OK one thing that has always troubled me was the whole site targeting issue. Does anyone know if it is possible for someone to setup a site targeted campaign on your site site that would actually result in decreased earnings? Or when a site tries to place a targeted advertisement on your site via your AdSense units does it still have outbid/out perform other ads in your inventory. I often have a lot of advertiser approach me wanting to advertise on my site with their banner ads, but I'm unwilling place banner ads in place of my Google ads because my Google ads traditional earn a lot more than the perspective advertisers are offer to pay to replace them. So would it be smart of me to direct them to advertise via my Google Ads using a site targeted campaign?
Burta, This always confused me as well. I was under an impression that all site targetted ads are CPM based. CPM based ads means they will pay by impressions, I am sure you know that. So effectively we will get paid by rate $$ per 1000 impressions. Say for example they set $2 per 1000 impressions. That means every 1000 impressions we will get $2 and it won't count any clicks. They can get upto 20 clicks from those 1000 impressions but you will only get $2 and wont get paid for those clicks. That means we are at a loosing side by showing those CPM ads which are not paid for clicks. The site targetted ads are good for huge sites with millions of impressions but probably not good for us. I might be wrong..but thats what i thought.
Yeah I had also read around the place the site targeting was based on a CPM payout rate, and I don't really mind that too much as long as Google are still serving ads using their "highest performing" algorithm where they calculate which ads will result in the highest earnings. I mean I can appreciate that rotating ads etc would actually increase earnings by reducing ad blindness because the changing of ads offered even if that meant occasionally displaying lower value ads - I mean I'd like to think this is what they are using in their ads display algorithm, but I have never seen anyone test it or report results and Google has never made any mention of it. And I mean with the recent changes in the AdSense ad display with there being no more "Advertise on this site" link I'm wondering whether I should be personally pushing for my advertisers to consider specifically targeting ads to my sites or whether this would ultimately result in a reduction in earnings or would only increase the inventory of ads offered and the amount of competition for my ads spots and result in the CPC being driven up. I have emailed Google about this question but they haven't seemed to have replied as yet.
you are right burta. However i am not very clear on the payout rates of CPM ads. If you are really in CPM ads why dont you try Feedburner? Feedburner is great with CPM ads and their rates one of the best. I got some ads paying $8 CPM and never seen a ad paying less than $1. They take their commission which is 50% i guess but not bad. You can display ads in feed and on your site. I haven't tested it out site yet but i soon will.
I've never seen CPM pay me more than 1 cent. It's a total waste, I'm thinking of getting rid of all of my image ads and using another service. The link ads seem to be doing ok, although not great either.
Well it makes sense - and if that is what they said I'm inclined to believe them. I mean there is no real incentive for them to lie - and after all if the revenue split is 50-50 it is also within Google's interest for publishers to earn as much as possible as well.
well, of course its a feather in their cap to say it's an incentive, it increases their sales. Personally I just have not seen this do any benefit.
the eCPM we have on a particular channel is the CPM-price to outbid for by site targetted ads. Burta re "Advertise on this site" of course we still have that text - but we have to place that code ourselves at places we prefer. Google offers the code for the "Advertise on this site" link. my personal experience with several site targetted advertisers is excellent - they have contributed to vivid competition in bidding and my adsense revenue clearly is much better with than without site targetted ads, in addition G offers targettable channels for those who have taken the time to implement a true and elaborate system of channels - a system from the advertisers point of view !! I have used up the total number of channels offered at this time by G to assist my advertisers in optimizing their campaigns ... this helps ME to optimize my revenue as well
If only Google provided the webmaster with enough channels and enough filters to effectively manage their site portfolio. It's my belief that you would be spending a lot of extra time and hassle worrying about managing advertisers through referal then trying to figure out if it really was effective than just letting the CPC model work for you. It's the if it ain't broke don't fix it model. If the consensus truly were that CPM paid more than CPC at least 50% of the time then it might be worth the hassle. But I believe that to be a more isolated case by case thing, probably not worth investing too much of your time in.
G gives all 200 channels i have one single very large site and use all channels thats nearly enough for a perfect job i invested some 300+ hours in february to optimize adsense - the results are published in my blog as well as a few threads here if several k$ / m is too little to make such extra efforts ... how much more then you need ? I have nothing to manage with site advertisers - G does all the work I set up all the channels the way I feel the advertisers benefits most - in return the advertisers let me benefit most
this has troubled me for a while as well, although i cant leave my full response (cause im at work and ill take to much time) its a good read.
site targetted ads will work well if your site is loved by advertisers. I also wonder if advertisers have to pay high for CPM ads if your average eCPM is higher. Is it so?
The whole reason I brought this issue up is because I'm currently wasting too much time with advertisers presently who are hassling me to advertise in different areas of my sites that Google are presently being displayed - that is why I was wondering just telling them to using Site Targetting via AdWords is the way to go. Of course this would mean that I'd probably lose a big chunk of advertising revenue from not doing it personally but at the same time it would save me a whole lot of issues. I mean I literally waste hours having the same debates with different advertisers over and over and over again, and I even have the same debates multiple times with the same advertisers that just can't seem to get it through their thick heads that my primary purpose is not to advertise their site and taking a loss in revenue for the sake of their site is not within my interests... . Well considering Google is always looking to get the maximum revenue I would imagine that if Site Targeting advertisers wanted to get reasonably good exposure they would indeed have to be offering higher than the eCPM for the site.
yeah that seems more logical burta..good luck with CPM ads..i keep getting them often..never seen any real diff in payouts so it looks ok
site targettting - a beautiful way to increase bidding of course they have to pay according to yoiur overall eCPM the more your site is in demand - the more they have to pay - I am sure my advertisers have to pay a lot if I look at the numbers on G-check monthly but i am very sure that they also earn a lot because i offer the absolute top placements to assure they make top business-$ you get what you give them there is a reason why ATF is the placement G asks for their top customers