Comments on: WSJ, Google, Content Match, Advertisers and Abuse http://blog.merjis.com/2006/11/03/wsj-google-content-match-advertisers-and-abuse/ Effective Internet Marketing Strategy and Technique Through Experiments, Measurement and Audit Thu, 28 Aug 2008 19:21:47 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.12-alpha by: Click Fraud, Google AdWords and gclid | Merjis Search Marketing Blog http://blog.merjis.com/2006/11/03/wsj-google-content-match-advertisers-and-abuse/#comment-11539 Mon, 16 Jul 2007 07:24:12 +0000 http://blog.merjis.com/2006/11/03/wsj-google-content-match-advertisers-and-abuse/#comment-11539 [...] Assume that I see a conversion rate of 1%. Assume that I have an AvCPc of $0.10 on keyword. I’ll spend about $10.00 for a conversion on keyword search. Asume that the content network averages the same conversion rate (this is not usually true - the true conversion rate is much lower for reasons discussed in another article). I can then afford to spend $10 on 100 clicks - the $0.10 AvCPC that we saw for keyword search. Google picks up 50% of that. They make $5.00 and the AdSense partners share $5.00. If there was just one site in the list, then that’s one AdSense partner that receives $5.00. I can easily see that this is good value and I’ll invest more to get more placements with them. [...] […] Assume that I see a conversion rate of 1%. Assume that I have an AvCPc of $0.10 on keyword. I’ll spend about $10.00 for a conversion on keyword search. Asume that the content network averages the same conversion rate (this is not usually true - the true conversion rate is much lower for reasons discussed in another article). I can then afford to spend $10 on 100 clicks - the $0.10 AvCPC that we saw for keyword search. Google picks up 50% of that. They make $5.00 and the AdSense partners share $5.00. If there was just one site in the list, then that’s one AdSense partner that receives $5.00. I can easily see that this is good value and I’ll invest more to get more placements with them. […]

]]> by: Merjis blog » Blog Archive » AdSense and Behavioural Targeting http://blog.merjis.com/2006/11/03/wsj-google-content-match-advertisers-and-abuse/#comment-4798 Thu, 26 Apr 2007 07:40:10 +0000 http://blog.merjis.com/2006/11/03/wsj-google-content-match-advertisers-and-abuse/#comment-4798 [...] then I’d be happier about it. AdSense doesn’t really belong in Behavioural Targeting. It doesn’t find me 18-30 year olds with an interest in extreme sports. It could find me people interested in extreme sports, extreme political opinions and those involved in an argument, or wanting to find out about the Olympics. That’s not Behavioural. That’s weakly linguistically related. [...] […] then I’d be happier about it. AdSense doesn’t really belong in Behavioural Targeting. It doesn’t find me 18-30 year olds with an interest in extreme sports. It could find me people interested in extreme sports, extreme political opinions and those involved in an argument, or wanting to find out about the Olympics. That’s not Behavioural. That’s weakly linguistically related. […]

]]> by: Jeremy Chatfield http://blog.merjis.com/2006/11/03/wsj-google-content-match-advertisers-and-abuse/#comment-104 Tue, 14 Nov 2006 22:54:15 +0000 http://blog.merjis.com/2006/11/03/wsj-google-content-match-advertisers-and-abuse/#comment-104 Hi James - we're experimenting with CSE, but it looks like AdSense rather than Keyword Search. The experiment is a little tricky. You have to set up a CSE, tie it to an AdSense account, put up an advert with distinguishing tagged URLs, find and click it, then detect it in the web server log files; all without triggering any of Google's Click Fraud detection systems. It'd be so much easier if they <b>told</b> us what it did... Hi James - we’re experimenting with CSE, but it looks like AdSense rather than Keyword Search. The experiment is a little tricky. You have to set up a CSE, tie it to an AdSense account, put up an advert with distinguishing tagged URLs, find and click it, then detect it in the web server log files; all without triggering any of Google’s Click Fraud detection systems. It’d be so much easier if they told us what it did…

]]> by: James http://blog.merjis.com/2006/11/03/wsj-google-content-match-advertisers-and-abuse/#comment-95 Mon, 13 Nov 2006 18:31:02 +0000 http://blog.merjis.com/2006/11/03/wsj-google-content-match-advertisers-and-abuse/#comment-95 I elect Jeremy to head up the UN Google Watchdog group! I'm under the impression that the Google Custom Search Engines use AdSense and we therefore have control as we do with content match. No? I elect Jeremy to head up the UN Google Watchdog group!

I’m under the impression that the Google Custom Search Engines use AdSense and we therefore have control as we do with content match. No?

]]> by: Jeremy Chatfield http://blog.merjis.com/2006/11/03/wsj-google-content-match-advertisers-and-abuse/#comment-45 Tue, 07 Nov 2006 21:05:08 +0000 http://blog.merjis.com/2006/11/03/wsj-google-content-match-advertisers-and-abuse/#comment-45 Hi Rich@Apogee! Yeah, it'd be nice to know. However, I'm also using some other research, not yet blogged... It suggests that as the budget increases the content match engine spreads adverts wider, so that it considers single words in a keyword to be important. I suspect that a default combined campaign with a high budget and no additional negative keywords, that's the cause. But this does depend on Content Match respecting Negative Keywords, and I've seen a few claims by Google staff that negative keywords don't affect content match, and other Google staff claims that they do - very annoying, to not have a definitive, credible word. Leaves it up to experiment... Hi Rich@Apogee! Yeah, it’d be nice to know. However, I’m also using some other research, not yet blogged… It suggests that as the budget increases the content match engine spreads adverts wider, so that it considers single words in a keyword to be important. I suspect that a default combined campaign with a high budget and no additional negative keywords, that’s the cause. But this does depend on Content Match respecting Negative Keywords, and I’ve seen a few claims by Google staff that negative keywords don’t affect content match, and other Google staff claims that they do - very annoying, to not have a definitive, credible word. Leaves it up to experiment…

]]> by: Richard Ball http://blog.merjis.com/2006/11/03/wsj-google-content-match-advertisers-and-abuse/#comment-44 Tue, 07 Nov 2006 20:49:33 +0000 http://blog.merjis.com/2006/11/03/wsj-google-content-match-advertisers-and-abuse/#comment-44 Back to the original WSJ article, I wonder what the full content of the email referencing Lily Allen included. I find it hard to believe that Google's contextual advertising system cherry-picked a single keyword and deemed that relevant. There must have been some other keywords that might have related to plants or flowers or gardening, somehow. As usual, these MSM articles lack the real details needed to understand what's happening. At the same time, Google needs to be more forthcoming and explain to advertisers how they match keywords to published pages. Just saying, "Oh, create a good search ad and make sure you have content ads turned on and our system will work for you" doesn't cut it. Anyway, thanks for the insight. I'll try not to incite. Back to the original WSJ article, I wonder what the full content of the email referencing Lily Allen included. I find it hard to believe that Google’s contextual advertising system cherry-picked a single keyword and deemed that relevant. There must have been some other keywords that might have related to plants or flowers or gardening, somehow. As usual, these MSM articles lack the real details needed to understand what’s happening.

At the same time, Google needs to be more forthcoming and explain to advertisers how they match keywords to published pages. Just saying, “Oh, create a good search ad and make sure you have content ads turned on and our system will work for you” doesn’t cut it. Anyway, thanks for the insight. I’ll try not to incite.

]]> by: Jeremy Chatfield http://blog.merjis.com/2006/11/03/wsj-google-content-match-advertisers-and-abuse/#comment-40 Mon, 06 Nov 2006 16:29:13 +0000 http://blog.merjis.com/2006/11/03/wsj-google-content-match-advertisers-and-abuse/#comment-40 Hi Bill - it's stopping the thinking that's hard... right now I'm speculating around the new Google Custom Search Engines, and the possibility of publishers abusing those, without advertisers having any control. This would need site exclusion for Google properties? I don't think that Google allows that. Experiment in progress :) Hi Bill - it’s stopping the thinking that’s hard… right now I’m speculating around the new Google Custom Search Engines, and the possibility of publishers abusing those, without advertisers having any control. This would need site exclusion for Google properties? I don’t think that Google allows that. Experiment in progress :)

]]> by: Bill Spencer http://blog.merjis.com/2006/11/03/wsj-google-content-match-advertisers-and-abuse/#comment-39 Mon, 06 Nov 2006 15:48:57 +0000 http://blog.merjis.com/2006/11/03/wsj-google-content-match-advertisers-and-abuse/#comment-39 Good to see you've got your mind working, Jeremy. Good to see you’ve got your mind working, Jeremy.

]]>