From an advertisers standpoint I'm not too enthused with this at all - as I stated in the above thread.
What's the problem?
Well, the problem isn't contextual advertising as such. The problem is that I can't pick and choose where my ads will appear.
I want a button for each site, category of site or some way to choose where my ads will appear. Go and be innovative - find a way for my ads for (for example) loans to appear on About.com and 'Joe's financial help site' but not on 'big berthas cooking blog' and 'mr. financial search results scraper site'. Until I have some kind of functionality to achieve this, the content network will remain resolutely 'off'.
This request isn't new - it's been echoed a good few times before. I can tell what traffic converts myself - and I want to focus on that traffic - but how can I if it is lumped in with 200,000 sites which don't produce.
Google can't keep all the publishers happy - nor can they keep all their advertisers happy. But who is more important?
Sure, if they introduce a feature for advertisers to pick and choose between adsense channels/sites, there will be some Adsense sites which nobody will want to advertise on. These sites will stop participating.
But, guess what Google, that's why the content network doesn't work - there are some sites where nobody wants to advertise and getting rid of these will increase the overall quality of the content network. It will also increase the number of advertisers using the network = more cash!
I'm sure some people have had great success with the content network - keep it up - but until I get more than a checkbox - I'm staying away.
Either get the questionable sites out of the network or provide the option to block ads from showing on these types of sites. Sometimes advertisers only care about ROI and in that case the screen scraped sites may be fine.
For those that sell high end products in large markets or care about their brand and where their ads show up and understand how it all works, content is sometimes simply not an option.
It's not that we don't want to use content sites but when it may be an ad expenditure of tens (even hundreds) of thousands of dollars we do expect to be a bit more selective.
Turns out a flash game launched the same day I left for a conference a few weeks ago. A single word in the title picked up my ad for AdSense, which was placed directly underneath the game - a game where a user must click dozens of times in a game - and one of those addictive games you could play a few dozen times before you get bored. This single game drained my daily budget with zero conversions (not a *single* conversion was made) for about a week before I discovered it, since I didn't login and match it to my logs and sales while I was away.
I sent an email to Adwords, saying I'd quite happily turn content on if they could block this single URL from showing my ad. They said there was nothing they could do and so I have not turned content on for that campaign. And no, negative keywords would not have worked - this particular page did not have a single word of text on it. It was all images, ads, and AdSense.
Allowing advertisers to have a URL filter similar to the filter AdSense uses would go a long way towards keeping advertisers happily opted into content, while still having control over where their ads appear.
Google can't keep all the publishers happy - nor can they keep all their advertisers happy. But who is more important?
Yep, and as I've argued here before, Google started the AdSense program too far on the side of the publishers, and have been since been slowly moving toward the advertisers.
There are way too many bad, bad AdSense sites for me to endorse advertisers opting into content match.
Last year in one of the Webmasterworld forums I compared AdSense to the minor PPC services. These minor PPC servies typically have a lower cost per click than Overture and Google (search) Ads. The reason for the lower CPC is that advertisers perceive the quality of the affiliates as lower.
Someone (an AdSense publisher no doubt) got mad at me and said Google AdWords (the whole program) could have only a great reputation, because Google was so respected. There was no way I could compare Google AdWords to Kanoodle, etc.
He was missing the point. Google is not raising the reputation of its AdSense affiliates so much as those affiliates are lowering the reputation of Google. Which is why I still think Google has a way to go in sorting out the AdSense program. They must be more selective in sites they allow to join.
I hope they're going to criticize the blogger.com pages strictly. Because there are quality logs, but not many.
[webmasterworld.com...]
Even though Flash files are indeed content, there is nothing that even impies that the media bot can see them. You know as well as I that pages like that should never be allowed to display the AdSense code.
..you visit a site were you don't think your ad should appear there, one click and you don't appear on that site again,
If they manage to make a blog entry via the toolbar surely they can do it with an adword account too...
I am aware not everyone uses the toolbar, but at least for those that do it would be a fast way to eliminate the ones you don't want to show up, even better would be a negativ selection were you start with zero, and you ad the sites to your own liking...
cheers
viggen
I'm a publishers, but I think they really have to keep the advertisers satisfied. Because, if they are, they will pay more, and that's in favor of the publishers.
Wholeheartedly agree. I run Adsense to make some bucks. A better run program -- with happy advertisers -- would make more bucks.
Google must go to pre-approval for each site that runs Adsense. Many other quality affiliate programs require it, G should admit that the current "approved once, run anywhere" is not working to anybody's satisfaction.
As for the screenscraper sites, isn't it ironic that much of the traffic going to them is through Google's own SERPs? I'm getting real tired of having to wade through tens of these sites when I do a search on G.
Somewhere at Google, somebody must realize that getting rid of these sites will be a four-way win: user, advertiser, publisher and G itself.
However, one thing it keeps me thinking is that one major request from AdWords advertisers seemed never reaches Google. The request came up date-after-day is to have an option to filter out some of scraper sites or sites with no conversion; the same option that content network has been enjoyed.
Why didn’t Google offer this option to Advertiser?
1.Is this due to some kind of experiments, which has not been completed? To see which works and which does not with future implications
2.Is it preferred to catch the sites with its own automated filters rather let advertiser does it individually?
Either case, there will be some changes on this issue.
I think we will all see Google aggressively weeding out more and more junk sites these coming months.
Not likely.
They are going out of their way to pick up more and more junk sites. Ad inventory is like crack cocaine - there is no such thing as "too much" to an addict.
There is some really excellent (and well stated) feedback here, and I've just passed on a link to this thread to the right folks.
They'll be reading, so I hope you'll keep your thoughts coming. ;)
AWA
Many publishers have been pushing Google to improve the situation along a number of fronts. One is to create some type of "AdSense Gold" or "AdSense Select" program for high quality, reviewed, and certified content sites.
For more, see this thread:
[webmasterworld.com ]
No matter how good AS is big companies are not going to want to randomly advertise on websites. They like to pick and choose.
Big companies have running banners, skyscrapers, and other display ads on the major advertising networks for years. So the idea of Web-media aggregation certainly isn't new to them. (For that matter, some big companies already use Google content ads; I've seen ads for several major international airlines on my own editorial travel site.)
More to the point, Google content ads have little in common with conventional online or offline media advertising. Rather, they're an Internet-era refinement of the database marketing that direct-mail firms began offering back in the 1980s, when it became practical to pull in names from multiple mailing lists through search criteria instead of simply renting list A, B, or C. In the 1980s, prospects were reached by aggregating names and addresses from different lists; today, with Google content ads, they're reached by aggregating targeted Web pages from different sites.
To continue with the analogy, a direct-mail firm or its client may not find it practical to hand-edit the aggregated mailing list, but it does expect the ability to control the databases from which the names are selected. Similarly, Google content advertisers should have the right to select or block certain types of content, categories, or--in extreme cases--specific domains that may be sucking up clicks without delivering quality leads or sales. (The latter is no different from the Booze of the Month Club's direct-mail agency saying, "Mormon traffic doesn't convert for our client, so we'll exclude the Brigham Young University Alumni Society's list when we compile the database for our BOMC pre-holiday mailing.")
AdSense could serve a middle ground where you could spend less time negotiating with the sites and pay less but still have to buy a bucket that may include more than you really want to buy.
If you show an advertiser their ad on a screen scraped site or some other creation where the only real text on it is the AdWords ads, that will probably be enough to keep them out of content.
It may simply turn out to be something that can't be completely automated.
No matter how good AS is big companies are not going to want to randomly advertise on websites.
I'm sure some big companies would agree, but our experience is that many Fortune 500 companies use AdWord. We see them via AS on our site daily.
but our experience is that many Fortune 500 companies use AdWord. We see them via AS on our site daily.
My experience is that many Fortune 500 companies have more budget than sense when it comes to online advertising. They (or, more likely) their agencies are missing the whole point of what's good about advertising on AdWords - the targeting and the choice.
My experience is that many Fortune 500 companies have more budget than sense when it comes to online advertising. They (or, more likely) their agencies are missing the whole point of what's good about advertising on AdWords - the targeting and the choice.
They may have different goals than the traditional PPC advertiser does: for example, they may be less concerned with immediate ROI than with obtaining leads at a lower cost than in offline media. (To the advertiser who pays $10 per inquiry from a magazine ad, a $1 click may seem like a bargain.)
Then came saturation. Millions of sites trying to get their $50 worth each month from adsense. Doing whatever it took. That's ok, and more power to them. However, this saturation and ambition from little adsense publishers had an effect on AW advertisers. It drove roi 6 feet under. -And when roi is not there, so goes the investment.
If I had the ability to opt out of the 'junk sites' I would put money back into the content network. Even if this was a lengthy list of sites. More specifically a lengthy list of 'junk' looking for the diamond in the ruff.
If advertisers had the ability, and started opting out of 'junk sites', these sites would not have an inventory of ads to show. In turn they would have public service announcments showing. This would mean they cannot justify keeping the 'junk' site online. This would start to clean out the majority of 'junk' that currently makes up the content network, thus making it valuable again.
Bottom line is something needs to change if I will ever invest substantial monies into the content network again.
This is a step in the wrong direction for those advocating G change the way they do things.
It certainly is, hence this thread... But without advertisers, the content network will not be viable. I know that Google is missing out on many millions worth of revenue because some advertisers won't touch the content network for certain campaigns - you can be sure that Google knows this also.
Sooner or later they'll have to do something because:
1. Advertisers won't stand for it forever,
2. A few contextual advertising companies are already offering methods of targeting and picking where your ads appear which bring in far better ROI than Google's content network's shotgun approach and,
3. They'll make more money in the long run by keeping advertisers happy.
I think G adding AS to blogs is the answer to all your questions about what G plans to do.
No, it isn't. Adding blogs is merely an incremental expansion of the existing first-generation content offering, just like the additions of gmail and DomainPark.
IMHO, Google's next step will be to give advertisers the levels of selectivity that they require and are willing to pay for. Some advertisers will stick with the base offering (the equivalent of RON ads or "occupant" direct mail), some will pay much higher amounts for quality leads, while other advertisers will find the sweet spot between the lowest common denominator and the highest price. Of course, if you believe that Google's management has no interest in maximizing revenues and profits, you're welcome to disagree. :-)
I don't know if it's caused anyone to drop out of content match (probably not), but I am convinced many would if they understood the types of sites their ads are appearing on. And yes, it's stupid to help the competition out, but I am more motivated by my desire to do something about AdSense.
I'll be passing it on in an hour or so, to a wide audience.
AWA
