Given this substantial level of forum activity, and by way of being more clear as to why the disabling of accounts is occurring, I have been asked by my colleagues at Google to post the message below:
In keeping with our mission to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful, we spend a tremendous amount of time and effort monitoring the quality of our search and ad results. As we've stated many times before, Google's primary focus is on delivering the best possible search experience to our end users. To help further this goal, we work with our advertisers in a number of different ways to help them design and run the best ads possible.
Unfortunately, some online advertisers continue to promote services and websites that do not help, and in some cases could harm, our users. For instance, these advertisers may offer free services that bait users into accepting hidden fees. Or these advertisers may attempt to deliver malware to unsuspecting web citizens. Regardless of the practice, these types of campaigns do not benefit our users and we therefore take steps to enforce our policies [adwords.google.com] and prevent such advertisers from running ads through our systems.
Over the last decade Google has implemented a number of systems and processes to identify and disable ads that direct users to these offending websites. However, the ad disabling procedures have resulted in ongoingback and forth between us and these questionable advertisers as they try to outsmart our systems and processes. Therefore, we're being stricter with advertisers who deliver a bad user experience by permanently disabling AdWords accounts that engage in prohibited behavior.
Recently we began implementing this new account disabling. As a result, many advertisers who provide a poor user experience and have previously had their ads disabled will now have their accounts disabled.
We take our user, advertiser and publisher experiences very seriously, and remain dedicated to delivering only the highest quality advertising results to our users. We believe this new process of permanently disabling accounts will markedly improve the overall experience of our users, advertisers and publishers.
AWA
techcrunch.com/2009/11/17/ptm-scams-scamville-rockefeller-senatehearing-wallofshame/
points:
+this post transaction marketing ripoff thang is so pervasive, and so obviously bad for consumers, that the Senate is talking about taking action on it.
+my mom and wife have been deceived and billed, as i'm sure many googlers and their family members have.
+these merchants know that 99% of consumers can't trace their reservation-rewards-like credit card subscription back to the merchant themselves, who were complicit in fleecing them - which makes it particularly offensive.
+these merchants work with these "loyalty" companies to optimize their "sign up" rate (and I use the term "sign up" as a proxy for deceptive, enticing click).
+G's crawl index is CHOCK full 'o complaints from consumers regarding this scam.
So my question of the day... to the lifetime account ban team is... have you already lifetime banned these merchants for their deceptive slaughtering of consumers? And have you told them to not bother emailing you again?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I again question whether a lifetime ban and communication halt is the way to go. I'd LOVE to see bad actors get nailed for it - but how about specific transgression noted, 1st ban of 90 days, 2nd of 6 months, 3rd and your out.
It might help to publish their transgressions - my thinking is anything that primarily changes their behavior, not just punishes them well, is where resources should be directed.
Consumers would benefit knowing G is hammering those who hammer them - and getting them to behave. Shoot, the Senate could stop whatever ineffective actions they have planned and let G use its influence to protect consumers.
So my question of the day... to the lifetime account ban team is... have you already lifetime banned these merchants for their deceptive slaughtering of consumers? And have you told them to not bother emailing you again?Perhaps Google told those merchants that they can now advertise even more of their scams because they banned other advertisers.
The companies listed in that article represent hundreds of millions of dollars flat out stolen from people but I'm willing to bet not a single one of those companies will run into trouble if they use Adwords.
Because those companies are for the most part well known brands online and they would also be the kinds of companies that would spend enough with Adwords that if they started getting banned it would make a noticeable impact to Google's revenue.
Besides those companies "look and feel" trustworthy and beyond the technology/marketing crowd very few consumers will ever know these companies participated in theft.
Far easier and less painful to the bottom line to target "smaller" advertisers enmasse.
Is it easier for Google to disapprove ad which is flagged with low quality keywords or domain and keep adwords account and keep receiving money from its many many other ads, or bann all accounts with weird algorithm and to lose money from adwords accounts which exist for several years?
Now you need to decide yours.
The bottom line here is that Google is going to do what Google is going to do, and I doubt you will hear any more explanation than you already have (certainly not AWA's fault, but orders from on high) The policy isn't going to change (in the short term anyway) They've run the numbers, and decided their course.Now you need to decide yours.
I would let Google speak for themselves. Given AWA's post in this thread, it seems to me they are sensitive to the ramifications of their policies. A company like Google is always a work in progress and feedback & suggestions from the field never hurt.
They've run the numbers, and decided their course.
As a company, Google is all about testing and adjusting based on the results. They often don't get things right the first time and it's only when people give feedback that they can improve.
it's only when people give feedback that they can improve
Surely this disaster could have been foreseen?! It does not take a PhD to figure out that banning a customer who has spent $100,000+ without appeal process might not be a bright idea.
We are talking about customer service, and there is hardly much new to it. Either you provide good customer service and value your customers, or you don't.
The first wave of bans last week came with no chance of appeal;The first wave was around 25 september. Second wave 6 november. Third wave yesterday/today?
it's only when people give feedback that they can improveWhen I read the text that AWA had to post from his colleagues I get the feeling that those colleagues did not read a single post in the following topics:
I also highly support RhinoFish's three strikes suggestion. Instead of just suddenly destroying businesses, it may actually contribute to making the Internet a better place. After the first strike, you'll be on a watch list. Changes just HAS TO be made.
I also highly support RhinoFish's three strikes suggestion. Instead of just suddenly destroying businesses, it may actually contribute to making the Internet a better place. After the first strike, you'll be on a watch list.
Every case is different and should be assessed on its own merits. As has been pointed out here and the other threads, a small fixed number of "strikes" probably wouldn't be practical for accounts such as those of agencies that advertise a large number of websites/clients.
One malicious advertiser who only pushes really suspect goods may not even deserve three chances. An honest advertising agency with a large account might need many more - and should probably not ever be in line for a ban at all. Otherwise, the bigger the acount, the less chance of "surviving" it has.
You can't take the human review factor out of this and hope to do it all with some simple algorithm which counts strikes etc. without any regard to the philosophy/business model behind the account.
I do not have a problem with Adwords telling us that we are unable to promote certain types of sites. But for it to be fair they should:
1. Notify customers of changes. These days they don't even email customers, they just say "well it was it one of our myriad of blogs, you should subscribe". But with site quality, changes aren't communicated in any way other than buried deep in the quagmire of help pages.
2. Don't punish customers retrospectively. Next week Google could decide that promoting women's underwear is unacceptable because in Bulgaria someone strangled themselves with a pair of tights. It's very easy for Google to come up with new rules, but very hard for marketers to be mind readers.
But think about it -- no one is advertising on adwords (at least for long) unless they are making money and no one is making money unless they are selling products or generating commissions. So if advertisers are making enough money to pay google advertising and still make a profit - most users must be having a good experience... Users that have a "bad experience" are not going to buy and therefore the advertiser will discontinue. I'm in favor of free markets; not more google regulation.
I can't tell you how many google searches I've done where the organic results are not what I'm looking for, but the sponsored links are (and often in the past they were affiliate sites) - and isn't that the ultimate good user experince -- get the user to where they want to be; that's why they are using search in the first place. And only advertisers that are successful will keep advertising...
I agree that overall the "clean up" is a good thing, but I think they are taking it too far and not looking at individual cases. Additionally, I think that blindly banning all affiliate sites is not necessarily better for the "user experince".......
Funny thing about this ban too -- the only site I advertised that got the slap (so I assume that's what caused my ban; obviously I'll never know the real reason since there is no communication....) this site ranks in the number 1 spot on organic search for most of my top keywords. How can there be such a disconnect at google that I can't pay them to advertise the site but they will gladly promote it for free in the top position of organic?.......
And incidently for anyone wondering, I had never advertised on yahoo or bing prior to the ban, but I started since the ban and so far while I am seeing lower overall traffic from them, the traffic I do get is much higher quality and is converting at a much higher level. My profitabiliy has gone up... Odd thing I've noticed too, adsense is way down - it's almost like people that click through organic google results or are using yahoo or bing are much less inclined to click an adsense ad than a user that would come to the site from an adwords ad. Beware of the "law of unintended consequences" - this adwords ban may wreak havoc on adsense revenues.......
AWAs message from Google says that "We believe this new process of permanently disabling accounts will markedly improve the overall experience of our users..."
Google is like a middleman in a dope deal. As long as both the supplier and user are happy, the middleman gets their cut and walks away.
If either the supplier or the user are unhappy things can get really nasty really fast.
So, they have decided to quit doing business with those selling bad dope. If they lose some good suppliers in the process, no big deal, since there are plenty more to fill the gap.
Google has no loyalty to its suppliers - only to the users. This has been shown repeatedly over recent years.
Obviouly no one from google caught the keynote address at vegas about how customer service is a priority. Guess it was the fact that they weren't represented there, or if any google employees were there, it was on their own dime and not google's.......geniuses!
Obviouly no one from google caught...how customer service is a priority.
How true. We have a person whose title is "Customer Service Representative" but she is actually on of the 3 best salespeople I have ever had the privilege to work with (not to mention that I have a soft spot for that Tennessee drawl).
Pure gold. You really need to take care of these people when they come along, because you sure don't want them moving over to your competitors...
But would it be fair if...
Life's not fair. Get over it.
As a "user" of AdSense, I know that Google is pinching the bag, just not how much. Hey, they're a steady supplier and it is too much trouble to go find another supplier.
As a "user" of G-search I must admit that I am completely ad blind - in the serps and on sites I visit.
As a "supplier" of content I again know that Google is pinching the bag, and while it get's my goat I recognize that they have enough users hooked that it would hurt my bottom line to boot 'em.
I don't supply ads, but if I did I would be looking real hard at all other available options...
The complete fold is nothing but sponsored ads so is Google double dipping here?
or
Does Google seem to think Ask.com provides a better search?
Please tell me the user value in this.
I feel the move Google is doing is long overdue but I as well feel you can't just pick and chose. The above example provides nothing imo and should have a quality score of 0 and stopped. I can't see the value for a Google searcher being sent to Ask.com through adwords to a search page were Ask.com is pushing their own PPC unless Google is getting a piece of both pies. If that be the case "when a class action comes from this" I can see some smiling lawyers.
I have not been effected by all this and really take the side of Google for cleaning up the mess they started, but I feel the whole mess was done in a way that created a dangerous environment.
pricegrabber.com and all other comparison shopping sites another example. These are nothing but affiliate sites using adwords in the same way others were banned.
By allowing the above to continue to operate and advertise through adwords just ads fuel to the fire.
Google is getting a piece of both pies
1. You click onto Ask's ad on Google.com - Google gets paid
2. Then you click onto an ad on Ask.com on #1 - Google and Ask get paid
Ask gets QS of 10/10 at Google so it pays 5 cents per click on first click, but it earns 10 cents on Ask.com
Thanks.
Within the same account, we do have a URL that does not have good scoring, and over the past few days we’ve tried to add new ad groups, but these new ads have been rejected with bad quality scoring.
So my question is if I delete all the campaigns/ad groups that receive poor quality scores, and just keep the campaigns/ad groups that have good quality scoring, will my account be spared from the Google axe?
So my question is if I delete all the campaigns/ad groups that receive poor quality scores, and just keep the campaigns/ad groups that have good quality scoring, will my account be spared from the Google axe?You can't be sure your account will be spared. Please read all replies in this topic for examples from people who did the same.
Afther the above post read follow up:
[electronplumber.com...]
Looks like that support did not do anything after his first two emails. After the third email support decided to escalate the issue to the policy team and the account was unbanned.
Now what does this mean? If you got a ban and make an appeal support will do nothing. They will send you an standard reply. When you send a second email they will still do nothing. Again you will receive a standard reply they use for the second follow up.
In other words if you got a ban that is 100% incorrect and you only send one or two emails about it they will not undo the ban because they did not even looked at the issue at all.
The truth is, no one can tell you if you're safe or not. If you've managed to get good QS for your other url then I'd delete (don't pause) all ads for the other URL and don't submit anymore ads for it. It sounds like you may well be OK, but you can't bank on it- start trying other sources asap and hope for the best!
@Dlocks - there's 2 ways to look at that article: the negative one which is that he got caught when he shouldn't, and he had to be really persistent to get it turned back on
or the positive: there is a way back from the ban for people who 'deserve' it, google do care, and you don't have to be a massive advertiser either as these guys have had a total spend of $7. So hopefully the google-is-evil brigade can see it's nothing personal
What G previously used as a cohesion factor they have now deemed non essential and are eradicating them under the guise of "bad user experience". That could be interpreted as just about anything, totally subjective. I wonder how many lawyers it took to come up with that phrase and modality?
What happens if you take out the middle facilitators?
Big paying advertisers get better prices and actually up their bids to increase their volume and that drives bottom line profits up, enough to make their numbers for the stockholders.
The coupon for publishers is to bring new blood into the game because they are taking some of the viscosity out of the system by ejecting the middle men (of all sectors and types). This also creates more discount click inventory for the larger advertisers.
Don't do arbitrage, do arbitrage.
Don't do evil, do evil.
The message and motive here is pretty transparent.
Basically they can take the big baseball bat and smack everybody they want to in the teeth until there is a deterrent.
At the time, there is no deterrent.
I am glad I sold my main site and I am sitting on the cash. They are in a flux period and then they will set their new parameters up. 3-6 months down the road I'll come back again, when I can tell which end is up.
Until that time it's content creation and SEO for me.
PS They didn't ban me, the just took the QS to 1/10 on all the campaigns for the main site and left the others be. I just can't use Adwords for that particular site anymore, that's why I cashed it in for it's organic value.
@Dlocks - there's 2 ways to look at that article: the negative one which is that he got caught when he shouldn't, and he had to be really persistent to get it turned back onThat is indeed positive. I think the $7 he spend was via some free credits he received (coupon) :)or the positive: there is a way back from the ban for people who 'deserve' it, google do care, and you don't have to be a massive advertiser either as these guys have had a total spend of $7. So hopefully the google-is-evil brigade can see it's nothing personal
Thanks for your input. I’ve deleted all the campaigns/ad groups that have poor quality scores from the past, and now only have the ad groups that seem to satisfy Google. I believe that my warning is due to some recent testing that I’ve done with a URL that Google has deemed ‘poor quality’.
For now, I’m not going to do anything with this account, aside from adjusting bidding pricing… If they axe me, oh well… but I’m hoping that since our main URL is receiving 10/10 quality scoring, that our account will survive…
BTW: We’ve been at this since 2001, spend mucho $$, and have very strong relationships with our merchants/clients.
GR
SuperF started a very good thread:
[webmasterworld.com...]
Which is aimed at trying to narrow down the kinds of sites that are getting hit with a ban / ban warning.
Without posting your merchants or any campaign specifics, is it possible to list any areas you work in or the types of sites and promotions you think might have triggered this?
This isn't from a sense of morbid curiosity, I think we'd all like to figure out what is causing these problems and work around them.
Thanks and best of luck
We been involved in a variety of affiliate marketing ‘areas’ over the past 9 years, everything from selling ugg boots, to promoting car insurance. We’ve had campaigns with direct links, campaigns with weak, thin landing pages, and campaigns with comprehensive content, and associated affiliate links.
Not that I claim to an expert, and I do see some merit with what Google is trying to do, but the wide sweeping slap of legitimate sites, and associated suspensions is sad and comical at the same time. I do honesty believe that none of the suspensions are hurting their bottom line, as Google is not that stupid. Plus I’d imagine that Google knows that you knock one duck off the wall, and there’s another ready to take its place.
I do find it strange that Google has entered into the mortgage loan competition. If we now search for ‘mortgage loans’, Google has decided that they want some of this business. Can we all consider this ‘affiliate marketing’? With the only intent of sending users to other sites that are related with mortgage loans? Isn’t this a clear violation of their own rules?
How about the affiliate marketing company they bought? If they hate affiliate marketers, then you’d think they would stay far away from a company involved in that….
Just a few thoughts….
GR
