Anyone else hearing the same from their contact(s) at Google?
-Shorebreak
- Jan
You can target them separately and you have been able to do so for some time now. Checkout your campaign settings. It is in there.
you can target google search only or both
but you cant target them seperately
I've shut off the search network until they allow advertisers to block domains. They could easily do it but won't do it.
There is a workaround in the meantime for those of you using Google Analytics where you can through the use of a filter, see how well the search network is performance. This way you can make a more informed decision as to whether you should advertise there or not.
[edited by: engine at 12:01 pm (utc) on Oct. 17, 2008]
[edit reason] No urls, thaks [/edit]
It will be interesting to see how this plays out. Will the Search Partners be outperforming Google or will Google Search be outperforming the Search Partners?
As far as I can tell, there is still no way to have a Search Partners only campaign. It still says, "Requires Google search" next to the check box.
We're happy to let you know that we've changed the way your Campaign Summary and Ad Group Summary pages present statistics in order to give you additional level of detail into your campaign performance. Previously, these pages divided statistics into two categories: search, which included Google and search partners, and the content network.
Now, we show one set of statistics for Google and another set aggregating search partner performance. Search partners include AOL, Ask.com, and many other search sites around the web. You can view ad group or campaign performance at a summary level, or broken down by different combinations of Google, our search partners, and our content network. Additionally, separate Google and aggregate search partner statistics will soon be available in the Report Center.
[adwords.google.com...]
Finally some extra transparency so we don't have to resort to using advanced Google analytics filters to get this data.
Still frustrating that we can't opt out of the search partners network if we want to - not cool!
It will be interesting to see how this plays out. Will the Search Partners be outperforming Google or will Google Search be outperforming the Search Partners?
I can tell you the answer to that already, based on having seen 3-4 years' worth and hundreds of millions of $$ worth of spend for which we had reporting akin to what xurxo describes: Google's Search Partners' conversion value is far (25%+) below the value of Google.com traffic. The AOL and the Ask.com traffic converts reasonably well - and in some cases AOL's baby boomer traffic converts even better than Google.com, but by and large Google's search network is better than Yahoo's by far, but far from Google.com.
we've changed the way your Campaign Summary and Ad Group Summary pages present statistics in order to give you additional level of detail into your campaign performance. Previously, these pages divided statistics into two categories: search, which included Google and search partners, and the content network.Now, we show one set of statistics for Google and another set aggregating search partner performance. Search partners include AOL, Ask.com, and many other search sites around the web. You can view ad group or campaign performance at a summary level, or broken down by different combinations of Google, our search partners, and our content network. Additionally, separate Google and aggregate search partner statistics will soon be available in the Report Center.
I can tell you the answer to that already, based on having seen 3-4 years' worth and hundreds of millions of $$ worth of spend for which we had reporting akin to what xurxo describes: Google's Search Partners' conversion value is far (25%+) below the value of Google.com traffic. The AOL and the Ask.com traffic converts reasonably well - and in some cases AOL's baby boomer traffic converts even better than Google.com, but by and large Google's search network is better than Yahoo's by far, but far from Google.com.
I can back shorebreak's statement up from data we've seen as well: While some sites on the search partner network like Ask.com and AOL do tend to bring in cost effective conversions, without the ability to single these out, the added cost of advertising on the whole search network is often not worth the incremental conversions.
I hope that this will the next step for Google - give us the ability to handpick which sites on the search network we want to advertise on, just as they eventually did with the content network by offering us placement targeted campaigns.
now if only we could tag discreet conversions relative to actual source so as to get a sense of the qualitative value of the conversions.
I hope that this will the next step for Google - give us the ability to handpick which sites on the search network we want to advertise on, just as they eventually did with the content network by offering us placement targeted campaigns.
Agreed. Without greater control - to either opt-out of sites or bid against individual sites, this visibility will lead to search network opt-outs... This seems to be the only control that we have presently to "optimize" poor performing search network traffic.
I haven't spent that much time with it yet, but right off the bat I can see certain "types" of keywords that do really well with search partners, and other "types" that don't. I have to dig into it more though.
Anyone else finding anything interesting? Cutting Search partners out altogether? Deduced anything?
I'll have to dig more and double check
At first glance it looks like 90% of my conversions are from google search only not the network.
67% of Google's revenue in Q3 came from Google-owned properties. If 90% were an average, then Google's revenues are 26.4% (US$1.46B in Q3) higher than they should be from a pure conversion perspective.
I should also mention that my overall numbers are so small they are probably statistically insignificant
Compare Google vs. Partners.
We totally disabled Partners in a few campaigns after seeing 100 to 200% higher conversion costs.
No wonder they didn't show this data for so long.
"A Scout is Trustworthy, Loyal, Helpful, Friendly, Courteous, Kind, Obedient, Cheeful, Thrify, Brave, Clean and Reverent."
I'm no saint, but I don't control $20B in buying intent either. With great power comes great responsibility...
Why show how inferior the search network is to Google - yet provide no tools to optimise the search network, except turning it off?
Unless this is actually what they want to happen, i.e. rather than terminating whole partner contracts, they get customers to opt-out intentionally when their conversion costs on the search network are too high. Thus leaving some income from search partners that works for customers - rather than none. At the same time the reduction in net income is not that much affected when you factor in traffic acquisition costs (partner revenue share).
End result, reduction in reliance on search partners - higher ROI for customers, potentially higher bids on Google network (100% revenue share).
Factor in expectation of Google ads on Yahoo websites (not their partners) - and they have pretty much replaced (and the rest) that loss of income and further reduced their need for managing a larger partner network.
So, is this a way of Google getting customers to "downscale" the partner network for them?
