other theories are that only merchant and 1 affiliate will be allowed.
any word on the street people?
AWA, any comment you or your people may want to make or can possibly share?
Shak
Yet it would clean up specific search areas. Not a huge issue, just create a landing page:)
KG
All affiliates that get around this and create landing pages like in overture....
All our AVG. postitions would be better!
Our competetors would vanish a bit.
If it is indeed true that G$ is really considering this, then it would be the first example lately of G$ actually listening to and applying the legitimate concerns and issues from those of us who are REAL-domain site AdWords advertisers.
If they still would like a way to let affiliates keep advertising, then as I have frequently suggested, let them move such affiliate ads to the bottom footers of the SERP pages.
But other than that, the unaccountable, unknown, uncommitted-to-their-keyword, non-REAL-domain Ads of affiliates who are nothing more than ghosts do not belong in the AdWords adspace among the rest of us who are REAL-domain site advertisers.
It would be good to see this as a possible first step of G$ starting to smarten up and to listen to us former G$ supporters.
What is G$?
As G$ has purposely destroyed the natural SERPs in order to force authority sites to pay the blackmail of AdWords, and in G$'s other similar money-only based decisions without any honest ethics, G$ has become only about money and no more honest SERPs. So, just like M$, Google currently can only be honestly thought of as G$.
[edited by: MultiMan at 7:11 pm (utc) on Nov. 17, 2004]
The following thread has been discussing it in more detail...
[webmasterworld.com...]
affiliate ads are destroying the useabilty and value of the AdWords adspace
If affiliates can make a profit on adwords ads, then surely you ought to be able to as well.
Google did hold an adwords university purely for affiliates in London a couple of weeks ago, so it's bizarre use of marketing budget if they're about to ban affiliate ads...?
Either way, they will make tons of cash!:) Enjoy it while it lasts IF they ever bother to change.
KeywordGuru
I've spent over a quarter million dollars on adwords as just one affiliate advertiser. Do you want to lose the revenue from across thousands of accounts?
Very simple business decision for google.
But affiliates have no place being alongside the real-domain site ads who have proven they ARE committed to their keyword.
I really recommend that fellow WebmasterWorld'ers here read the other thread via the link I posted previously.
I surmise from your posts that one or more of the following is true:
1)Your margins are worse than your competitors
2)You got slammed by Florida
3)Your affiliate program is non-existent or uninteresting
4)Your conversion rates are lower than they should be, hence your affiliate program uninteresting
Google doesn't *owe* anyone organic search traffic, and affiliates are performing a very valuable function in our economy, namely that of surpressing inflation and improving our lives. How? By efficiently promoting better/cheaper/cooler products, services, ways of buying, than what currently exists.
I work with a large number of big advertisers, and it always seems to be the case that the ones who are executing well *love* affiliates in PPC, and the ones who have marketing/merchandising challenges/shortcomings don't.
Either affiliate marketing is good, or capitalism isn't.
AWA, any comment you or your people may want to make or can possibly share?
Sorry for a really delayed response. I'm just now coming up for air after a long day. And since a lot has occurred in this thread since Shak's original post, my response almost feels like a part of a different thread by now.
In any case, I really answered this question as best I could in another thread on the same subject. Quoting that earlier post:
...as was mentioned in my intro to WebmasterWorld, I'm not really able to comment on AdWords business plans, or what the future may hold for AdWords.Such things are not at all a part of my realm here at AdWords, and as a consequence I have no first-hand knowledge on the subject of affiliate advertising that you've inquired about.
What I can offer is this: I'll happily pass your concern on, verbatim, in the report that I send out to many folks here at Google each week. A pretty high percentage of the readers of this report are the decision makers to whom you'd want your concerns known....
With all of that said, and still holding true, I did go looking for more information, and was given this info to post:
Google’s affiliate policy has not been changed. This means that your approved affiliate AdWords ads will continue to run on Google.com. Please be assured that we have no current plans to completely block affiliates from AdWords. If we do make any changes to our affiliate policy, you’ll be notified.
I can certainly understand the strong feelings this topic engenders, and suggest that it probably best to not pay a great deal of attention to rumors, as they can easily get out of hand. And, as stated above, if the policy were to change, advertisers will be notified.
AWA
Your (Google Corporate) attention should be directed to the fact that on some keywords the results are being dominated/manipulated/misranked (take your pick) by affiliate listings.
In theory, IMHO there's no problem with being an affiliate who is marketing. In practice, with multiple marketers working for the same affiliate who are dominating the SERPS, there is a problem, both for the user and the advertisers. One simple rule that could be imposed is that only one advertiser is allowed per keyword per domain name, or name of a mirror domain. This simple rule would dampen a lot of the problem. It's not perfect, but it is a step in the right direction. It's also implementable. Whoever gets to the term first, can have it.
Once again, only the buck rules for G$, not value or relevance.
But I do understand that you, AWA, can only voice what G$ authorizes you to say, of course.
Thanks for your response.
I would encourage you to read more before posting. Again, as I said before, please read through the thread at
[webmasterworld.com...]
As well, while I realize it might surprise some people, in fact, I would recommend that any such person now sit down as I share this "surprising" news for them. ... -- Not every keyword is a COMMERCE issue. Imagine that!
I admit that it always amazes me at how quickly people forget that the original idea behind the development of the internet was a way for INFORMATION to be available to searchers -- not to be a mere avenue of cashflow for irrelevant non-comitted affiliate advertisers.
And that is what G$ has allowed to happen in its SE in the AdWords adspace by allowing the useless non-information-providing affiliate advertisers.
In case you get a chance to voice some concerns again to the powers that be at Google, here are my thoughts on the matter:
1. I agree that eight AdWords links along the right hand side of search results for EBay definitely limits the options for the web searcher, but the profit margins for affiliates advertising on Google AdWords is far less than the profit margins for a distributor. If you are upset about being diluted, you are not properly competing and you have failed to realize the true potential of AdWords. Up your CPC and compete rather than complain. The average CPC are definitely well worth the cost in terms of returns. If affiliates can afford the CPC, a independent distributor certainly can compete. I might postulate that you simply want cheaper CPCs to enhance your profits. Don’t we all.
2. I am not opposed to one ad per company, but where do we set the limit. Since Amazon and EBay sell for multiple vendors, aren’t these vendors being diluted with one ad? Amazon has hundreds of partners and can be thought of as its own shopping portal. EBay has millions of retailers. Should they all only get one advertisement spot? What about shopping comparison sites. Many link to the same sites. Should we only allow one shopping comparison site to be advertised?
3. Relevancy is an issue. If Google wants to maintain the most relevant results, it should limit the use of dynamic insertion in the headlines. Search results were far better before people started abusing this technique. If people actually have to make each individual ad, it is highly probably that the link URL will be highly relevant. This is the most abused aspect of Google Adwords and unfortunately Affiliates are heading up this abuse. Stopping this will improve relevancy and enhance the user experience.
4. Google should really listen to complaints or suggestions from there users and not from people who simply want to reduce their advertising costs. I guarantee you that online shoppers have no problem being linked directly to the product they want for the most competitive prices on the Internet. Google adwords is very profitable when ads are relevant, prices are good, ordering is easy, and shipping is quick and inexpensive. I cannot stress this point enough: if you are having problems competing as a distributor you need to optimize your business. The profit margins of affiliates are much lower than a distributor and in theory affiliates should not offer significant competition. I am both an Internet retailer and an affiliate advertiser. As an Internet retailer, affiliates have never posed a problem for me since they cannot possibly compete with my profit margins.
thank you for your comments.
Shak
Google’s affiliate policy has not been changed. This means that your approved affiliate AdWords ads will continue to run on Google.com. Please be assured that we have no current plans to completely block affiliates from AdWords. If we do make any changes to our affiliate policy, you’ll be notified.
The word 'completely' is a bit worrisome. My opinion -- If a change to policy is made, please hold off until after christmas at minimum, or there will be HUGE uproar from a large segment of advertisers.
One should really read more before they make a post.
I would encourage you to read more before posting. Again, as I said before, please read through the thread at
[webmasterworld.com...]As well, while I realize it might surprise some people, in fact, I would recommend that any such person now sit down as I share this "surprising" news for them. ... -- Not every keyword is a COMMERCE issue. Imagine that!
I admit that it always amazes me at how quickly people forget that the original idea behind the development of the internet was a way for INFORMATION to be available to searchers -- not to be a mere avenue of cashflow for irrelevant non-comitted affiliate advertisers.
The issue is not about "complaining just to lower costs" or "fearing competition."
"Drive by affiliate ad bid atacks" come in and eventually go, but then they are then followed by another and another, adding no value to adspace and only costing the long-term advertisers more than the keyword is worth. So the issue goes beyond a single unaccountable anonymous affiliate ad. In my keyword, their ads fail, but then the next one comes along until it fails too -- all destroying the motivation for the user to even bother looking at the AdWords adspace.
There are so many other issues too, but I will let you read the thread instead.
What I am about to say is indeed only a possibility and not something I am yet prepared to say is a sure thing. While I have wondered it based on events I have witnessed in AdWords, I readily admit that I am not prepared to say that the following is fact.
Since the affiliate ads are so anonymous and unaccountable, one could raise the legitimate suspicion or concern that G$ themselves are fraudulently raising the AdWords costs of existing advertisers by G$ creating affiliate ads themselves. Since no one knows who those anonymous affiliates are, their ads could very well be G$ committing fraud to bleed yet even more money out of advertisers.
Since we know that G$ was willing to destroy the natural SERPs in order to force authority sites into paying the blackmail of AdWords, there is nothing else to have reason to believe that such unethical principles at G$ would prevent G$ from taking this next step too into outright fraud.
Maybe someone in the legal departments at Y or M$ or OV can figure out a way to drop a dime to the FTC or SEC to seriously investigate G$ for such possible fraud in the context of G$'s allowing unaccountable affiliate ads.
It would not really matter if it was proved true or not.
Both the publicity of that investigation and the costs of defending against it could hit the unethical G$ in the only place they care about, their money.
Maybe then G$ will smarten up and return to honest business methods.
If I was to start an affiliate site, or direct to merchant link, I should not be allowed to advertise on google adwords, is this what you are trying to say because these are the vibes I am picking up.
Why can I not advertise, its my money..
Please don't post the same text again saying read this, I just have and its repeated over and over again.
If you really had read the other thread, you would have seen that. Plus, you would have seen that it had been said there that if affiliates must be allowed, they should be separated from the REAL domain sites -- let the affiliates be in the bottom footers of the pages. (You could then take "your money" to that footer adspace instead.)
The important issue here is about REAL sites of REAL information being where users need them visible and not cluttered, and then having the non-real advertisers (affiliates) positioned elsewhere or not at all.
The real should not be confused with the ghosts.
