Google isn't dumb.
So it leads me to question the greedy intentions hidden under the auspices of "improving the user experience". Now with multiple SERPs with unique URLs, the user will click on all of them to get a wide range of results. Beforehand, one might assume that a user would only click on one ebay ad instead of all 7. With 7 ads clicked, google's profits rise nearly 7 fold. Yet all 7 clicks go to unique urls that are then linked directly back to ebay. The user goes away confused, yet profits rise for google. Plus, google is making the single lone ebay affiliate pay more than they ever would for their spot. Again enhancing revenue while superficially improving the user experience.
If they truly wanted to enhance the user experience why don't they provide a decent price comparison website rather than the defunct froogle? They're purposely changing rules at the peril of their customers to enhance profits, not necessarily the user experience.
Any other plausible conspiracy theories out there? Just because the results look diverse, doesn't mean they are. Google is up to something.
With Froogle, any affiliate / network relationship could produce the same offering if not better. Something networks should have seriously looked at 12 months ago by pre-empting.
Conspiracy Theory: Well in 18 to 24 months time Google will insist on becoming an affiliate network whereby they are the only affiliate. A merchant will have their hand forced to insert google tracking within their site to get preferential listings with the possibility that their super cookie supercedes even later dated cookies of other networks, maybe even post impression cookies. These product listings will then be ranked in EPC order with non affiliated merchants as backfill. Basically meaning Google would like to be the one and only super affiliate. You don't get anything for nothing in the long term, why else would merchants be able to freely upload their databases?
At the end of the day, I still like Google, just disappointing if they lose track of their roots.
[edited by: Qui_Gon_Jinn at 6:04 am (utc) on Jan. 7, 2005]
I'd like to think that the recent adwords change was truly to enhance the user experience by offering them endless advertising selections from truly independent sources. That would be a dumb move, however, from the perspective of revenue.
Actually, it's a smart move, because a better user experience will help to ensure continued revenue growth for Google.
Does anyone here seriously believe that Google made this decision on a whim, without reviewing data from user focus groups, surveys, and other research?
In this instance, I'm just going to provide an alternate view point instead of being opinionated in either way.
Google gets a lot of flack from many advertisers on this board. Although, it's usually that those who don't like what's happening are louder than those who think everything's ok.
The majority of advertisers I've talked to are happy about the change.
Those who aren't are either.
1. Affiliates
2. Merchants with large affiliate programs.
The majority of people I deal with on a daily basis don't fall into either category. They might not be the really large spenders, but their money quickly ads up, and provides a lot of diversity on the web and alternatives to the larger corporations in terms of products and service.
It's the diversity of offerings which have made the web grow. If only 3 companies made up most of the web - think this forum would even exist?
This seems to be the aim that Google is going for - diversity & quality. You rarely see more than 2 urls for the same website in any one SERP. Yet, that same diversity isn't present in the same ads with often the same site taking up 5 or more ad spots. In order to improve quality of the ads served, isn't moving to a more diverse set of websites more desirable from Google's perception?
The reason they have grown is by listening to users. They cater to the users. AdWords might provide the majority of their revenue, but in the long run, if they can't keep users - then their revenue stream would dry up as advertisers would go elsewhere.
So, who does Google really rely upon for money?
1. Advertisers who follow the users around as thats who they want to reach?
2. Or users who create a property where advertisers wish to spend their money?
I'd vote that number 2 is a more powerful motivating factor for change.
[edited by: eWhisper at 6:24 am (utc) on Jan. 7, 2005]
Otherwise I have to agree that long term this might be a plus for Google.
I rarely see doubles or triples.
In the areas I work in there are frequently more than 50 advertisers and you'll often see four or five ads with the same domain.
Of course this is basically circumventing Google's intentions and loading the web up with more crap websites. It's much easier to provide an affiliate link and land on the company's website. But hey, if they want to screw around with the income streams of professional affiliates, we'll just come up with ways to get around it.
BTW. Masked domains are basically framed pages hosted by the registrar. NO doubt they're not going to let this slide.
Ah well, it's just game anyway. All they can do is change the rules, but they can never stop the game!
Cheers!
Yes: I understand that (aff)s don't like the change, but as a publisher and viewer of Google's ads I applaud it.
I've found myself mentally screening Google's ads like everyone else's ads, or being downright outraged by some of the tasteless eBay crap, and that ad blindness is very dangerous for Google and its advertisers and its publishers.
I other words it seems to me that the (aff) phenomenon, while clearly good for them, is in danger of swamping thw whole boat.
Rgds
Damon
The affiliate system is used in Europe to allow distributors, stockists and retailers to used a trademark to promote themselves with the permission of the trademark owner.
Google must be aware of the impact of this - and there may be a link here with the recent GEICO success.
In short, trademark owners would now be wisest to opt to disallow the use of their trademark by affiliates, IMO.
Of course, those affiliates can bid on other phrases.
Be in no doubt that the vast majority of Google's income comes through AdWords, and it's quite clear to many people who are *using* the service that just getting 10 eBay ads or whatever isn't useful.. and if it isn't useful, then people will stop using it. Which will hit Google's bottom line.
I don't think they are being evil.. they're just protecting their business.
I say this from experience because I remember setting up an adwords account for a little guy service provider and having to come up with a strategy for dealing with an entire page of aff's for one company.
So, this move will no doubt stimulate growth in the local search area because it helps make the playing ground more even.
I'm an AdWords advertiser, an AdSense customer, a user of Google Search, a stockholder, and an affiliate, so I see this from almost every possible perspective. It's smart and it's good. No complaints here.
I rarely see doubles or triples.
It doesn't happen as often on the first page of
results, but I see it happening a lot on the second
page or after, sometimes 3, 4 or 5 ads with the same
display url on the same page.
affiliates that don't have websites and do direct-to-merchant PPC campaigns (google cash book, I guess)
affiliates who build their own sites (me)
But hey, if they want to screw around with the income streams of professional affiliates, we'll just come up with ways to get around it.
IMHO, that's the kind of attitude that plays into the hands of Google execs (and I'm sure there are some) who argue that "professional affiliates," like grey-hat and black-hat SEOs, are Google's natural enemy and need to be dealt with accordingly.
Instead of trying to outsmart Google, wouldn't it be more productive and less risky to put the same amount of effort into developing Web pages that add value for the user, the merchant, Google, and (not incidentally) the affiliate?
I am a bit confused though why are affiliates the enemy of google? Surely it is the ebay "match everything under the sun" people they need to go after rather than all affs?
If an advertising agency placed an ad in cosmo would the magazine care if they were paid on performance rather than a fee? Would the magazine care if there was another similar ad in the same magazine?
The whole point of PPC->Merchant is that the user gets what they asked for, the aff makes some money and the merchant gets a sale. Why ad "value" where it is not needed?
It also seems some people are getting a bit holier than thou about the whole thing, somehow thinking their content web site is "worthier" than someone doing something entirely different ... and it seems G may agree.
To me a good *ecommerce* experience is where a user searches for a product and finds what they are looking for in as quick and smooth session as possible. It is not always necessary to put a load of "added value content" (presell vs hot air commentary?) in their way. Some products need preselling, some work best with reviews etc, others .. well, just get out of their way and let them buy the product already.
For myself, I don't particularly care, even though my best successes lately have been from ppc->merchant. My plan for 2005 was to continue building my community sites so I do not need to depend on SERPS or Adwords for my income.
Two thumbs up to the change Google made here.
Agree.
I am a bit confused though why are affiliates the enemy of google?
I don't think anyone is seriously suggesting that all affiliates are the enemy of Google. But if you look at Google's SERPs for even remotely commercial keyphrases, you'll see why some affiliates may be killing the golden goose for everyone.
If an advertising agency placed an ad in cosmo would the magazine care if they were paid on performance rather than a fee? Would the magazine care if there was another similar ad in the same magazine?
Google doesn't care about how people are compensated. It does care about the quality of its SERPs and AdWords.
The whole point of PPC->Merchant is that the user gets what they asked for, the aff makes some money and the merchant gets a sale. Why ad "value" where it is not needed?
See eWhisper's very sensible and eloquent post.
It also seems some people are getting a bit holier than thou about the whole thing, somehow thinking their content web site is "worthier" than someone doing something entirely different ... and it seems G may agree.
Worthiness isn't the issue. Google defines its mission as "organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful." Everything Google does, from SERPs to advertising, needs to be compatible with that mission. If Google feels that having multiple affiliate ads pointing to the same merchant's landing page conflicts with its stated mission, then the rules are going to change no matter how worthy the affiliate may be in terms of business skills or ethics.
To me a good *ecommerce* experience is where a user searches for a product and finds what they are looking for in as quick and smooth session as possible...
I'd guess that the new rules will improve the average user's e-commerce experience by making it easier to find real choices when clicking on AdWords. They may also make AdWords more valuable to advertisers (especially non-affiliate advertisers) by reducing the number of "comparison shopping" clicks that don't lead to real comparisons.
IMHO, that's the kind of attitude that plays into the hands of Google execs (and I'm sure there are some) who argue that "professional affiliates," like grey-hat and black-hat SEOs, are Google's natural enemy and need to be dealt with accordingly.
I don't understand how anyone who buys advertising from Google is an enemy. I'm certain the Google execs weren't sitting around the boardroom flustered as they rang up another million dollar charge to "professional affiliates" credit cards.
The affiliate thing became a problem and Google did something to correct it. But it is wrong to claim that "professional affiliates" are enemies. They are no different than anyone else on Adwords; buying advertising.
Instead of trying to outsmart Google, wouldn't it be more productive and less risky to put the same amount of effort into developing Web pages that add value for the user, the merchant, Google, and (not incidentally) the affiliate?
Because God knows that Google needs another billion or so spammy affiliate sites in their index.
I agree with the move by Google for the most part. However, I can certainly side with "professional affiliates" who've had their business dramatically change. Google didn't seem concerned for their well-being, and these affiliates shouldn't be concerned for Google's.
Overall, I think this will be incredibly hard for Google to enforce. If they come down too hard, they will block ads from legit sites and lose revenue. If they come down too easy, they will be back to where they are now in a few months. I certainly don't envy those in charge of implementing this task.
I guess a signficant proportion comes from affiliates in the content network.
Also would be curious to know what % of income is derived from affiliates overall compared with merchants / agencies.
Surely they have the knowhow, that if there are numerous advertisers for a specific keyword then list only one maybe two per page to the same destintination url. But if there is only one destination url for specific keywords then maybe limit to three or four.
Did Google ever bother to contact affiliates or advertisers large & small pertaining to this. I just get the sense there is no middle ground with them, with an aloofness, that what they say goes.
Yet, they appear to have given the heads up to agencies who promise bucket loads spend. What about the advertisers including affiliates who don't frequent these boards which is possibly a majority who have to change their business models at a moments notice.
I feel little consideration should have been given in terms of time frames or consultatation.
A little communication, rapport building & courtesy goes a long way - basically people skills.
I also do not think it is the end of affiliates. As always they will be creative and find ways to compete.
