Excellent read if you want to understand a little more about what drives the AdWords team at Google.
[adwords.google.com...]
Nonetheless, we fully understand our responsibility to give you as much information about how AdWords works as possible.
Ask the guys who queried their landing page quality score what they think of this statement, then stand back.
Sorry to be so cynical, but c'mon let's be real.
It all starts with the usersGoogle's mission is to deliver the highest-quality online experience to our users – those who search with the expectation of finding highly relevant information. Enhancements we make to AdWords are often a part of this larger effort to deliver increasingly relevant, compelling, and useful content to our users.
By focusing on our users' satisfaction and ensuring their confidence in the ads we deliver, we're able to provide you with an audience that's both highly targeted and highly receptive to your message. By respecting our users, everyone wins.
Relevant now = what brings G$ the most money, regardless of any other factors.
Example: "Ad" is no longer relevant for "keyword" by G$ standards, so "ad" is disabled. BUT, spend $XX/click on said "keyword" and "ad" suddenly becomes relevant for "keyword" again. Relevance? Not by any standard definition.
Maybe they will just change the spelling of relevant to "relavent" in order to make up for the new definition. They seem to like to change the rules.
They can spin it all they like but the fact remains, public companies answer to shareholders. Shareholders tend to like profits. End of story.
Yes, but there's a difference between short-term, get-rich-quick profits and sustainable profits. Google.com isn't a disposable domain, and Google Inc. isn't a disposable business, so it makes sense for Google and its shareholders to focus on retaining users instead of merely exploiting them.
From: [webmasterworld.com...]
The majority of people I deal with on a daily basis don't fall into either category [talking about affiliates and affilate programs]. They might not be the really large spenders, but their money quickly ads up, and provides a lot of diversity on the web and alternatives to the larger corporations in terms of products and service.It's the diversity of offerings which have made the web grow. If only 3 companies made up most of the web - think this forum would even exist?
This seems to be the aim that Google is going for - diversity & quality. You rarely see more than 2 urls for the same website in any one SERP. Yet, that same diversity isn't present in the same ads with often the same site taking up 5 or more ad spots. In order to improve quality of the ads served, isn't moving to a more diverse set of websites more desirable from Google's perception?
The reason they have grown is by listening to users. They cater to the users. AdWords might provide the majority of their revenue, but in the long run, if they can't keep users - then their revenue stream would dry up as advertisers would go elsewhere.
So, who does Google really rely upon for money?
1. Advertisers who follow the users around as thats who they want to reach?
2. Or users who create a property where advertisers wish to spend their money?I'd vote that number 2 is a more powerful motivating factor for change.
I Think Their Philosophy is Long Term User Experience:
After the last landing page update, we put a survey on our site and polled 1000s of people and ask them what they wanted. We got a wake up call to make changes to the site.
We have more people referring their friends because we provide a better experience. We are starting to look at adwords as an investment to start the word-of-mouth process in addition to pure traffic. The survey helped us see what is currently not being provided online for our industry, and we are working hard to provide that.
Google Needs Positive Users in the Long Term:
They need to provide a positive user experience, so they will continue to use and tell their friends. If all of a sudden the results became irrelevant and awful, people would start telling friends. Google does have the traffic for this reason: it works. So by proteching their users' experience, they maintain a huge following and more traffic for AdWords advertisers.
I guess my point is that responsibility to shareholders is such that it necessitates the endless pursuit of ever more profits. It's my assertion that it is this very pursuit that drives many of the changes to Adwords. Not a whine or a rant, just an observation.
On a brighter note I welcome any moves on G's part to become more transparent. Transparency and consistency are IMHO what most advertisers are looking for.
I guess my point is that responsibility to shareholders is such that it necessitates the endless pursuit of ever more profits. It's my assertion that it is this very pursuit that drives many of the changes to Adwords.
I often see this possible explanation, but it also appears that many people who use it don't know exactly how this responsibility gets exercised and the consequences to whom if it is "not", and even, who these shareholders actually are.
It's one of those knee-jerk type explanations that could be correct, but certainly may not be at a simple level.
Not knocking your comment or disagreeing per se. But I suspect most people using this explanation really haven't thought the mechanics of responsibility to shareholders through, and who those shareholders are, and what will happen or not happen if they get annoyed.
It's that mysterious anonymous "they".
My experience is that shareholders are just as much, if not more interested in the long term value of the business. Every business needs to make a profit to survive - this does not mean they chase every penny at the expense of maintaining their image.
Shareholders and the need for profit may limit what can be done - e.g. G could get rid of MFA's very easily and totally - by scrapping AdWords/Adsense altogether - wouldn't be profitable, and would hurt a lot of good publishers and advertisers.
IMHO G strives to build its business around providing a quality service to the "SURFER" - yes they need to make a profit from this from Advertising revenue. They need to achieve and maintain a balance between "quality ads", income and providing an attractive service (arguably the best) to the "SURFER".
It's one of those knee-jerk type explanations that could be correct, but certainly may not be at a simple level.
Knee-jerk? Never, I've given much thought to the mechanics (and critique) of capitalist systems. Correct? I'm not quite that arrogant. My opinion, that's all.
Why is it that some people seem to assume that once a company has shareholders, their behaviour will become dominated by an uncontrollable urge to increase short and long term profit in every conceivable way.
If it wasn't for assumptions nobody would post here at all. The answer to your question is experience. Experience tells me it is so. It may be subjective and it may be wrong but it's my truth and I've no other, so I'll throw it out there and you can agree or disagree as you see fit. Difference of opinion, that's what keeps this interesting.
1) Content isn't viewable in FF (for me at least)
2) What kind of grammar is this from the page -
Google has a both a responsibility and a commitment to be as transparent as possible in providing
Hey ... maybe one too many a's in that sentence. Perhaps Google doesn't read their own philosophy too closely? Makes you wonder.
The Science and Art of User Experience at Google.
[video.google.com...]
