Member

joined:Feb 28, 2003
posts:375
votes: 0


Think about it. Most people would rather deal with one big spending client than 15-20 low spending clients.

The flaw in that logic is that depending on a few "
big spending" clients, as opposed to 15-20 "low spenders" brings with it inherent risk.

Further, it's been proven by many other business models that a more stable and reliable income is generated from multiple sources, as opposed to just a few (the vast majority of the profits Vegas casinos see some from "low rollers", with less than 1-2% of overall income coming from "whales").

Think about it....what would you rather have....a thousand people paying $100 a day, or one (who could very well be lured to antoher advertising venue, and/or suddenly lower his budget) paying $100,000?

Having said that....I think this is going to take quite some time to play out fully. While we've been effectively priced out of google for now (but are pending review), we've also already discovered some shady techniques that some of our competiors are employing to get around the price hikes and get their listings back (all of which I woudl consider to be "gaming" the system).

At this point, it's clear that the targets were MFA/Affiliate sites, and quite a few merhants got caught in the cross fire.

6:54 pm on July 12, 2006 (gmt 0)

Junior Member

10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:May 20, 2005
posts:175
votes: 2


Yea you make some good points, but Google may still be targeting the $100 spenders (in your analogy). I think if they had an option of:

1. One $10,000 spender
2. One hundred $100 spenders
3. Ten thousand $1 spenders

They'd probably want to target option 2. I think this recent move was to work on wiping out many of the 3rd category users, or trying to turn them more into category 2 users.

With category 2, they get the security of mulitple users, and remove the hassle of thousands of users. Let's say they have a customer support rep and someone who reviews ads for every 50 customers. Each make $40k a year.

So option 1 is easy, you can probably hire one of each and maybe even part time, but not really stable relying on one whale.

Option 2 you hire 4 people for a total of $160k a year.

Option 3 you're forced to hire 400 people and pay them $16 million a year.

Obviously the numbers are exaggerated for the example, but you can see why they'd probably want to flush out the little guys. I don't agree with it at all, and I was hit very hard by this so i'm not siding with Google. I just should have expected it to eventually happen. Even if they 'fix' my ads, i'm still going to pull away from them. I no longer trust that company.

 

Join The Conversation

Moderators and Top Contributors

Hot Threads This Week

Featured Threads

Free SEO Tools

Hire Expert Members