The post was written the 21st, and he complained about spending $2-$3 a day on worthless Myspace traffic. At the lowest end thats $730 a year -- enough to matter.
I think we are going to be hearing more about this.
Richard Ball
· 2 years ago
FYI, Google has an AdWords help page specifically to address ad distribution on MySpace:
Not sure about the timing, but the core issue is distribution on the Search network vs the Content network. AdWords advertisers can block sites using a site exclusion tool on the Content network. There is no compatible feature for the Search network. So, if the quality of search traffic is low from MySpace, advertisers have 2 options:
1) Turn off entire Search network (and lose good traffic) 2) Run 2 campaigns (1 Google only and 1 Google+Search network)
For scenario #2, the CPC bids would be set far lower for the campaign with the Search network enabled. Because ad text and landing pages would be identical in both campaigns, it would come down to CPC and CTR. Assuming pretty similar CTRs, if the Google-only campaign had much higher CPCs, those ads would always "win" on Google, so the 2nd campaign would, essentially, be purely for the Search network.
This is a hack - a way to run ads on the Search network w/o being exposed to a large volume of garbage traffic. I've had to adopt these sorts of strategies because of click fraud on the Search network and what some are calling "distribution fraud" - Google's policy of sometimes categorizing parked domains as search sites.
I suspect MySpace search traffic will be of a slightly higher quality than traffic from parked domains but not as good as traffic from actual search engines. If the volume of traffic is very high, though, advertisers who are already wary of click fraud, will notice. Google needs to implement site exclusion for the Search network.
rosa
· 2 years ago
why does schoolhave to block myspace that really sucks
tiffany wires
· 2 years ago
hello i just wanted to say that i love jerod wilbur
tiffany wires
· 2 years ago
hello i just wanted to say that i love jerod wilbur 4 ever and always
Florence
· 2 years ago
Fascinating site and well worth the visit. I will be backa
All Comments
The post was written the 21st, and he complained about spending $2-$3 a day on worthless Myspace traffic. At the lowest end thats $730 a year -- enough to matter.
I think we are going to be hearing more about this.
http://adwords.google.com/support/bin/answer.py...
Not sure about the timing, but the core issue is distribution on the Search network vs the Content network. AdWords advertisers can block sites using a site exclusion tool on the Content network. There is no compatible feature for the Search network. So, if the quality of search traffic is low from MySpace, advertisers have 2 options:
1) Turn off entire Search network (and lose good traffic)
2) Run 2 campaigns (1 Google only and 1 Google+Search network)
For scenario #2, the CPC bids would be set far lower for the campaign with the Search network enabled. Because ad text and landing pages would be identical in both campaigns, it would come down to CPC and CTR. Assuming pretty similar CTRs, if the Google-only campaign had much higher CPCs, those ads would always "win" on Google, so the 2nd campaign would, essentially, be purely for the Search network.
This is a hack - a way to run ads on the Search network w/o being exposed to a large volume of garbage traffic. I've had to adopt these sorts of strategies because of click fraud on the Search network and what some are calling "distribution fraud" - Google's policy of sometimes categorizing parked domains as search sites.
I suspect MySpace search traffic will be of a slightly higher quality than traffic from parked domains but not as good as traffic from actual search engines. If the volume of traffic is very high, though, advertisers who are already wary of click fraud, will notice. Google needs to implement site exclusion for the Search network.