From Great to poor in the last few hours...

Anything you do to make the "user experience" better is a plus. The more you follow the common advise that safer you are.
From what I've heard you can expect a few (1 or 2?) slaps a year. Looks like many aff. marketers make it threw and many do not (50/50?).
I'm pretty sure they do not target accounts without explicitly telling you. I think they do target domain names altough G. will not even admit it.

thebigbreak, I agree. This should be obvious to anyone with a little common sense and perspective.

No see my previous post
http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=3414722&postcount=85

I've read of multiple merchands being hit as well.

I suspect there is some confusion here, not just you but in general. The huge majority of aff. Marketer have highly relevant content. However a few not even real affiliates, play the arbitrage game. They are many variations to the arbitrage game. For exemple they pay $0.10 for a click from Adwords that goes to a page of listing from Yahoo, hoping you will click one of then so they can make a $1, so they pocket $.90 profit. In fact I've seen some of the arbitrage players make money off of my $2 clicks, by listing my ad on those landing pages. So many aff. marketers actually lose money to those sites.

As an affiliate marketer there is no worse scenario then someone clicking my ad with that reaction. If I paid $2/click for some user, who had your reaction on my page, I would not last very long in this field.

I'm not 100% sure about this, since I'm not an arbitrage specialist. But some of these PPCers actually use scripts the display search results from both Google and Yahoo. So if anything both these search engines are complicit to this practice and could stop it over night if they wanted.

Don’t be so critic of affiliate marketers most work hard and many end up being more relevant then merchants themselves.

 

Spirited thread. I'm enjoying this.

I dabbled in arbi, successfully in some niches, until the changes last Fall. Like others, I said, "No, this won't stop it." But it has. And in fact, I see so few of those raw, pure-MFA, 7BestSites type of ads that when I clicked onto one last week, I had to do a double-take.

So Google's changes, no matter how hated, do often have a positive effect.

I'll pare this down to the essentials--for me, at least. If I were running print ads and the newspaper, 1.) made drastic, mysterious changes in policy without giving advance notice; and 2.) never explained those mysterious changes and simply let me flounder while my business took a huge hit, I would be royally mad. I drop thousands on Google. Google freely draws from my credit card. I am a customer. They seem to lose sight of this.

 

you're absolutely right. problem is, as long as they have such a dominant market position they can afford to lose sight of this...

 

I would love to see some of those accounts. I was having a few beers this weekend with an associate of mine and his account had some issues Friday as well. He's in the service industry and has never really had any AdWords related issues. I took a quick look at his setup and identied a few things right off the bat (affiliate "footprint") that were probably hurting him. He made some changes yesterday and already today (hell of a lot faster than I thought) those $10 minimum bids are returning to "normal".

In terms of AdWords scoring I view the privacy policy as a "signal" G' can use when algorithmically rating websites. All other factors being equal a site with a privacy policy is "better" than a site without one.

I do some affiliate stuff myself but honestly, I would say "most" affiliate content is just recycled junk. "Most" affiliates don't provide anything of any value above and beyond what you would get directly from the merchant. I've run affiliate programs too and the majority of affiliates are just looking for an easy dollar...kind of the equivalent to the MFA pages. There are a lot of good affiliates out there but I think the ones who provide exceptional value are the exception to the rule, not the rule.

 

What changes did your friend make that brought his bids back to normal? Many of us would love to know!

 

Wrote a little content, added some navigation, opened up the about us, contact us and privacy policy pages to the bot, removed some "you may also like" affiliate product links and pulled some links to his buddy's poker sites out of the footer. He also redid his destination urls in order to send people to more targeted pages within the site. It was just AdWords 101 to me but to him, a guy that doesn't live a breathe PPC, it was stuff he would have never considered. He runs a service business that's not PPC and doesn't have the time or resources to become an AdWords pro.

 

I understand that google is trying to control the content of the destination site, but what really bothers me is that they think they know what good/appropriate content is. All this landing page nonsense, keyword density....

As an example with the Kodak Digital camera... If I started a campaign and targeted people looking at safaris in Africa... Now I would recommend a really great camera through an affiliate scheme for someone looking for a trip like this, maybe talk about some great luggage to go with it... I wouldn't even have to talk about Africa in particular, maybe I talk about all photogenic holidays so Google would punish me for being off topic, when in reality, I am more on topic than 95% of the bucket airline people, and would contribute more the end user experience than most campaigns.... I am not looking for clicks from people looking for airline tickets, but I am looking for people who are looking for African safaris and will probably need a camera (this is the intelligent part Google should be supporting).

I guess this is where google and I disagree

If you want a BBQ steak, I think you would like some potatoes with that (and I will try to sell you some through an affiliate scheme), while Google would rather I sell BBQ's

 

I look at it this way - someone searching for a camera will search for a camera and someone searching for a trip will search for a trip. AdWords is reactive marketing - you give someone what they asked for - vs. the proactive forms of marketing - give them what you think they might be looking for - used elsewhere. If you want to get proactive here's how I would approach it.

Using your example above here's how I see that working, without any QS penalty. Quick example.

Bid on:

african safari

broad match it and load up on the negatives, or, just use exact match & more terms.

One of your ads:

Off to Africa?
Remember your African Safari.
Don't forget your camera!
www.catchy-u-r-l.com

Now your landing page talks about safaris and gives a bunch of examples of african safari photography. Maybe it's evn written by someone who's taken pictures while on an African safari. It's content rich and has all the right elements. That affiliate link to to a camera shop is good for you and the user. Everyone wins.

The AdWords system is pretty flexible, it's all about how you set things up.

 

While I like your clear cut approach, and your catchy ads.
This campaign idea for african safaris is not very scalable, and scalable is what I am looking for. I don't believe I should write a different landing page for every type of Holiday just to advertise the same camera. This would fill my site with loads of holiday crap, when I should be filling it with genuine info on cameras.

I understand that Google is reactive, I get that, but now they punish me for being proactive. A reactive system favors ebay and froogle... fully coded automated systems, and a coded automated system leads to a crappy soulless internet.. but not the little guy niche carving. Instead of writing ads for content, I would just automate my content off my ads, talk about the tail wagging the dog

I think the landing page should talk more about the camera, describing how it works in different light conditions, and that it uses AA batteries (since you aren't sure you will be able to get plug in power on vacation). How it is robust to handle rough travel, how its digital so that you won't worry about having your negatives destroyed by new more powerful airport screening equipment. All very good information for a person taking a trip of a lifetime, and so you should get a great new camera to take wonderful pictures

Notice how I haven't used the word african safari once, in fact I am going to make another ad called, and point it to the same site.

Remember your Artic Adventure.
Take Pictures of the Polar Bears Before they Die out
Don't forget your camera!
www.catchy-u-r-l.com

 

It's very scalable. Dynamic pages.

What do your potential customers believe? The more targeted that landing page, the better it will convert. All those pages can be dynamically generated - no need to fill your sites with loads of holiday crap.

I'd say a reactive system favors the consumer. Using the quick example I provided above you could be proactive without any potential high min bids.

Imagine a result set of paid ads where all of them were doing what you're suggesting. I search for african safari and I get ads for hiking boots, jeeps, airline tickets, hats, tents, etc, etc....everything except for actual info on African safari's. I search for place tickets and get ads about hotels, vacations, credit cards, & restaraunts. I search for new cars and get ads for car magazines, floor mats, air fresheners, tires, oil change coupons and my local car wash. See where I'm going with this? All the ads are "related" so what's the problem? The problem is the user did not find what they were looking for.

Falling back to your camera example above...I'd say if you want to sell a camera bid on the camera terms. If you want to sell an african safari bid on african safari terms. If you want to sell a camera for an african safari bid on the right terms, write your ad correctly and make a landinag page that makes the user feel like your page answered their question or gave them the info the need.

 

Automatically generate content blows -- we all know this. We all use it, but I will not admit that its better than hand written targeted content

Lets not confuse SERPS with paid ads, The African Safari people should still own the serps, I concede that. They have the info and so should be informative (which is why they don't pay)....

"Imagine a result set of paid ads where all of them were doing what you're suggesting. I search for african safari and I get ads for hiking boots, jeeps, airline tickets, hats, tents, etc, etc... everything except for actual info on African safari's."

The paid ads are just that -- paid ads, if I think my product will sell, I am paying for that risk. I may even concede and agree to have to pay a little more than the safari people, but with google driving the prices to $10 (which is where this Thread is started on), I don't even get to advertise at all in this category. All those things are valid advertisements, useful for people on safari, aren't those things useful to the user experience. Until recently the users backed my opinion (by clicking on the ads), which helped google do the quality score. Now in our imaginary campaign we are paying 10 a click.


OK imagine I have an african safari site, which is high in the SERPS, should the only adds be for african safaris (competing with me), or can I make some money off so people buying ads for tents and cameras

next thing you will be saying is that I shouldn't get to advertise dating sites and deodorant to people searching for old star Trek episodes

 

It really makes no sense for Google to continue to narrow the gap and purpose between serps and ads. It will only hurt them in the long run.

 

I just relaunched a campaign that had been slapped hard. Turned it from a landing page to a landing site. Let's see how it goes...

 

retrocode0071 and GuyFromChicago you are both making a case.

I personally would prefer the site made by retrocode0071 (I'm direct don't like data all over the screen, all those distractions don't compute well for me) doesn't mean the idea site from GuyFromChicago suck's. In fact I bet my wife would prefer GuyFromChicago's site. I can see her calling me "Come her hunny, look at that beautiful elephant and the color of the foliage, I think we should get that camera". I would think (how much?, when?, how does it work because I WILL be the one reading the manual).

There is room for both your sites they appeal to different people. There is probably even a third (the one that want the most expensive exclusive stuff, gold plated limited edition) and forth type of person ...etc....
Each affiliate marketer based on his own set of skill can cater to a particular type of buyer.

Diversity is part of the world. Google is denying that by forcing everyone to fit the mold, because of its limited technical abilities to recognize the natural diversity that DOES exist.

I use to be a Google fan because Google improved the internet playing field with a lot of key concepts that were brilliant, but now in its position of dominance its distorting it, in a negative way.

You are also both as funny:

Got to go and do some work now....

 

Just read the whole thread and found it very interesting.

1) Had a conversation with my Google contact here in Dublin and was (unofficially) told that Google is aiming to get rid of affiliate marketers and arbitragers. Actually he didn't said this openly, but the meaning of his words sounded quite clear to me. What do you think about it?

2) Do you think QS could penalise such sites as Kelkoo or Shopping.com just because they do not provide original content but they merely aggregate third-party feeds?

Thanks.

 

Very interesting disucssions...

It seems to me the interim solution is to clone the old domain. I have a loyal user base from my old domain, and I really don't want to give up my old domain. However, with the old domain, I am going to be broke using google adwords.

If I clone a site froom OldDomain.com to NewDomain.com, how do I deal with duplicate content issue? Should I run a 301 redirect from OldDomain.coom to NewDomain.com for the interim until I add more unique content to the OldDomain.com?

Will 301 redirect hint google bot that it is the same affiliate site and raise the bid price again.

For those who have cloned the site, do you have any success in reducing the minimum bid?

For those who don't clone the site, do you have any success in reducing the minimum bid with landing page optimization?

Not sure how to deal with duplicate content issue in the short term....anyone????

 

Hi Learned guys over here..Could you please help on this

I have integrated stats package from ewebcounter into my site...Shockingly for me it shows that almost 65% of user that is referred from adwords view my site for exactly one sec. this is just impossible unless it is a fake click..i am sure users would stay at my site at least a little longer..

Doesnt Google fight fake clicks. Also isnt it logical that a site visit of less than 5 sec thru adwords click be considered fake click.

Also sometimes it shows stats like user:unknown Ip address : unknown . It costs me real big money.

Can anyone please help tackle this problem.

Do i need to integrate google analytics or ww.ewebcounter.com stats package is enough for me.

Please help

 

From what I read, if you change the domain name and want to keep PR. You should use 301 redirect.

I do not think this is publicly disclosed by G.
Officially, you have 2 separate bots from Google "at play":
Search engine with User-Agent: Googlebot
Adwords with User-Agent: Adsbot-Google

http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?answer=40364

I hope someone can answer your excellent questions:

I would also be useful if someone could give a scale of the reduction, like $10->$0.05 or $.45-.03.

I personally suspect G has a type of manual "penalize" flag and/or maybe a manual "Skip Original Content Check" flag. It next to impossible to develop a unique algo. that applies to all sites. Since the value of sites can be diametrally opposed: ie. One being valuable for the great original content and one being equaly valuable with no original content at all.

A page, I used in the past for my news (don't use it anymore...):
http://news.google.com/nwshp?tab=wn&hl=en&ned=us

It's one of many examples of how some content can be very relevant to its user without being original. They are many, many, valid cases like that.

That page has a PR6, so it is not tagged "duplicate content".

Now if I want to start a business that aggregates news for people interested in anything about China ? I probably be taking a huge business risk unless Google can provide for exceptions.

Thanks for sharing that. I'm suspecting there is something brewing, so many reports like yours. However it's nearly a 50/50 in terms of what you can read on the net. I understand why you have 2 strong arguments in both directions:
- It's false:
I don't understand how your rep. in Dublin and other reports of rep. saying the same thing to their clients could true, without this being a little more official. From my experience working in the IT dep. of some huge compagnies, the actual direct customer rep. is one of the last ones to know what we are doing with our systems in the IT department. If the leakeage of the news, "G is aiming to get rid of affiliate marketers and arbitragers", was that widespread you would expect some bigger leak nearly semi-official by now, no ?
- It's true:
Many first hand accounts in different countries of their rep telling them that.

adwordsitaly when your rep. told you this information, what was is the tone ?
Like, "it's matter of time before you go down"/"Your days are numbered"
or
"try to stay on your toes to avoid the slaps this will probably last a little while"/"Try to stick around/adapt"

It is! Adwords is becoming a SEO game. It's like Adsbot-Google and Googlebot are becoming clones ?

Cheers,
Chris

 

lo, this is turning into SEO discussion!

 

I wouldn't call it a suspect. it's a certainty. We were told by Google that everything depended from an algorithm. But this is only PARTIALLY true. Google relies on a "Quality Team" to evaluate the advertisers' websites/landing pages.

This means that AdWords' editorial guidelines do not necessarily apply objectively to all advertisers/landing pages. What worries me is that quality has become subjective. This gives too much power to Google, allowing them to accept or refuse (not openly though) advertisers.

In my opinion they wouldn't tell openly they do not want any Yahoo's distribution partners or affiliate marketers buying advertising on AdWords. Money is money. They need to keep their "don't be evil" image safe and at the same time they have to make those advertisers' lives difficult.

Your days are numbered. Definately. But they've been telling this for 1 year now. And we always found a solution or workaround to overcome difficulties.

Dealing with an algorithm is much simpler. You understand how it works and you build your websites and landing pages accordingly. You're right. It's become an SEO activity...

But what if there's a human being deciding whether your website or landing page is good or not? How can we deal with people who do not apply any rule but their own arbitrary choices?

That is the question...