Forum Moderators: martinibuster
I am all for that.
But let's face it, all this has been discussed in countless threads here, and I came to the conclusion that we will get better tools ONLY if they add value to Google (here we all seem to agree), and at a point in time they think this might be necessary.
I, for one, would be happy to have more control over the ads (not necessarily their payout). But I am realistic. Let's have a look:
- We can not block TLDs (like .info, .biz, .org).
- We do not get a bigger filter list (like 500, 1000, unlimited)
- We can not filter by ad content (like "eBay", "free", "directory")
- We can not even filter by advertised domain (like "top8")
- We can not block by advertiser (which would be one of the most useful features)
- We do not get an improved Preview Tool
- And no, we can not set a certain price point
You see, we do not get improvements at all to have some sort of quality control. Why should we discuss complex issues like setting price point? There is no point to that.
Adsense adds roughly 10% to the bottom line of Google (profit, not revenue), hence they probably spend also just 10% of their resources (which can be manpower, server space, and/or marketing) to this service.
Looking at the recent re-design of Google Image Search, I guess that this re-design had a higher priority than better filter lists for publishers.
p/g
Huh? You can't be serious! That makes NO sense when you are talking CPC.
What is it that makes no sense to you? You calculate the effective cpm for all cpc ads on your site. If 1000 impressions of a given cpc ad are served and you get 10 clicks at 5 cents a click, you've earned 50 cents for your 1000 impressions. This gives you an ecpm of 0.50 for the 1000 impressions. You set your ecpm floor to say 1.00 for all cpc ads running on your site. When a poor performing ad drops below 1.00 it will stop showing on your site.
And let me ask you this, if you set the parameters on your site in such a way that you are restricting google's ability to serve ads to their satisfaction, would you consider it fair for them to kick you out of AdSense? Because everything you have suggested will cost them money to implement, cost them more money to serve your site, reduce the number of ads they serve and reduce their income. If they kick you out for this, would you come back complaining that they were unfair?
Are you sure you used enough critical thinking before you made that post?
Essentially what you are saying is "keep your mouth shut now and forever like a good little boy and be happy with what you have". So if I and other publishers keep making such requests and Google eventually does offer them, will you insist that these features be blocked from your account because they may be costing Google money? You should be embracing instead of criticizing publishers who make suggestions that could benefit all publishers. If we all used your reasoning we would still be seeing a one line report showing how many clicks we received in a given day. Do you suggest that Google eliminate all of the new reporting features that were added after the program was launched? I assume you would since it costs them alot of money to impliment and you would hate to see them lose money to petty publishers.
Google has implemented this with some partners in the form of guaranteed payments so while it is not done real time it is done. Google also admitted that they LOST money (at least on the last quarter they posted results) on the $900 million Fox Interactive Media deal. That bad deal alone is probably enough to make them leary of rolling anything like it out on the masses.
JAG
We can not filter by ad content (like "eBay", "free", "directory")
although i don't like running after certain keywords, but i find the "new years eve" (german: silvester) related ads that i still receive in masses at this time very annoying.
although they apparently receive enough clicks to justify their appearance, i think they are inappropriate now on my website. in fact, they convey the impression, that my content might be outdated.
i don't really understand why advertisers don't monitor their ads and still let them run across the network - since many of them promote a concrete event at that date and are useless now as they rather show incompetence in timely marketing.
if only publishers could help a bit to clear up the inventory..
[edited by: moTi at 4:33 pm (utc) on Jan. 27, 2007]
What is it that makes no sense to you? You calculate the effective cpm for all cpc ads on your site. If 1000 impressions of a given cpc ad are served and you get 10 clicks at 5 cents a click, you've earned 50 cents for your 1000 impressions. This gives you an ecpm of 0.50 for the 1000 impressions. You set your ecpm floor to say 1.00 for all cpc ads running on your site. When a poor performing ad drops below 1.00 it will stop showing on your site.
Are you SURE you want those ads to never be shown on your site again?
Google has a good record already, at least on my sites, for reducing the ads that don't get clicks and showing more of those that do.
If a campaign that is tangentally related to your entire site gets run on all new pages until google figures out what ads they really need to serve, that ad might never be clicked on those pages, but all 10 of those clicks might have come from a related page where the ad was only served 50 times, giving that page an eCPM of $10 with that ad.
What if you add a page that would go along perfectly with an ad that has already been banned from your site? The way it currently works, Google has a chance to try that ad again on the new page.
Are you sure you used enough critical thinking before you made that post?
Why, yes I did. What I suggested is a potental outcome if someone prices themselves out a a profit making band for Google. If you were to do that, would you come back here and complain if they kicked you out of the program.
Essentially what you are saying is "keep your mouth shut now and forever like a good little boy and be happy with what you have".
No, I said no such thing. What I told you was to *think* about your suggestion. So far you have refused to consider how it affects anyone else.
Who knows, Google may decide to implement it at some point. But they aren't going to do it because you asked for it because it would be good for you, they will do it because it would be good for them and someone figured out how it would also be good for advertisers.
In my very first post in this thread I asked you a question:
And how does your suggestion benefit Google? It seems to me that it only makes work for them without any benefit.
Google eventually does offer them, will you insist that these features be blocked from your account because they may be costing Google money?
No, but I probably won't use them for the CPC ads.
If we all used your reasoning we would still be seeing a one line report showing how many clicks we received in a given day. Do you suggest that Google eliminate all of the new reporting features that were added after the program was launched? I assume you would since it costs them alot of money to impliment and you would hate to see them lose money to petty publishers.
Quite an imagination you have there. Where did I suggest they should do nothing for publishers? There are features that are good for everyone, including improved reporting. There are even features that are good for one party, and don't really cost the other parties much at all.
But what you are suggesting is something that only seems to be good for one party, publishers, and only some of the publishers at that, and has some very big potential downsides for ALL the other parties. And so far you refuse to consider those downsides.
The way you convince the other parties to go along with your plan, is to acknowledge the downsides. Then explain any upside for *them*, and how to minimize and mitigate any downside that happens.
There is a difference between "give me your car for free because I need a car" and "donate your car to our charity, and you can use the value as a tax deduction". The first example gives you no reason to part with your old car, the second has a much better chance because it provides you with the advantage donating to a charity that you support, and getting a tax deduction, bot advantages to *you*.
Tell me how your suggestion is good and bad for Google.
Tell me how your suggestion is good and bad for advertisers.
Tell me how your suggestion is good and bad for publishers.
There are valid arguments for all 6 of those positions. Fill in the blanks and see which are the strongest points from Google's point of view.
