Is it possible that this service has extended itself by advertisers’ demand so much, that latency has started playing a role?
Some time ago, Netmeg has mentioned conspiracy (as not being fun of) and I could not agree more with that statement.
At the same time, lately, we’ve been discussing (no special order):
cost going up tremendously
invalid display URLs mounting as crazy with no action against them
broad match issues – negative experience only
double serving
QS issues and all kinds of sites being hit (affiliate, non-affiliate)
…and opinions being “spited” out (including myself) are mostly as something in connection with “unknown”, with conspiracy, with being public company, with shareholders, and so on.
Now, what if Google AdWords’ hexa-dexa-texa-mexa processor is overheating by number of ads being served every nanosecond (second is too long here)?
Why would Google put left leg in front of right to itself? In other words, why our comments are in some kind of “Google is against us”?
Why would Google do anything against its source of money?
Why we complain about AdWords all the time?
Were AdWords threads like this in ’04 or ‘05?
Are we missing something here?
With this post, I am referring to threads like (no special order):
[webmasterworld.com...]
[webmasterworld.com...]
[webmasterworld.com...]
[webmasterworld.com...]
[webmasterworld.com...]
[webmasterworld.com...]
[webmasterworld.com...]
[webmasterworld.com...]
Enough… huh
The "problem" for many users is that as AdWords has reached critical mass in the number of advertisers, Google has felt that it must step into to maintain the quality of the program so that it can sustain it long term and fend off new rivals. This leaves many advertisers, who can make a lot of money if Google didn't rein in certain aspects, upset that they can't do what they want with AdWords to make that money. I'm one of those who have some campaigns hit with a Quality Score that keeps me from making more money than I am at the present with those campaigns.
To add salt to those wounds is that the competitor's offerings, Yahoo and Microsoft particularly, really come up short compared to AdWords. So there isn't an alternative to AdWords that's anywhere near as potentially profitable in most cases.
These frustrations are compounded by Google's approach to find computer algorithms to detect site quality and program violations. While this is laudable as an efficient way to deal with a program of this magnitude, it also leaves people peering into an abyss when they can't understand the quality ratings or why ads in obvious violation of the rules are still running. Google can't spell out specific details of these algorithms because too much information let's those who want to work outside the rules find ways to overcome it. Unfortunately, this secrecy also seems to affect customer support as they often appear to have conflicting information about the program.
A lot of people could make a lot of money, at least in the short term, if Google let AdWords run unfettered. Google thinks that in the long term, doing that would render AdWords non-competitive. Whether you agree or not, you have to give them credit for long-term considerations. The point, though, is that when something like this exists and people realize that the rules affect their income and livelihood, they're going to be upset. Couple that will a lack of real competition and Google's unwillingness to release too much information, and it's no surprise there's a lot more complaining over the last year or two than there was at the program's early days.
Remember that phrase about "power corrupts"?
If Google's interest was in simply creating an efficient and spam-free marketplace, it would be very simple to set forth a list of rules (i.e. no arbitrage, affiliates, etc.) and then enforce it in a transparent manner.
Instead we get "quality score" which is basically Google saying "because we said so" while prices continue to rise.
Why is it that all Adwords reps say things like, "things shouldn't change too much but you may see a slight increase in cost". They must all be fortune-tellers to know that your CPC will rise...right?
If there was truly a "quality" measure, then SOMEONE has to be getting lower prices with their amazing quality...or so it would seem.
But prices continue to rise all under the guise of a closed-door rating system.
Adwords is (was) an auction system, which is the best system available for ensuring a free-market and profit-producing format. And yes, you can still have rules in place in such a system that would disallow certain sites (arbitrage, etc.). Competition will provide all the income needed.
Google is playing a "pump" game to inflate earnings and is delirious with their market position at the moment. I don't see things getting any better in the near future for advertisers...
Some time ago, Netmeg has mentioned conspiracy (as not being fun of) and I could not agree more with that statement.
I'm not sure what exactly this sentence means (not being fun of?), but just to make it clear: I don't think there's some mass conspiracy; I don't even think Google is particularly any greedier than any other corporate entity (or greedier than I myself am, for that matter) and, while I don't expect them to be more concerned about MY business than their own, I believe they genuinely aspire to keep me and my clients happy with the program because that way, everyone makes money. I agree with wrgvt (that's hard to type) that Google is more concerned with the long term success of AdWords (and AdSense) than they are with short term gains and kowtowing to shareholders; that happens to be the way I think as well, so in general, we work well together.
But there's definitely a lot of room for improvement, and there are places where Google has gotten it flat out wrong. And that's what we have to speak out about, and if some of us sometimes speak a little harshly - maybe you have to do that to get their attention. Much goes unanswered, but some things improve. I figure by the time I hit 125 or so, they'll have it right.
[webmasterworld.com...]
Now, if I were a conspiracy theorist (which I'm not) ... well, it got me out of advertising that item on Yahoo, didn't it?
Sorry, I should quote that before.
