Google's new landing page algorithm causing $10 minimum bids on thousands of sites!

aeiouy

I accept part of your argument in response to my earlier post and you raise some very valid points.

You are correct that my 1:10 conversion means that 90% of my visitors do NOT buy but that has more to do with the fact that they probably visit several competitor sites as well as mine before deciding who to purchase from. That gives them choice!

I am a big spender on Adwords (way in excess of $70k p.a.) and I am NOT so stupid as to make deliberate effort to attract visitors who I KNOW would be unlikely to buy.

Its very simple - my ads say "buy widgets online" and my site is, yes you guessed it an "online widget shop". It is NOT an "information" website - it does exactly what it says on the tin!! Inevitably people will always "shop around" hence the 1:10 sales ratio.

It has to be said that a majority of adwords advertisers are likely to be in a sales environment. It is unlikely that people will pay for "advertising", and make no mistake that is what Adwords is, for no return. Oh I know some people DO but the majority of Adwords customers are businesses NOT information providers.

The irony is that I have accepted the price increases - my position is now average 1 not average 5. My visitor numbers have tripled but my sales ratio has fallen to 1:20. Fortunately for me it is still profitable due to the increased visitor numbers but my margin per unit has fallen considerably.

If they thought it wasn't good enough before it seems a bit daft to actually encourage me to appear HIGHER on the Ads which is what they have done. My landing page remains the SAME so its "quality" actually remains unaffected.


The ONLY person gaining here is Google.

 

I've noticed everyone seems to lose - since AdWords is a self-regulating system (or at least I'd like to believe), the advertisers who're too inexperienced will stop advertising with them altogether, causing us to lose potential revenue via AdSense, leaving only the experienced ones behind. Coincidentally, the experienced Adwords users are the ones who bid the lowest, but also have simple sites. The ones with too simple conversion generating sites will either have to change or drop out altogether.

Google gets its relevancy in the end.

It'll reach equilibrium eventually, but I don't think we'll be for the better.

 

I too felt this punch! One of my campaigns is an ebook sales page, that was netting me a 5%-10% sales conversion daily on $0.10 per click, for the past 18 months. Now 86 of my 88 keywords are $5 and $10. Not 1 sale let alone a darn visitor since the algorithm adjustment...Can't afford to increase my bids when the book is only $5.97...LOL

It literally put that site out of business...Thanks Google

 

I don't think it can be broken down quite this simply. Things such as the Robinson-Patman act are at play here in the US:
"Consistent with the context in which the Robinson-Patman Act was created, the Supreme Court and the Commission have concluded that the Act is based on one fundamental principle:

to assure, to the extent reasonably practicable, that businessmen at the same functional level would stand on equal competitive footing so far as price is concerned....."

Certainly, what Google is doing seems to go against this statement, however, there are so many loopholes and exceptions, that this Act may not apply at all.

 

OMG! google is earning big time from us!
though right now, i'm kind of bidding at most 2$ per kw. well, 2$ is two dollars...it's still biggie enough.

perhaps, one could turn off its AD from content networks, since if one wud compare the leverage between the google serp from the former, the latter is pretty more effective and competitive than risking to advertise on content networks.

 

This is exactly the sort of law I am talking about. Google will not be allowed to simply charge more on a whim, it is going to be challenged in court, and it is going to HAVE to explain fully the workings of the 'quality score'. They will not be allowed to simply print a set of guidelines that are ambiguous at best, and charge different amounts without a clear charging sctructure.

Anyhow I feel I am going around and around with this so am backing out of the argument.

 

Court?? lol

If you don't agree to their new terms just stop using them. As simple as that. Why would they have to give any explanations?

 

If the actions of a company contravine the laws in place, then they can expect to land in court. Ask Microsoft who the EU courts have just slaughtered (again).

 

I'm crossing my fingers and hoping you're correct for the sake of cheaper clicks (but also somehow retaining high paying Adsense ads!).

 

If it happens it will take an AGE. the Microsoft case has been running for years, so don't exepect anything soon.

 

This is an easy one.

They raise the rates because they don't want you advertising. If you continue to pay the price and provide a bad user experience, they will, over time, increase the rate you pay even more. Until it is so high you stop advertising. Don't believe me? Try it out for the next year, I think you will come to learn that is exactly their intent. It is a lot easier them implementing bans or anything else. Force people out of the market or get them to clean up their act.

Sure it means some lesser sites can stick in for the short-haul, but as part of the long-term plan you will still see things go in the same direction, and sites deemed to be of lower quality will continue to have their bids raised until they essential dissapear or improve.

No, this is Google making a value judgment on THEIR business. They realize they have make their site useful and not just be an irrelevant spam fest when people click for information. By pushing the quality bar up, they are trying to protect their business for the long-term. They have every right to determine what they think a quality experience is for THEIR visitors.

Build a quality site that is not just a buy now button with the picture of a 15 year old kid smiling. I don't know what your site looks like, so I am not making any specific judgements on you or your site. Your site may well be of the higest quality for content. Yet this is a new inititative and is unlikely to be perfect out of the gate. So some people will be damaged. They have procedures for people to get manual reviews, and from what I have seen most of those people were told tough luck, which tells me that the algo is doing what Google wants it to do, for the most part. It is likely to improve over time. The fact that some people may have quality sites and get a poor score does not negate the intent or need for the entire program.

You are completely missing the point. Again things like conversions are irrelevant because almost all visitors do not want to buy anything when they click on an ad. I also notice that the people who are not having any problems don't seem mystified or stumped as to why they did not get their bids jacked up. It only seems to be a Nancy Drew Novel for a segment of people.

Please drop the mis-guided Anti-trust talk. There is not a thread of substance to that in regards to these changes.

 

Because 75% of the people still did not necessarily have a good experience. Even if you sold 25% you still may not have provided a good experience for the overwhelming majority of visitors. That is the crux of the issue. Google has EVERY RIGHT to dictate this. Just like I have every right to dictate to people who advertise on my sites what I want from them if they want to advertise on my site. Just like every medium and entity that accepts advertising has the right to dictate what advertisers do and not do as it relates to the customers/visitors they are providing.

You don't have to like it, but you also don't have to pay google for their visitors.

Until you do take off the salesman's hat you will never solve this problem. It is that simple. You are not alone in your position or attitude, but it is not going to get you anywhere. As long as you think YOUR conversion rate is the only thing that matters you will not do what is necessary to make your campaigns effective as AdWords goes forward and as the other programs will eventually follow. If people think that ultimately Overture and Adcenter won't end up going down the same path in months or years, they are kidding themselves.

Because maybe the visitor is curious? Maybe they do not intend to buy one today or tomorrow, but they want to get some information on the razr, perhaps some reviews, feedback, specs etc so they can learn more about it. If I walk into a brick and mortar store and ask a salesperson a question, they don't throw me out because I am not going to buy that very second. At least not any store that wants to stay in business.

If 10% of your visitors convert, 90% did not convert. Where those 90% happy when they were done?

That is the point, you shouldn't deliver them a load of crap page. If that is what you think the resolution is to this, you won't be happy. You should deliver them a useful and potentially informative page that also makes a reasonable sales pitch.

Because maybe I typed in razr battery in Google to get some information on the types of batteries available, the sizes, how long they last and what they are priced. Perhaps I am doing research for a few months down the road. You have to figure out why someone might type in "razr battery" in Google besides just wanting to buy one right now... and then help answer their query.

It is not relevant to this change taken by Google because most people who click on those ads are not looking to buy now. So if you sell 15% with your great landing page but piss off 50% of the people who clicked on the ad because you did not provide the information they were looking for, and the other 35% of the people were indifferent, well you created a bad experience for most visitors, which is BAD for Google and ultimately bad for you. The fact that 15% converted does not matter. The only time it would matter is if you were able to convert 80% of your clicks into sales.

Well there you go. If you have that information available you need to make sure people clicking on the ad have access to it in a clear manner so they can see it without guessing. That is all. If you already have a full-featured content site on the keywords, then you simply need to work on integrating access to that more on your landing page so people looking for that information can get to it.

Again what Google wants matters because it is their traffic, and if people stop clicking on ads because they are not delivering what the visitors want, they go out of business. As long as they have traffic they will always have advertisers. If they have no traffic they will have no advertisers.

I would love to hear in what way this contravines EU trading laws.

People selling advertising all over the world put restrictions on what advertisers can do in relations to their ads and also charge premiums for some content. This is not any different than the magazine that won't take the ad from the grow light firm, or the tabloid who charges an adult service twice as much for ad space in the back of their paper as anyone else.

You are not entitled to advertise in adwords for whatever price you determine is fair. Google has set the rules for advertising on their site, just like a million other webmasters. Just like you probably do.

Would you let me take on a donkey porn ad on your site that then went to a fake page to steal people's bank information? If not, should I contact the EU officials and claim unfair?

I understand that a lot of people were seriously impacted in a negative way by this.... However, I can guarantee you it is not going away, and it is only going to become more fully enforced as we move forward. So either focus on alternatives or figure out how to make the new Adwords work for you. Waiting for regulation or for some divine intervention is simply going to leave you with nothing.

 

AEIOUY sorry but IMO your talking through your backside, you are comparing apples with oranges here, you are selectively editing statements to suit your argument, and the best bit is you simply do not understand sales and selling in the least (or at least that is how it appears to me). If you did then you wouldn't be taking this stance.

I am typing here through gritted teeth as your patronising talk down holier than though style is a little grating to me. but I guess that is my problem not yours, so If I appear a little 'edgy' this is the reason. The reason being the patronising statements you make such as

i FULLY understand the psychology of selling and I do not need to be taught thanks.

I don't want to get into a long post so will pick bits.

You said

My point being that if you typed in Razr battery your WOULD be sent to a different page with more information on as I would not deliver the traffic for Razr battery and BUY razr battery to the same page, for the VERY reason you stated.

If this is happening then the PPC campaign itself is at fault NOT the landing page. If you are delivering browsers to a buying page then the ad is badly written. Stop words should stop this from happening.

So then it is simple BAN the poor pages, simply refuse to accept them. In your last few paras you say you would love to know how this contravenes EU trading laws, but you go on to state EXACTLY how it does.

I think you and I are talking again at cross purposes here either I am not explaining right or you are not hearing right, so I will again explain this. In the EU you MUST have transparency in charging if I have to pay more for the same product as you, then under EU trading laws I have a LEGAL RIGHT to know EXACTLY why. Not some half arsed schoolkid explanation of 'your pages are not good enough'.

This is the crux of my argument right here with this regard. Do Google have the right to refuse to allow advertisers to advertise? DAMN RIGHT they do. Do they have the right to charge different rates without ABSOLUTE clear explanation? NO they do not. And it is this that will get them into hot water. To stay on the right side of the law, Google must REFUSE to accept the advert, NOT try to extort money in the way they are. THIS was the advice I was given, and as the chap is a civil litigation specialist, I will assume that he knows MUCH more than you and I combined. Whether anyone takes action on this is another matter though, as it is likely to cost a lot of money to litigate.

I have stated this before but I will state it again, as you keep replying to me about 'MY ADS' I do NOT use adwords, I do NOT sell anything, I have ABSOLUTELY no axe to grind here other than what I believe is right and wrong, and this IMO is wrong.

 

Well it looks like Google's goal of removing arbitrage is working:
http://www.alexa.com/data/details/t...e=large&compare_sites=&y=t&url=8bestsites.com

Too bad that they have taken sooooo many innocent sites out with them.

So how long now before people start cloaking their PPC landing pages?

 

6. You can make money without doing evil.

Google is a business. The revenue the company generates is derived from offering its search technology to companies and from the sale of advertising displayed on Google and on other sites across the web. However, you may have never seen an ad on Google. That's because Google does not allow ads to be displayed on our results pages unless they're relevant to the results page on which they're shown. So, only certain searches produce sponsored links above or to the right of the results. Google firmly believes that ads can provide useful information if, and only if, they are relevant to what you wish to find.

Source: http://www.google.com/corporate/tenthings.html

 

For a first post, I probably could have picked a better subject, lol.

Here's what I believe -- I agree with the basic thrust of the interview JenSense did with DaveN. Google isn't trying to stop arbitrage... they are weeding out the small players that want to dabble in arbitrage.

Go look the the known high priced keywords and niches. Things like "buy insurance". Tons of arbitrage pages of one kind or another. Almost all of them squeeze pages. Very little content.

I spent a lot of time on the phone with Google support last week. Coming out of these changes I had keywords that saw their bids go up, others that weren't on hold but showing no traffic -- the usual set of problems people are having.

Here's what I noticed:

On the account(s) that spend the most, there was the least set of problems. In fact, when the spend was over $20k a month there were no problems. ALL groups split test, all use landing pages, all use namesqueeze with little content on the landing page.

On some landing pages I didn't have a TOS/disclaimer/anti-spam policy on the page. I fixed this and the problems went away within 24 hours.

On the tiny acocunts I use for sandboxing, arbitrage, etc. I had issues. After talking with support the various people told me:

-- make sure the page has a TOS/anti-spam policy if you are using namesqueeze
-- content on the landing page helps. Even adding a form field that asks a question will help. Long sales page with optin will score higher than classic namesqueeze.
-- links out from the page are desirable and will score better.
-- scoring is just that -- a number. It is filtered by the history of the account.
-- topical match on the landing page with the keyword in the search scores higher.

I asked for clarification on the issue of "history". It was said that all accounts get a history based on previous quality scores and the type of landing pages used in the past. Accounts with poor history score low, hence bid prices go up. These would include accounts that used the google cash approach, review pages, etc.

So, my two cents here stinks -- spend more. The problems seem to go away.

There may not be a very long tail to adwords revenue wise. If this is true, then G's actions are just a way to make the smaller players pay more in the short term and to prevent keyword blasting.

 

AEIOUY: How long have you worked for Google again? I forgot.

Did you ever answer my question about how this differs from my newspaper advertising analogy below?

You want to take out an ad in your local newspaper promoting your pet supplies store. Your competitors are mainly the big chain stores; we'll call them Megapets. You go see the paper's advertising dept. and they give you a rate card. Then you go to your graphic artist, who designs you a killer, camera-ready ad with a coupon. The paper starts running the ad and you get a lot of business...the ad pays for itself and then some.

Two weeks later, the publisher calls you and says, "Thanks for the ad, Bob. Very nicely done and professional looking. I'm glad it's working well for you. "However, I drove by your store today and saw it was in a bad neighborhood. Your door was painted red when all the others were painted earth tones. The paint on your building was faded. The sidewalk was cracked. I called the phone number and it went to voice mail. Even if they're buying from you, I think it's causing your customers to have a negative experience.

“Megapets doesn’t have these problems, so I'm afraid we're going to have to raise your rates. We'll still run the ad, but you need to pay us 100 times more for it; otherwise, we won't accept it. Have a nice day."

Or, it could be worse. The publisher says, "Yes, we know your store looks as nice as MegaPets. It's in an even better neighborhood, too. However, for reasons we can't tell you exactly, our computer has decided your store is providing a worse user experience than MegaPets. Therefore, you will have to pay us 100 times more than MegaPets does for the same sized ad."

Of course, you ask, "Well, I note that MegaPets advertises in ALL 100 of your publishing company's newspapers...they are one of your biggest clients. Could that have something to do with it?" And they answer, "We're not able to answer that, Bob. Have a nice day."

To which you respond, "OK. Expect to hear from my attorney, the FTC, and the state attorney general's office shortly. Have a nice day." ​

​

As I posted in another thread, their actions arbitrary and capricious. Discriminatory. So far, you haven't shown anything to change my mind.

 

Mr critic, this is EXACTLY the argument I have put but no one seems to want to answer. I fear you are banging your head against a brick wall.

 

I wish I was in Wales instead of the wacked out fascist hole that America has been become.

 

Aeiou,

I'm not sure what to say. You clearly see no value in any case that any one is making to the contrary of your arguments. As I have said before, I UNDERSTAND WHAT Google is attempting to do. I'm fine with their attempts to clean out amateur sites working on arbitrage, etc. I'm not fine with them forcing content down the throats of advertisers. It's bizarre. What about the world class photographer who has a $100k flash based website. Their algorithm can't read it, so he's lumped in with the trash. It's just plain amazing that Google is tripping over their own feet this way. As someone said earlier, they clearly have missed their own "Do no evil" motto on this one.

That's a HECK of a leap in logic there. Try this on for size:
It tells ME that perhaps Google is a company that values the ALGORITHM over all things human and that overriding the decision of their algorithm is nearly impossible.

Trust me, I've been fighting the good fight for over a week with them now, and they have given me contradictory information EVERY TIME regarding why I have been blacklisted. My conclusion is that until I make their bot happy, I'm beating my head against the wall. So, at this point, I'm putting up a site full of content, adding some content that my users don't want to see cluttering up my landing pages, then I'm going to wait for the bot to clear me - which I'm sure, will eventually happen. I know their bots well, I'm #1 for the vast majority of my keywords on the natural result side, so don't just assume that I'm some "15 year old" who threw up a garbage website and is being justly penalized.