<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.0.12-alpha" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: AdWords Died, 2008 - Rest In Peace</title>
	<link>http://blog.merjis.com/2008/03/11/adwords-died-2008-rest-in-peace/</link>
	<description>Effective Internet Marketing Strategy and Technique Through Experiments, Measurement and Audit</description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 25 Jul 2008 03:07:19 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.12-alpha</generator>

	<item>
		<title>by: Jeremy Chatfield</title>
		<link>http://blog.merjis.com/2008/03/11/adwords-died-2008-rest-in-peace/#comment-60791</link>
		<pubDate>Thu, 26 Jun 2008 17:57:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://blog.merjis.com/2008/03/11/adwords-died-2008-rest-in-peace/#comment-60791</guid>
					<description>Hi Scott

Use Google Analytics, AdWords Conversion Tracking and the free website optimizer to improve understanding.  For example, at the firts level we might use AdWords Conversion Tracking to tell us which keywords are resulting in any sales. Spend more on those and less on the rest ;)

Google Analytics can refine the understanding, though it may take a bit of digging and delving - but you may find that some keywords have a really high bounce rate - indicating that the web page doesn't address searchers needs very well - meaning that a new page might help improve sales response.

I think that I'd be investing effort in measurement and analysis at this point - with a view to improving the web site and optimising bidding.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Scott</p>
<p>Use Google Analytics, AdWords Conversion Tracking and the free website optimizer to improve understanding.  For example, at the firts level we might use AdWords Conversion Tracking to tell us which keywords are resulting in any sales. Spend more on those and less on the rest ;)</p>
<p>Google Analytics can refine the understanding, though it may take a bit of digging and delving - but you may find that some keywords have a really high bounce rate - indicating that the web page doesn&#8217;t address searchers needs very well - meaning that a new page might help improve sales response.</p>
<p>I think that I&#8217;d be investing effort in measurement and analysis at this point - with a view to improving the web site and optimising bidding.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Scott Million</title>
		<link>http://blog.merjis.com/2008/03/11/adwords-died-2008-rest-in-peace/#comment-60646</link>
		<pubDate>Thu, 26 Jun 2008 01:33:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://blog.merjis.com/2008/03/11/adwords-died-2008-rest-in-peace/#comment-60646</guid>
					<description>Yeah, I know. The biggest struggle I have, though, is that I'm not SURE my offer converts...so I send clicks and then I don't know if it's my offer, the type of traffic I'm sending, or click fraud...etc.

THAT'S the hurdle I face.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yeah, I know. The biggest struggle I have, though, is that I&#8217;m not SURE my offer converts&#8230;so I send clicks and then I don&#8217;t know if it&#8217;s my offer, the type of traffic I&#8217;m sending, or click fraud&#8230;etc.</p>
<p>THAT&#8217;S the hurdle I face.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Jeremy Chatfield</title>
		<link>http://blog.merjis.com/2008/03/11/adwords-died-2008-rest-in-peace/#comment-55786</link>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 May 2008 09:56:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://blog.merjis.com/2008/03/11/adwords-died-2008-rest-in-peace/#comment-55786</guid>
					<description>Andrew Goodman's book is getting long in the tooth, but is still a good starting point. 

I wouldn't avoid AdWords. Why would you avoid the major route to market? But do exercise caution and don't hope to pay $0.01 per click on high volume keywords - unless you run a household brand name, that is ;)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Andrew Goodman&#8217;s book is getting long in the tooth, but is still a good starting point. </p>
<p>I wouldn&#8217;t avoid AdWords. Why would you avoid the major route to market? But do exercise caution and don&#8217;t hope to pay $0.01 per click on high volume keywords - unless you run a household brand name, that is ;)
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Scott Million</title>
		<link>http://blog.merjis.com/2008/03/11/adwords-died-2008-rest-in-peace/#comment-52854</link>
		<pubDate>Fri, 09 May 2008 19:17:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://blog.merjis.com/2008/03/11/adwords-died-2008-rest-in-peace/#comment-52854</guid>
					<description>Thanks for your comments and the article. I've been using article marketing and would like to get into Pay-Per-Click buy am facing some serious information overload. 

Do any of you experienced PPC marketers have a book or post to recommend?

Should I "Stay Away From Google?!" 

Thanks,

Scott</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks for your comments and the article. I&#8217;ve been using article marketing and would like to get into Pay-Per-Click buy am facing some serious information overload. </p>
<p>Do any of you experienced PPC marketers have a book or post to recommend?</p>
<p>Should I &#8220;Stay Away From Google?!&#8221; </p>
<p>Thanks,</p>
<p>Scott
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Rick</title>
		<link>http://blog.merjis.com/2008/03/11/adwords-died-2008-rest-in-peace/#comment-46634</link>
		<pubDate>Sat, 12 Apr 2008 18:51:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://blog.merjis.com/2008/03/11/adwords-died-2008-rest-in-peace/#comment-46634</guid>
					<description>We have been using adwords for years and have noticed that on April 1, 2008 our conversions dropped by 50%, while clicks stayed the same.  We have top quality scores, comply with all policies, and our ads seem to be appearing in the #1 spot, where they have always been.   Our business is extremely consistent through all seasons, and economic times.  In short, we can see no reason for the drop in sales, other than a change in the Adwords algorithims, ads being delivered to less qualified searchers, or clicks not getting to our site (there is no problem with the website).   This drop in conversions has not improved since then, and that further confirms that this is not merely a lull in sales.   The demand for our products is still strong as ever, and this drop off came abruptly on April 1, like turning off a light switch.  Has anyone else had a similar experience beginning April 1, 2008?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>We have been using adwords for years and have noticed that on April 1, 2008 our conversions dropped by 50%, while clicks stayed the same.  We have top quality scores, comply with all policies, and our ads seem to be appearing in the #1 spot, where they have always been.   Our business is extremely consistent through all seasons, and economic times.  In short, we can see no reason for the drop in sales, other than a change in the Adwords algorithims, ads being delivered to less qualified searchers, or clicks not getting to our site (there is no problem with the website).   This drop in conversions has not improved since then, and that further confirms that this is not merely a lull in sales.   The demand for our products is still strong as ever, and this drop off came abruptly on April 1, like turning off a light switch.  Has anyone else had a similar experience beginning April 1, 2008?
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Jeremy Chatfield</title>
		<link>http://blog.merjis.com/2008/03/11/adwords-died-2008-rest-in-peace/#comment-44069</link>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Apr 2008 11:06:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://blog.merjis.com/2008/03/11/adwords-died-2008-rest-in-peace/#comment-44069</guid>
					<description>At the time, I was reacting to a succession of clients with plummeting impression volumes. It seemed that every account I looked at had a new and significant problem. I still have some accounts with severe traffic problems - some of which have worked fine for a *long* time previously, and all of which suddenly started misbehaving at pretty much the same time.

I do think that this is effectively a *new* AdWords. The behaviour shows some marked differences from pre-March responses. More like "Zombified", than "Dead". There's still some sign of activity...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>At the time, I was reacting to a succession of clients with plummeting impression volumes. It seemed that every account I looked at had a new and significant problem. I still have some accounts with severe traffic problems - some of which have worked fine for a *long* time previously, and all of which suddenly started misbehaving at pretty much the same time.</p>
<p>I do think that this is effectively a *new* AdWords. The behaviour shows some marked differences from pre-March responses. More like &#8220;Zombified&#8221;, than &#8220;Dead&#8221;. There&#8217;s still some sign of activity&#8230;
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Drazan Lapic</title>
		<link>http://blog.merjis.com/2008/03/11/adwords-died-2008-rest-in-peace/#comment-42661</link>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 Apr 2008 18:14:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://blog.merjis.com/2008/03/11/adwords-died-2008-rest-in-peace/#comment-42661</guid>
					<description>Not sure how much adwords died - several interesting things can be read at Online Publishers Association http://64.13.250.16/newsletter.php?newsId=312

also I think we have to take a look a way deeper than a single result to reach and understand how happened to have basically only three private companies to control the most public domain. More about at my http://adwordsfraud.com/

Drazan</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Not sure how much adwords died - several interesting things can be read at Online Publishers Association <a href="http://64.13.250.16/newsletter.php?newsId=312" rel="nofollow">http://64.13.250.16/newsletter.php?newsId=312</a></p>
<p>also I think we have to take a look a way deeper than a single result to reach and understand how happened to have basically only three private companies to control the most public domain. More about at my <a href="http://adwordsfraud.com/" rel="nofollow">http://adwordsfraud.com/</a></p>
<p>Drazan
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Jeremy Chatfield</title>
		<link>http://blog.merjis.com/2008/03/11/adwords-died-2008-rest-in-peace/#comment-40886</link>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 Mar 2008 11:15:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://blog.merjis.com/2008/03/11/adwords-died-2008-rest-in-peace/#comment-40886</guid>
					<description>@C - Hi - Ah, this looks more like "New Advertiser Angst". Google has some blunt instruments to tell you that they don't think your advertising will be effective. One of the blunt instruments is a $5.00 blow to the wallet. It's actually, *IF YOU ARE EXPERIENCED* a useful indication of a problem; it is also not at odds with *paying* $0.75. Though even that estimate is usually inflated, if you get the AdCopy and *negative* keywords correct. 

Google unexplainedly issue a beating is simply Google's way of welcoming you as a new advertiser. You'd think that a marketing savvy organisation would find a gentle way to suggest that your ad copy, keywords or landing pages could be improved, wouldn't you?

If you're happy with a public response to what I suspect is likely to be wrong or suboptimal, post back here with your site details and a representative keyword (e.g. company name), and I'll take it as a (free) worked example, posted in the blog. Private advice is chargeable, though. 

Google does do a lot of dubious stuff. But, IMO, their biggest error with the $5.00 MinCPC slam is a poor explanation of what it is, why it is and what you can properly do about it. It is better this year than when they first introduced it, though it is still pathetically underdeveloped as a way to encourage new advertisers to stay with AdWords, isn't it? :(

It is a solvable problem, usually - or there is a fundamental reason why that site shouldn't be found by search e.g. aggregating other people's duplicated blogs in order to host AdSense, is unlikely to find favour with Google or users.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@C - Hi - Ah, this looks more like &#8220;New Advertiser Angst&#8221;. Google has some blunt instruments to tell you that they don&#8217;t think your advertising will be effective. One of the blunt instruments is a $5.00 blow to the wallet. It&#8217;s actually, *IF YOU ARE EXPERIENCED* a useful indication of a problem; it is also not at odds with *paying* $0.75. Though even that estimate is usually inflated, if you get the AdCopy and *negative* keywords correct. </p>
<p>Google unexplainedly issue a beating is simply Google&#8217;s way of welcoming you as a new advertiser. You&#8217;d think that a marketing savvy organisation would find a gentle way to suggest that your ad copy, keywords or landing pages could be improved, wouldn&#8217;t you?</p>
<p>If you&#8217;re happy with a public response to what I suspect is likely to be wrong or suboptimal, post back here with your site details and a representative keyword (e.g. company name), and I&#8217;ll take it as a (free) worked example, posted in the blog. Private advice is chargeable, though. </p>
<p>Google does do a lot of dubious stuff. But, IMO, their biggest error with the $5.00 MinCPC slam is a poor explanation of what it is, why it is and what you can properly do about it. It is better this year than when they first introduced it, though it is still pathetically underdeveloped as a way to encourage new advertisers to stay with AdWords, isn&#8217;t it? :(</p>
<p>It is a solvable problem, usually - or there is a fundamental reason why that site shouldn&#8217;t be found by search e.g. aggregating other people&#8217;s duplicated blogs in order to host AdSense, is unlikely to find favour with Google or users.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: C.</title>
		<link>http://blog.merjis.com/2008/03/11/adwords-died-2008-rest-in-peace/#comment-40875</link>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 Mar 2008 07:43:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://blog.merjis.com/2008/03/11/adwords-died-2008-rest-in-peace/#comment-40875</guid>
					<description>Hi Jeremy,

Fantastic article.  I signed up for Google AdWords a few days ago and have been thoroughly disgusted with its performance.  Every keyword I chose to include in my list was carefully decided upon using both common sense and Google's own "advice" -- they are as "high quality" and specific as I could make them.  Out of 21 keywords, currently a full 20 are "inactive", and I've been told I need to increase my minimum bid *per click* to $5.00 or "improve quality" to reactivate them, which is absurd -- especially since I pre-screened each using the keyword tool and was told that none would go for over 75 cents.  Curiously enough, I was told I needed to raise the bid for my own company's name in order to activate it as a keyword.  After hearing so many great things about AdWords, I was worried that I was the only one disenchanted with it.  It's nice to know other people have noticed this clear drop in value to advertisers as well.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Jeremy,</p>
<p>Fantastic article.  I signed up for Google AdWords a few days ago and have been thoroughly disgusted with its performance.  Every keyword I chose to include in my list was carefully decided upon using both common sense and Google&#8217;s own &#8220;advice&#8221; &#8212; they are as &#8220;high quality&#8221; and specific as I could make them.  Out of 21 keywords, currently a full 20 are &#8220;inactive&#8221;, and I&#8217;ve been told I need to increase my minimum bid *per click* to $5.00 or &#8220;improve quality&#8221; to reactivate them, which is absurd &#8212; especially since I pre-screened each using the keyword tool and was told that none would go for over 75 cents.  Curiously enough, I was told I needed to raise the bid for my own company&#8217;s name in order to activate it as a keyword.  After hearing so many great things about AdWords, I was worried that I was the only one disenchanted with it.  It&#8217;s nice to know other people have noticed this clear drop in value to advertisers as well.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Mike</title>
		<link>http://blog.merjis.com/2008/03/11/adwords-died-2008-rest-in-peace/#comment-40576</link>
		<pubDate>Sun, 16 Mar 2008 18:56:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://blog.merjis.com/2008/03/11/adwords-died-2008-rest-in-peace/#comment-40576</guid>
					<description>I did a search on  "domainsponsor scam " on google and your were tops on the search list. I was. The Sponsored Link was

&lt;em&gt;They're All Scams&lt;/em&gt;
These websites are absolute scams
I will show you the two that work
&lt;a href="http://www.scaminsider.com" rel="nofollow rel="nofollow"&gt;www.ScamInsider.com&lt;/a&gt;

this was the ad
 checking on the sender of a a spam email from somone offering to buy my home. It led to blogshack.com and then to domainsponser.com.
Anyway I found your article / research posted to be very interesting. It does not surprise me that even googlee is overly greeedy and now way over valued and underwhelming in its search results compared to what it used to be.
Keep up the good work</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I did a search on  &#8220;domainsponsor scam &#8221; on google and your were tops on the search list. I was. The Sponsored Link was</p>
<p><em>They&#8217;re All Scams</em><br />
These websites are absolute scams<br />
I will show you the two that work<br />
<a href="http://www.scaminsider.com" rel="nofollow rel="nofollow">www.ScamInsider.com</a></p>
<p>this was the ad<br />
 checking on the sender of a a spam email from somone offering to buy my home. It led to blogshack.com and then to domainsponser.com.<br />
Anyway I found your article / research posted to be very interesting. It does not surprise me that even googlee is overly greeedy and now way over valued and underwhelming in its search results compared to what it used to be.<br />
Keep up the good work
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
</channel>
</rss>
