Many of these ads do not make any sense at all. If you search for a popular
author you will see ads like "AuthorName for sale" and "Buy your AuthorName here"
Does this type of advertisement detract from the user experience? I can not
see any value added by displaying them. If anything they might teach the user
not to read the ads at all...
What do you guys think?
Heck, search for
widgets and you get 3 Ebay affiliates.
Hey! 60 posts and nobody realized that farside broke the TOS. "No specifics, please" ;)
Search for 'death', and 75% of the ads are offering it at 'Fantastic low prices...'. which just goes to exemplify how, at this moment in time, advertising from the affiliate sector does need to be monitored more closely.
This in no-way indicates to me that the vast majority of those using aff advertising have nefarious intentions - just that there are those, as in all walks of life, who will seek to take advantage of any system where they can.
Loopholes must be closed & ill-willed opportunists discouraged, whether through aff's or mainstream adword usage.
</sighs>
Syzygy
I really disagree with the possibility of a complete ban and I think it is a poor attempt at removing the real problem of irrelevancy, which is dynamic keyword insertion. Affiliates who use dynamic keywords are the ones who are flooding search results with nonsensical ads. I would suggest to google to disable this feature and see what happens. If the user is still unsatisfied with relevancy, then limiting the number of affiliate ads is a logical next step.
In controversial topics, people will (have, and do) create anonymous unaccountable affiliate ads in order to attack existing real domain site advertisers by pusrposely making them pay more than the keyword is worth, and simultaneously using useless ad-language in their own ad in order to slow their own costs in the meantime.
This is particularly frustrating in non-commerce SERPs as G$ so destroyed the natural SERPs that the only for the authority site to be found is to pay the AdWords blackmail. So it's bad enough that such an authority site is thereby forced to pay for AdWords in a non-commerce keyword, but it's downright deplorable for it to be forced to pay more as the affiliate ghosts come in attack with bidding stategies that are only designed to make existing advertisers pay more.
While these kinds of affiliate-ad attacks in AdWords may not occur in many keywords, it DOES and HAS HAPPENED in some. I know this, for example, from experience in my own keyword. (And for the silly ones out there who like to play with semantics, I obviously do not own "my" keyword. When I say that, I am obviously only referring to the keyword of my own particular focus -- just as others here have keywords about which they serve. Only sophists would try to malign me with the silly suggestion that I somehow think I have some kind of possession of any keyword.)
In the end, the only honest solutions are to either ban affilate ads or to move them to the bottom footers of the SERP pages.
Also, on the "fraud" issue, would you not agree that any advertiser who is spiteful enough to set up such a vendetta against you, would be equally willing to take the effort and expense of setting up a one page web site.
I could probably set up a one page website, including registration, in about half an hour - at a cost of around $10. And I certainly wouldnt have to use my own details.
I could probably set up a one page website, including registration, in about half an hour - at a cost of around $10.
Then do it.
If Oakley has an Adwords campaign set up, and affiliates of Oakley also purchase adwords, but direct the end user directly to the Oakley website, do you think that end user is going to be adversly effected? No, they wont be. It would be up to Oakley to cancel those affiliate campaigns (or just enjoy someone else paying for their online marketing.) BackCountry, which is a dealer of Oakley sunglasses, has no right to say affiliates are not allowed to purchase Oakley terms. Because BackCountry is just another advertiser, selling Oakley product (theres no different if the advertiser is using their own site, or the manufacturer's site, they're all paying the same PPC costs.)
This argument seems to be coming from those people that can't compete, or are afriad of competition. They feel that because they invest money and time into reselling a product, they shouldn't have to compete with those that (althought they're paying the same advertising costs,) haven't put in the time to build their own site.
Affiliate links in PPC ads are in fact more efficient then building a site to sell the product. Less clicks, and the end user purchases directly from the source.
This argument seems to be coming from those people that can't compete, or are afriad of competition
Asserting that silly suggestion at this point of the discussion can only be made someone who is obviously not paying attention.
I would really encourage everyone to really read things thoroughly before posting.
A discussion could be furthered if questions posed by RichyRich and others were answered by those opposed to affiliates. Until then, sarcasm and eye rolling will rule the day and both sides of the argument will do nothing but turn a blind eye to the differing points of view.
It's a problem in some keyword markets and Google is taking steps to correct this with new relevancy restrictions. The problem will be combatted but affiliates will not be eliminated becasue it's too lucrative.
advertising from the affiliate sector does need to be monitored more closely.
While I will agree that affiliates do make up a percentage of poor relevancy ads, I see it as the smaller half. There are as many large merchants and shopping engines putting up poor ads as there are affiliates, maybe even more as money seems to be of not object to the large merchants.
The theory was that ads would be relevant because you had to pay for them. We are now seeing large merchants and affiliates who view adwords the same as the SERPs, in that it doesn't matter if the sales convert, so it doesn't matter what you show up for. Traffic, Traffic Traffic! (STUPID)
I personally welcome G coming down on poorly performing ads. My affiliate ads have an average CTR of 6% (including content) which means they are anything but irrelevant. Landing pages, not a problem. I run quite a bit off landing pages so that I can advertise in OV too.
Pure affiliates that point directly to another companies website from their adwords. I personally dislike this style of competitor because it artificially fills the adspace with multiple ads for one company's site.
The line blurs when you have affiliates that point to there own website where they try to make the sale themselves and then link the buyer to company website to complete the transaction. This is still a bit of a pain, but I don't mind as much from a competition standpoint. I don't like it much from a user standpoint because I am suddenly dealing with a different company than who I thought I was.
Then you have drop shippers which are in a sense a cross between affiliates and real retailers. If done right, the end user will never know the difference, but if there is a problem it can get messy.
Then there are your standard retailers. They stock their own inventory and handle any issues with the sale and delivery themselves. I have seen some retailers try to pawn dissatisified customers off on the manufacturer, but that is bad form and an indication of a business I don't want to deal with.
Full disclosure, I'm an affiliate myself. But my best and most profitable ad (while incredibly relevant) STILL cannot outperform the ad from the company that manufactures the product I'm selling. That's fine, and that's how it should be (I think). Affiliates are only getting a small chunk of the profit pie here, so it should be fairly easy to outmuscle them if need be. If you're a manufacturer of one of these products, I'm sure you can afford to outbid affiliates. Besides, affiliates are SPENDING THEIR OWN MONEY to sell other peoples products. For the most part, they WANT people to buy the product they are selling, just as the manufacturer does. I think restricting affiliates would have a drastic negative impact on internet sales. I think as long as affiliate ads are relevant and as long as they sell people the product legitimately, there's no problem with it.
wellzy
MultiMan - Every thread I've been to recently I've noticed you have hijacked with your Google rantings. You've insulted numerous people (idiots, etc).Give us a break and stop posting if everything you have to say is negative.
I personally welcome G coming down on poorly performing ads. My affiliate ads have an average CTR of 6% (including content) which means they are anything but irrelevant.
The whole principle behind adwords is: relevancy, relevancy, relevancy.
That's all.
Syzygy
Throw in a half dozen ebay bottom feeders, price find sites, and assorted other duplicates, and it gets real crowded.
the situation I am concerned about is as Widget Maker B when Widget Maker A has three or four affiliates in addition to themselves advertising for generic widget terms
Is this any different than the difference between a company that buys a quarter page ad in a newspaper as opposed to a company that buys a halfpage ad? Is it somehow unfair if a company chooses to buy all the advertising in a newspaper for a week? Most people would say no.
Many people have idealistic ideas about what the internet is and should be. If a company wishes to "buy" all 8 slots and is still relevant, is that different than a company that buys 3 full pages ads in the NYT?
Is this any different than the difference between a company that buys a quarter page ad in a newspaper as opposed to a company that buys a halfpage ad? Is it somehow unfair if a company chooses to buy all the advertising in a newspaper for a week? Most people would say no.
Not comparable. AdWords TOS only allows one ad per advertiser per keyword. Multiple affiliates of one site in a single kewyord is a backdoor breach of those TOS. That's another reason that makes it so unethical for G$ to allow it.
For the last couple weeks, I have only been posting on something like 3 threads total.
There is definatly money to be made in affiliate marketing. Many people make a full time income from it (including myself). No products to stock, no returns, no customer support to staff...
wellzy
Am I clear? Let's say you are an amazon affiliate, but instead of linking the ad to your site you just link to amazon directly with your affiliate code in it. Is it allowed?
Thanks a lot for helping.
No reason to answer RichyRich's redundantly asked post.
However, I shall explain this even more comprehensively for anyone who still doesn't get it.
The anonymity issue with not being a real domain is in terms of the user and other advertisers -- not in terms of G$ or the company for whom one is an affiliate.
If a potential AdWords advertiser knew they had to create a domain -- which means a public WHOIS record showing the date of the domain purchase...
...and if they knew they had to put content on the site...
...and they thereby realized that they had to do so in such a way that would communicate relevance to the keyword in which they advertise (e.g., "blueblueblues.com" in an AdWords ad would not be relevant if they were selling "redredreds," and the user would not react to their ad if the domain name itself was not relveant to the keyword, etc.)...
... with all that accountability (and inability to hide in anonymity of such public records and domain-name relevance to the keyword), then mostly it would only be the truly committed advertisers to their specific keyword who would go through such steps of accountablility and relevance.
It would thus greatly reduce the opportunities for fraud such as the here-today-gone-tomorrow "drive-by bid attacks" by anonymous unaccountable ghosts, and it would put the onus of genuinely being relevant to the keyword on the advertisers, like the real-domain advertisers already do.
There. Now, I shall not answer that question again.
As many have enjoyed joking about my comment, the issue is really that simple. :)
Secondly, you should know that in the future your arguments will get much more respect if your tone isn't as dismissive and condescending.
I'm also confused about what type of website you operate as you keep repeating that it is 'non-commerce' (?). Is your site really a non-profit (such as a charity or hobby site)? If so, are you really surprised you can't compete with for-profit operations?
Alternately, if your site is purely informational, then I suspect it is supported by advertising and/or affiliate links. You should know that if you are advocating less competition (and therefore lower prices) in the online advertising realm, then you are also advocating getting paid way less from YOUR advertisers and affiliate programs. Think about it.
Be careful what you wish for.
As I has said, their defenses are meaningless because they are only self-interested. For them, it's not about serving relevant information to the user, it's about making money for themselves.
I am not here to argue with such ghosts anyway, as I know that I will never persuade them because they only want to make money and they will say anything to defend that.
Instead, I have always and only been speaking to the larger set of real intellectuals and perhaps even to G$ to learn the lesson of why they should not have affiliates in the AdWords adspace. It's just bad business sense to put non-real sources in the same adspace as the real sources.
(As well, if G$ ever does start to learn and smarten up in general, they just might have an opportunity to regain favor with the webmasters that G$ raped with its dishonest natural SERPs. Whether G$ learns or not, of course, remains to be seen.)
Multiman Rants
G$ needs to wise up
Affiliates are ghosts.
www.multiman.com
More Multiman
Get your multiman here.
Put Affs at bottom of serps.
www.multiman.com/rant
Multiman Ideology
Affiliates do drive-by attacks.
G$ is becoming like M$
www.multiman.com
Multiman
Affs hide like ghosts.
They ruin SERP quality.
www.multiman.com/views
It is just that simple.
G$ destroyed natural SERPS.
Affs make me pay more.
www.multiman.com
Anonymous ads deplorable
With non-commerce KW attacks.
Get a free multiman booklet.
free.multiman.com
New to Multiman?
Register for free info.
All about multiman and his views.
justthatsimple.com/multiman
Multiman.com
Affiliates add no real value.
Degrading Adwords adspace.
www.multiman.com
What could be worse than 8 redundant eBay adword placements? 8 redundant Multiman WW messages, of course. Such posts should be banned from the regular webmasterworld space. Either that or move them to the absolute bottom footer of the thread. These posts add no real value and dilute the user experience.
_____
(Unfortunately you have free speech rights so this is not the acceptable solution. You may be annoying, 8 ebay ads may be annoying, but censorship is NOT an option)
Note: If google ever decides to limit ads to 1 per domain + 1 aff or similar scenario, Webmasterworld should immediately establish its right to consolidate all of multiman's former posts, and limit him to only one post per thread in the future. It is just that simple.
The undeniable fact is that, for the most part, affiliate ads are ghosts, usually nothing more than a redirecting link to a site which they did NOT webmaster. The landing pages of their affiliate URLs are not their own sites, are not something which THEY had webmastered.
So truly, affilate URLs are not comparable to webmastered sites. That's why the opinions of such ghosts in the matter have no weight of authority. The opinion of affiliates here are irrelevant to the discussion, because they are not real. They do not qualify to have an opinion that matters.
The discussion has obviously never been about the outright lie of "fearing competition" which the irrelevant ghosts continue to put forth as ranting propaganda. They are mostly not the webmasters of the landing pages of their affiliate URLs. So, in case anyone among us is still missing this point (and then ask me yet again to repeat myself yet again), the NON-webmaster opinions of such ghosts (when speaking as an affiliate) are irrelevant.
Indeed, the same is true here at this website too. After all, this is NOT "AffiliatesWorld.com." This is WebmasterWorld.com.
It's just so obviously simple.
lol...funny, but true (and sad)
I agree that identical ads hurt the results. i see ads everyday that are almost identical. I'm not sure why people would want to duplicate ads. Originals always stand out better.
wellzy
