I spend thousands upon thousands less on Google Adwords.
How about the rest of you?
With the new policy, google believes that they are targeting the ads to tailer exactly for the needs of the searcher. Lets say this is correct. So now instead of someone clicking on 3-5 ads, they just click on one and find what they want. Isn't google going to lose a huge amount of revenue? Also consider someone hits an MFA ad and then clicks on one of the MFA ads to find what they want. They clicked twice to get what they wanted. Google sells two ads instead of one. Again, if google succeeds, and gets too good at targeting the ad, they will lose ultimately. Its all in the mathematics. The bean counters seemed to miss this point.
we should be able to admit they are doing it for the user experience.
Based on what information...their press release? When I look at the keywords where a few of my competitors and I were determined to have 'low quality' (e.g. asked to pay more per click), and I look at the ads that are in those spots now, the argument for user experience falls flat.
And yes, I understand that user experience and long-term profitability are linked, and that Google isn't stupid enough to completely disregard user experience for short-term profit. However, I think it's naive to say that the QS is about increasing profit PURELY by bettering user experience when it's so easy to see how Google benefits by nudging up (or booting) low bidders, regardless of their 'quality'.
In reality, I think the QS is about increasing profitablity by sending more clicks to high bidders, who TEND to be better quality from a user experience persective, probably because they are less apt to be intermediaries. So, for press release purposes, one could say that the QS is about user experience. But to say that's the whole story is hogwash.
I don't believe Google would have done anything that would cause them to have any long term down trend in revenue - I am sure they have enough brains working for them to have fully evaluated what they did, and plan to do in the future to maximise their profits.
Based on what information...their press release? When I look at the keywords where a few of my competitors and I were determined to have 'low quality' (e.g. asked to pay more per click), and I look at the ads that are in those spots now, the argument for user experience falls flat.
You looked at the wrong things. QS is far more complex than just having to do with keywords or ads.
So either Google has failed to improve user experience (in this case) despite its best effort, or there's more to the QS story than just user experience. Really, as a capitalist kind of guy, I don't think there's anything wrong with putting a few small dings in user experience for a significant increase in profit. To make the best of the QS situation, one really needs to look beyond Google's (conveniently altrustic) explanation. That's my only point.
Also consider someone hits an MFA ad and then clicks on one of the MFA ads to find what they want. They clicked twice to get what they wanted. Google sells two ads instead of one. Again, if google succeeds, and gets too good at targeting the ad, they will lose ultimately.
Hmm, maybe Google should eliminate all natural search results and only show paid listings! Think how much more money they would make! And people at webmasterworld would be happy because Google shows hundreds of pages of results for every query, so anyone who wants to advertise would get their site shown! Plenty of room for everyone.
However, I think it's naive to say that the QS is about increasing profit PURELY by bettering user experience when it's so easy to see how Google benefits by nudging up (or booting) low bidders, regardless of their 'quality'.
Yes. Prices will surely rise. But Google is allowed to do that. Seller can set their price and customers (us) can whine all day but in the end we can only take it or leave it. There is no convincing evidence that this is a bad move for Google, which is what some people are arguing.
The bean counters seemed to miss this point.
It's far more likely that, unlike the MFA crowd, the bean counters at Google understand that the user experience is critical to the success of Google Search and AdWords. Remember, Google.com isn't a disposable domain, and Google can't just find another business model overnight if its current model stops working because of frustrated users.
Still, the proof is in the pudding, and we'll have a better idea of who's right when quarterly earnings are announced.
adwords spend increased 300% in the past 2 years
Of course this could be down to an increased number of advertisers - search engine advertising in general and Google Adwords specifically have had a lot of press over the past 2 years - rather than an increased spend per advertiser.
I'm sure Google are tracking spend per advertiser - they'd be crazy not to - and if they've got any sense they'll be tracking average ROI per advertiser too (of course their purchase of Urchin will help with this kind of metric).
I wonder, though, if they're looking in detail at particular industries / sets of keywords where, to judge from the postings here on ww, ROI seems to have fallen off a cliff.
best, a.
In reality, I think the QS is about increasing profitablity by sending more clicks to high bidders, who TEND to be better quality from a user experience persective, probably because they are less apt to be intermediaries. So, for press release purposes, one could say that the QS is about user experience. But to say that's the whole story is hogwash.
Well said, pdivi. Google must have exploited ways to maximize high bidders' exposure. But the exponentially growing low bids requiring exponentially increasing infrastructure support (i.e. cost) kept getting in the way. Finally Google did what they have done.
I'm not sure Google's upcoming quarterly earning report is going to answer any of our questions. Short-term revenue is less critical to Google than its longer-term profitability. I have no doubt it's one of Google's persistent goals to improve user experience, although I think this QS thingy has been poorly executed.
I entered some terms today and saw pricing from $10 to .01 per click for the words I tried. No big surprise AI kept the ones in the pennies range and deleted the ones in the dollars range.
Google has always wanted everything possible automated and "quality" is proving hard to quantify.
I looked at the most important determinants of a 'user experience'
- relevance of offer to KW
- landing page's effectiveness in conveying the offer
- competitiveness of the offer
- ability of company to deliver the offer
Actually, you looked at a few variables, but if those are the only ones you look at you'll NEVER understand QS, and you'll never be able to get and stay out of its effects.
Sorry, guy, but you don't understand how it works. Admittedly google has not helped people understand how it works, and has only provided (at least officially) a few crumbs. If you look at more than the official crumbs, you can learn a lot, but you need to be able to hunt down and capture other things google has said, and a number of cases to really understand.
I know it's frustrating, and I don't blame people for misunderstanding, but I do blame people for being unaware they haven't a clue.
Lots of us (myself included) have been completely unaffected by bid increases. Some of us have attempted to explain how it works, and what is involved, but mostly it falls on deaf ears. Talk to the people who have NOT been hit, and go look at sites that have and have not been hit, and if you can't "get it" then, give it up because you'll never figure it out.
With regard to google's revenue, they would have warned by now if they were seeing a negative change. I think their revenue and profit will be up (short term).
Actually, you looked at a few variables, but if those are the only ones you look at you'll NEVER understand QS
There is a destinction between variables that predict customer experience and determinants of customer experience. I looked at determinants, and I'd argue that the elements I listed cover 90% of the customer experience; am I able to find what I'm looking for, can I get it on good terms, is it easy to procure, is the company good at delivering it. You are talking about variables that predict customer experience, which I won't touch as they could be as obscure as a company being an LLC or Inc., or a domain extension being a .net or a .com, or use of the color green, or a million other things.
A company can avoid Google's QS just by overpaying for a keyword, or by optimizing on position to "beat" its competitors rather than optimizing on return/volume frontiers. In other words, a company can avoid Google's QS just by having deep pockets and being really bad at math. So far, that's the only surefire way to avoid scrutiny that I can find. Is that what you mean by "getting it"?
In other words, a company can avoid Google's QS just by having deep pockets and being really bad at math. So far, that's the only surefire way to avoid scrutiny that I can find.
I'm sure that's all you can find because you are looking in the wrong places. From posting over the last few months on this topic, I've learned that most people hit by QS have very little interest in fixing the root problems which have to do with their own sites or behavior, and have even less interest in understanding how the QS algo was created and how it works.
Unfortunately, you can't get out from under the algo unless you bother to understand it.
I'm past the point of having a whole lot of sympathy for people who continue to look in the wrong places and consequently, continue to face huge minimum bids.
I repeat. Find out who hasn't been hit. FInd out how they differ from your sites and others hit. LEARN. Execute, if you can. A lot of so-called "sites" that have been hit simply can't be fixed, because there's nothing there to be fixed. So, for some it's not fixable without developing a real site, which clearly a lot of people are incapable of or don't want to do.
I own sites that were hit, and I own sites that were not touched. I'm active in my industry and I've discussed the QS with owners of sites that were hit, and owners of sites that were not hit. Overwhelmingly, based on my observations, bid behavior seems to predict QS damage. Aggressive optimizers seem to get hit.
Aggressive optimization has been a great vehicle for growth for me for several years. Rather than set it aside for Google's sake, I've chosen to take it to venues outside of Google. So far, it's working out for me.
Rather than looking at Google's judgment as some sort of personal failure/challenge, ("execute, if you can...") I'd suggest people ask themselves whether trying to appease Google is worth the effort given the high probability of failure. Google has (supposedly) built a very complex algorithm consisting of many, many variables that determine your quality. To improve your quality in Google's eyes, you'd have to essentially recreate the algorithm, or at least a significant portion of it, unguided. And you'll have to do it all over again every time the algorithm changes. How much time will that take, and what else could you be doing with that time to create a sustainable, predictable revenue stream?
Good luck everyone.
I'd suggest people ask themselves whether trying to appease Google is worth the effort given the high probability of failure.
This is good advice, but it needs some detail. If you run a site with no real readable content (exclude sales copy from readable content), or you've cut a lot of corners to use a "business model" that is based on cycling people thru as a middle man, and a few other ands, there is a high probability of failure. Give it up. You don't have a quality site by many visitor standards, and you won't have one unless you essentially start over.
For others who have really good sites (and I know a lot of people can't self evaluate), with hundreds of pages of good original material either a) you haven't been hit, or b) you may have been hit but it's likely things will get better.
If you are quality and got hit, look at peripheral things that affect credibility -- for example are you hiding your identity? Do you have a privacy policy?
Of course, it's not that simple, but that it in a nutshell.
And for those of you thinking you'll move to MSN and Overture/Yahoo, you're probably going to get squashed at Yahoo in early 2007 for the same reasons you got squashed by google in 2006. That will leave you MSN. Good luck. You'll need it.
Oh yeah. One more thing. Do NOT make the error of thinking that when google talks about the user experience, they are talking about "users who want to buy things". That's ABSOLUTELY not what they are concerned about with QS. If you optimize for what you think your "hot customers looking to buy", want you'll have a site of limited interest for the huge pool of users google is really concerned about.
Some sites that are dynamic and sacrifice the english language needs can get around the stuff but most of us find it hard to optimise for every possible misspell or word combo for a particular product.
