Message:
We've simplified our keyword status system.
Your keywords will now either be active (triggering ads) or inactive (not triggering ads). Quality remains the most important factor in your keywords' performance. Each keyword will now have a minimum bid that is based on the quality of your keyword and ad text. If your maximum CPC doesn't meet this minimum bid, your keyword will be listed as inactive.
What you should do differently:
If a keyword is listed as inactive, improve its quality through optimization, delete it, or raise that keyword's maximum CPC to the minimum bid indicated. (Raising the bid will re-activate the keyword.) If your keyword is active, you don't need to do anything.
correct me if i'm wrong.....
"cityname web design" i paid .05 cents per click even tho google said my min bid has to be .10 cents...
i just changed my bid to .05 cents and it went inactive....so obviously google is discounting that kw even at .10 cent minimum
---elitec quote---
I have MANY words that were 5c cpc that NO ONE bid on and this is how I made my ca$h. Now big G expects more cash to enable these if not its not worth their effort to activate. NO matter whats anyone wants to think this is the case.
For those of yo whom wanted to figure out how to make yor keys relivent is is as simple as:
Relivency = money in G pocket.
I beg anyone to tell/show me different!
I can tell you I have spent over 1MIL on G in the past so I know what im talking about.
---end of elitec quote---
We can only hope that the current method will be modified when Google realizes it's better to earn 5 cents per click on a keyword than zero on that keyword. It's amazing really, just how many highly searched terms have zero ads running on them. Some require 10 cents or greater to activate when they will only support 5 cents and then are a considerable number of highly searched keywords that won't even support a 5 cent bid.
When Overture went to a 10 cent minimum we moved the bulk of our campaigns to Google. Now Google may still have an edge on some keywords, but the playing field just got a lot more level for Overture.
The only business model that makes sense from all angles is:
(1) A free market bidding system like the stock market (beginning at one cent). Competion, greed or captalism will insure advertisers pay enough.
(2) Preferably no required CTR, as is. If higher CTR ads rank better than poorer ones then this would be best for all.
(3) Landing page content should be relevant to keyword bid upon.
You can be sure Yahoo and MSN are reading this thread with great interest and it doesn't require rocket science to determine that such a model would be better for Google Users, Google Advertisers, Google Publishers and Google shareholders.
Time wounds all heels ... just as time heals all wounds. I think things will get sorted out properly in time. May the best search engine win.
One thing that I need to be clear on, but am not yet clear on after reading 37+ pages of posts:
I've seen comments that suggested Google tries some of these Inactive words out like they were "in trial". When and if they do so, what will I be charged?
1) My meager, yet long sufficient Max CPC of 10 cents that may or may not have bought me an impressive CTR
2) Some amount between 1 cent and the newly outrageous $5.00 mininum bid they now require for the keyword.
3) The new full $5.00 mininum
4) or $0.00 since there is actually no chance they will show, despite what look like stats to the contrary. Since we don't know the date a new mininum was introduced or re-assessed, it's a little hazy trying to determine if this is happening based on reading stats.
------
Forgive me for being unwilling to wade through the pages of posts for clues or theories on what might actually occur. However, a definitive answer to the above would be greatly appreciated by probably most every advertiser with an Inactive word or thousand.
-------
Now if #2 or 3 turn out to be the answers, it behooves advertisers to dump those words quick, lest they be tried out by Google for a quick trial and a quick buck.
Such a practice would run contrary to the oft given advice by AWA and others to never bid or set a budget you're unwilling to spend.
------
Thanks in advance from any advertisers, mods or AWAs who can provide a definitive answer to this nagging question!
patient2all
I've seen comments that suggested Google tries some of these Inactive words out like they were "in trial". When and if they do so, what will I be charged?
This is strictly for the 'on hold' phenomena.
I'm seeing the charges for these very similar to the old ad discounter charges (i.e. as low as $0.05, but if there are 4 other advertisers, of course, it could be more all based on the old system of placement and bids).
There are minimum bids out there much higher than $5, just an FYI.
These new changes by Google, are not working for my site. I have replaced Adwords with more Yahoo keywords.
Google gives you may more control than Yahoo and I would always start clients out on Google anyday.... I rather pay a little more, get to bid on any keyword I want instantly, without having to go thru Yahoo's 3-5 day review process. Typically by the end of the review process they disapprove 90% of your ads so its a pain in the a$$.
From what I've seen, there are serious adjustments going in in people's accounts and how they spend their ad bucks.
On the 19th, I had the 2nd best day of the month, earnings-wise. From the 20th to the 24th, I had the four worst days of the month, and one day not much better than that.
From the 25th to today, it's recovered but not to levels earlier in the month.
So, whatever Google has done, it has affected not only advertisers adversely, but publishers as well. My assumption is that Google is NOT suffering through all this.
I used to think that smart pricing would lower the cost of ads and also my earnings, and that still seems to be the case... when Google allows KWs to be active.
There's a happy medium somewhere out there, where advertisers cam pay a reasonable price and publishers can make a living running their sites. We're not there yet and this algo change seems to be sorting itself out and maybe for the better.
I'll be honest with you: I can't make a living, nor do I like seeing 3c clicks on my site. A 10c minimum is reasonable for most KWs. Paying 10c for a lead is a good deal unless you are in a very low profit area.
Just my opinions. I hope you people understand that we (publishers) can't exist without you and vice versa. Good luck to all.
There are minimum bids out there much higher than $5, just an FYI.
Oh, don't I know it, they're just too rich for my blood. In a rare instance of good fortune for me, what I've seen is an overall average CPC of 17-18 cents daily go to 18-19 cents.
You see, I'm a bottom feeding species :)
patient2all
Well i think this system works, if your smart about your keyword selection ... Obivously Google has the right to charge more for more compeititve keywords... Be creative find keywords that aren't as popular that have a .10 cent min bid and you will find Google will even discount your clicks by half alot of the times.
The problem is that Google charges an arm and a leg for keywords that are NOT competitive. I see many keywords that have anywhere from 0 to 3 advertisers with very high minimums.
In fact, it looks like Google's min bid algorithm is designed to prevent advertisers from getting cheap clicks on non-competitive keywords.
Competitive keywords are great for Google, because competition pushes prices up, so each advertiser pays as much as he can afford, and Google gets as much money as possible from advertisers.
But non-competitive keywords are a problem for Google. If an advertiser pays $0.05 for a keyword that makes him $1.00, that's up to $0.95 that could have gone to Google's pocket. But it didn't, because there is no competition to push prices up to that level.
It looks like the new min bid algorithm deals with that "problem" by making some assumptions about what each keyword is worth, and charges a minimum closer to that theoretical value. Or maybe it sets the minimum artificially high, and waits to see who bites. Either way, it's a scheme to squeeze every bit of value out of every click, and make advertisers pay as much as they can possibly afford for every click.
My worst beef is that a word can be activated one day and offline the next. We have a lot of keywords and I can't take the time to go through each and every one every day. Did they even think of what this will do to their advertisers daily work load? I think not. So if they are inactive I won't even notice for days.
Adsense Publishers are claiming that revenues are down (which may be an indication that Google's own revenues are down as well)
We will spend less than a third of what we use to on Google Adwords this month. Some words we just left inactive and for others we just went to Yahoo.
So Google... has this working out for ya financially?
I've seen comments that suggested Google tries some of these Inactive words out like they were "in trial". When and if they do so, what will I be charged?1) My meager, yet long sufficient Max CPC of 10 cents that may or may not have bought me an impressive CTR
p2a, it's #1--whatever your max bid for that keyword is set at.
Why am I now seeing "Disabled" keywords showing up in my Adwords accounts and campaigns. I thought that they were a thing of the past since Google initiated the new system? All these keyphrases that are showing "Disabled" were definitely "active" before the changeover.
Thanks in advance for your help!
Dreamlab
I had that too...just delete and re-add them. It will take and give you the new price.
To me it is clear adwords wants a bigger part of our cake on low competition keywords.
This lowers my profits (not because I pay more which I refused but because I have less active KW), therefore reduces my groth and potential to buy more keywords.
So far I reinvested 95% of my profits in adwords, 5% as tests elswhere (so little because other ppcs were too time consuming)
Now not only I have less profit to reinvest in adwords but I concentrate much more on the others for security.
So, the point here is that I think the theory on adwords wanting to make more $$ is beating its tail here, today they get more of MY profits but next month I'll give them half of last month when I used to spend on average 20% more every month...
either they didn't think of this... or they really are _searching_ a system for better ad quality, either way they messed it up cause my success was based on ad Quality!
There are 2 things that I have a problem with. Firstly, the complete lack of logic in min keyword pricing. I have tested all sorts of ads and found higher min cpc for ads with LESS relevance, to the point of creating test ads with complete nonsense in them which cost half that of targetted ads. Even changing the name of the ad group to remove a keyword can sometimes (seemingly randomly) half the min price. By making an ad less relevant I brought the price down from $5 to $0.50. It cant be right. In fact it leads very nicely onto my next point....
Secondly Google MUST be rating the keywords on the profitablility potential for google, and pricing them accordingly. At least google must be setting a "base" price, which can be adjusted up or down a few % by "quality" factors which we CAN change, but still this base figure must be being set within google and can vary hugely across markets. And this I think is proved by the way many keywords related to a single niche all have a similar min cpc before
they will activate. Try a different niche and it's the same story, but a different "base" min cpc common for many
of the related words. REGARDLESS of the clickthrough and ad copy. Going back to my first point, make the ad copy less relevant and often its cheaper. That can only be because google knows how profitable some of the market-specific keywords are.
Incidentaly, a well known (infamous?) internet marketer has even started encouraging his subscribers to bid on less targetted keywords, suggesting relevance isnt an issue any more as theres no min clickthrough. As long as you can afford to sell product A, buy kws for (loosely) related product B. What happens is sellers of product B have new competition from the more expensive (and NOT RELEVANT) product A, and they cant afford to compete! Where is the relevance now.
I say go back to the 0.05% min clickthrough, but without the on trial change. ie back to a year ago....
AWA
I know you already said this was a definitive change but it seems the quality improvements are not exatly as expected and I wandered if it was something your company acknoledged and was working on, or if on the contrary it was 100% pleased with the new system today?
Please unlight us one more time :)
Please unlight us one more time :)
Wooolf, I’ll be sure to brief AWA when he returns and ask him to respond. ;)
AWA2
Let us look at the facts;
1) The change is supposed to be about quality as determined by CTR (and potentially conversion, although Google will not say what determines "Quality" at the Googleplex). So, how can a term with 2 impressions and no clicks be tagged for a bid increase? Surely the Google PhD's understand that it is statistically impossible to determine the eventual CTR of a term with only 2 impressions at any degree of meaningful confidence.
2) Terms that are subject to minimum bid amounts can never be reduced, even if the ad gets a very high CTR. So, for example, I had ads that were penalized with the MBP (Minimum Bid Penalty), and after raising my bid and paying the premium, I generated enough impressions to achieve a good CTR, 6-10% and good position. I tried to drop my bid to get more favorable ROI and....inactive. Even with a high CTR, dropping the bid below the MBP level will deactivate it. How is this about quality or relevance? I can reactivate the term by deleting it, adding it to a new AdGroup and using the new copy. Sometimes it gets penalized, sometimes not.
3) Terms that my clients were the only advertiser for, or one of two, are now subject to minimums. Yet, these are not words that were previously trialed under the old system and have been in my account receiving decent CTR's for months, albeit on low search volume.
Net-Net? Google "backdoored" a price increase and is on the road to limiting the effectiveness of automated bid management.
Bottom line? A price increase plain and simple.
Please unlight us one more time :)Wooolf, I’ll be sure to brief AWA when he returns and ask him to respond. ;)
AWA2
AWA
I know you already said this was a definitive change but it seems the quality improvements are not exatly as expected and I wandered if it was something your company acknoledged and was working on, or if on the contrary it was 100% pleased with the new system today?
AWA, we're still waiting for your answer to Woolf's question. AWA 2 had promised that you will answer it.
Hahahhahahha
See how many ads are running for that phrase,
can you guess?
Z-E-R-O
Put Down the Crack Pipe Big G!
What is there in your account history or landing URL to make G believe that you would immediately have good conversions and a good/relevant service for the users?
Rgds
Damon
