In reports:
"Filter Your Results
Show only keywords that match all of the following criteria:"
I miss conversion related choices.
Again, this assumes that there isn't a magic button I've missed that allows me to see the uniques.
I don't WANT to enable content bids; it's only saying it's changed because it's a new adgroup, and the Editor should just ignore the Content Bid field entirely when they're disabled, and vice versa.
For the "Keywords" tab, there's two things at the bottom of the view, in the online interface, "Show" and "Page"... like...
Show 30/50/100/500 rows per page (bottom left)
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 of 19 Next» (bottom right)
On the "Ad Variations" tab, there's no such choices or nav aids. Once you go over 20 ads, it gets harder to navigate and "see" things.
Please consider adding them. As you've offered so many choices, like text ads, banners, video ads, they can pile up and could use better navigation and display.
Still time for more - about 8 hours or so until 'publication'.
AWA
[edited by: AdWordsAdvisor at 9:11 pm (utc) on Oct. 11, 2007]
If there's going to be such a small limit, can we at least have the option of assigning budgets PER set of keywords within the campaign? (if that makes sense).
Is it possible to request an extension? I'm in Europe, so each country / language could require a separate campaign.
Again, the languages thing doesn't seem to be catered for - or I'm missing something.
Should I just open up another adwords account? That could potentially make for a logistical nightmare :p (Being the unorganised person that I am)
Please let us remove the "Can" from before the "$".
The result:
Bad experience for users as they get more than one ad pointing to the same site
The policy “breakers” not just that they do not get punished, but they also pay less as their QS goes up since they land directly to the most relevant page - an awful paradox.
This would mostly apply to affiliates, obviously.
Thanks
Many people write articles about trademark infringement and they don't clarify the two issues - competitiors bidding on your stuff VERSUS your own affiliates bidding / competing with the merchant's own in-house ppc.
It's easy for G to verify which adwords account owns a certain domain... in that particular adwords account, I'd like to see a OPTIONAL tool where the merchant can enter adwords account numbers of their affiliates that they wish to allow for direct-to-merchant (dtm) ppc bidding.
If the merchants opts to use the tool, and an adwords account tries to send traffic to the merchant's domain, it's blocked unless that aff's account number has been entered. Again, this has nothing to do with trademark law, the ad's contents - it's all about the destination url and who may send traffic to a domain. The domain owner needs more control within G, in my opinion.
As it is now, my merchants go nuts trying to police this activity! Further, because dayparting, geo-targeting, etc, make it so hard to police, it's often not being policed well at all - so the ROI of merchant's own ppc's suffers because sneaky affiliates are often siphoning off their best returning keywords, like their domain name, even in many cases where the merchants terms say it's not allowed. So this is in G's interest (as well as the merchants) because merchants are the biggest spenders and allowing them to more easily police the people who can ppc their domain will often leave them with higher returns on their own ppc as well as more time to manage their ppc.
I know from assisting merchants in policing these domain name bidders, that as they fire one, there are others who then show (since only one ad can be shown per destination url) - so these poachers are lined up deep to rape the merchants. Many resent G because of this problem, it needs addressing. At Y, affs can't bid to send traffic to a domain they don't own... that's going overboard - many merchants desire and need ppc partners. The middle ground, allowing it and being able to control it, is the sweet spot G should occupy.
Thanks.
Many thanks for the feedback.
I know my audience for the Advertiser Feedback Report pretty well, and I suspect your comments are about 2x (or more) too long to ensure folks will read and absorb them. I can try to paraphrase your comments, though I much prefer to include them verbatim. So, it would be better to have a summarized version straight from the source.
If that's possible it'd be great. Otherwise, I'll do my best to shorten it, while still maintaining your point. I'll also link to this thread for those readers who want to see more information.
(As a point of reference, there are over 1200 readers of the report, including many at the higher levels of management. Although every reader has specifically requested to receive the report, many folks have limited time to read it. It's pretty darned long - if printed, it'd be 15 pages or more. For these reasons, short 'pithy' quotes usually make a point best.)
Thanks to you and everyone who has contributed their ideas to this thread, and others like it. It's always appreciated. ;)
AWA
Give website owners, who use AdWords, the optional ability to define (by entering permitted account numbers) who else may drive AdWords traffic to their site. Like you can give Google Analytics access to your site conversion consultant, sometimes the ability to limit PPC marketing partners is needed. Now, policing PPC marketing partners is made difficult by dayparting and geo-targeting. Ask any site owner with an affiliate program and you'll see this is a HUGE issue, often reducing the site owner's own AdWords ROI because rogue partners bid on their best traffic, like their domain name.
PS - don't confuse this with trademark bidding - this is not a legal issue and these are not competitors bidding on your domain name or marks, this is to optionally limit your own marketing partners who may bid on traffic sent to your OWN site.
Feel free to summarize as you see fit, please. I tried, but it's a complex issue to describe briefly [...]
Thanks RhinoFish - and agreed.
I'll make sure that interested folks can also see the unabridged version, one way or another. ;)
AWA
<edit> Spelling: not my best event. Thankfully, I can fix it. :) </edit>
[edited by: AdWordsAdvisor at 9:44 pm (utc) on Oct. 16, 2007]
Thanks to all who have posted. Not to mention all who are about to. :)
AWA
The report goes out in about five hours if anyone has any late breaking additions.
AWA
Currently, an entry such as "8/3/07" will show up ranked later than "8/10/07" due to the way the raw text is organized.
Please show all searches, not only clicked searches so that we can negative out searches that did not result in clicks.
It's the only way we can stay ahead of the game these days! :-/
Give website owners, who use AdWords, the optional ability to define (by entering permitted account numbers) who else may drive AdWords traffic to their site. Like you can give Google Analytics access to your site conversion consultant, sometimes the ability to limit PPC marketing partners is needed. Now, policing PPC marketing partners is made difficult by dayparting and geo-targeting. Ask any site owner with an affiliate program and you'll see this is a HUGE issue, often reducing the site owner's own AdWords ROI because rogue partners bid on their best traffic, like their domain name.PS - don't confuse this with trademark bidding - this is not a legal issue and these are not competitors bidding on your domain name or marks, this is to optionally limit your own marketing partners who may bid on traffic sent to your OWN site.
A few more comments on this...
1) eBay recently blocked all of their affiliates from doing PPC directly from search engines to their domain. One main reason was that they were having difficulties controlling their partners who were sending Direct-To-Merchant (DTM) PPC. Without tools to control this, I am seeing more merchants take the "banned" route - this is bad for G and the Merchant, but they're left without a better choice.
2) Yahoo has never allowed third parties to send traffic to a website - which isn't consistent with reality, there are many agencies that need this ability and many DTM PPC Affiliates who add value. I count on G to surpass everything Yahoo does. Y doesn't allow it, G doesn't have tools to control it. Beat them, add tools, or merchants will stop allowing any affs to send them PPC traffic.
3) MSN recently threw in the towel on this issue, they got tired of merchants calling them up and asking how they could solve problems their own affiliates were causing - here's the change in MSN's policies:
[adcenterblog.spaces.live.com...]
"Going forward, Microsoft adCenter will no longer attempt to mediate affiliate compliance by creating lists of trademark-owner approved advertisers who can bid on trademarked keywords."
They were doing this manually, of course they decided to stop doing it.
We need tools where we can easily control which of our partners may use AdWords to send us traffic.
This problem will grow, not shrink, as time goes forward. G should step up and be the first to solve it. We don't need an arbiter, we need a tool that let's us be the arbiter, it is our website and our partners that we wish to control.
Lastly, G should recognize that the PPC team isn't normally the one managing affiliate and advertising PPC partners, so like was done for Google Analytics, a sub-account and permissioning system needs to be made available so that a merchant's affiliate manager can have access to enter (or remove) the numbers of their affiliates adwords accounts.
Thanks again for listening, I know you're getting calls on this subject, my clients are making them, so are mnay I've talked to. If no solution is presented, they'll all move towards just banning it - that's not in the interest of G, the consumer, affiliates who use adwords nor the merchants themselves, but the policing problem is real and must be addressed to stop folks from throwing up their hands in frustration over it.
It's evil. So put an end to it.
Cases like these have been happening for six months.
Examples of display URLs pointing to same destination domain:
www.domain.co/m
www.domain.com.uk
www.domain.co/uk
www.domain.us.com
We send Google hundreds of examples and Google take down each one ad by ad. It's inefficient and the problem is becoming more widespread. It's time you detect this automatically and ban advertisers who repeatedly abuse your policies.
Stopping this is the right thing to do.
