Comments on: Google’s AdWords Downfall

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 08:05:07 +0000

Adwords Changes Display URL Policy…

Google has announced that beginning the week of February 24th, they will implement a change in their Adwords policy in regards to the usage of multiple display URLs in same ad group.
From next week onwards all display URLs within an ad group must have …

By: jprofits

jprofits — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 20:31:16 +0000

Big spenders keep themselves happy. They almost always bid the most for their premium keywords keeping them in the top spot. The smaller guys will hold the lower positions because they can’t afford competing for the top spot. Google already does a good job with their SERPs (natural listings that is) and they should keep the advertising piece open to competition.
I’m not sure what the Feds would be able to do but the shareholder value could suffer if this tactic drastically reduces revenue.
I heard somewhere that Google is looking to show just ‘one perfect ad’ for each search result. I don’t think that is possible – the best CTR I have or seen/heard of was around the 50% mark. I don’t think 50% is perfect. Why not let the user chose what the perfect ad is from a handful of listings instead of just one.

By: Dizzle

Dizzle — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 21:17:08 +0000

Dang, one of the first advertisers on Google, You Old School!

I agree that you would think the cash cow aka “GOOG” would stand to make huge profits by allowing advertisers to openly bid on all brands as i see this same behavior in our vertical. BUT do you consider it a downfall or maintaining a healthy relationship with some of it’s biggest spenders? Smaller advertisers come and go so it makes sense for them to keep big spenders happy. And i can also see the perspective of creating a “relevant” SERP.

If someone searches for match or match.com it think it’s pretty obvious what they were looking for considering the huge advertising campaigns these guys do. Perfect Match on the other is not as recognized (although a trade term) therefore CPC is still within reach for competitors to garner a decent CTR aka “Historical Performance” = Cha-Ching for GOOG!

I’ve never heard of “plenty of fish” but is it possible that they have been around long enough under the radar that by the time advertisers caught on it was too late? Or was it a scenario where there used to be advertisers but as the brand grew and became more dominant for it’s own trade term that advertisers CPC slowly began to increase and advertisers disappeared?

I think you make some great points about some possible shady antics by GOOG. But if the feds ever investigated the ethical business practices they would hear the same thing we do from our account reps. “It’s the Algorithm, we have no control over that”. Unfortunately it’s their world and we just live in it.