Google Introduces Account Snapshot Page for AdWords

Google has a released a Beta version of its new Account Snapshot page for summarizing the information from your AdWords account. The snapshot page looks something like this:



The page is divided into 3 main sections.

1. The top-left portion is for Alerts, Status Notifications and Announcements
2. The bottom-left portion contains links to Help and Tips
3. The right-hand side contains configurable campaign performance summaries and an interactive graph illustrating either Cost, Clicks, Impressions, or CTR data

You can also select whether to make this page your starting page when logging in, or the familiar Campaign Summary page.

Personally, although the Snapshot page does contain some useful information, I don't see it being of any real benefit to serious AdWords users. The data it contains is too general and I shall be surprised if I ever use it as everything I need is on the Campaign Summary page.

Having said that, it's good to see that Google is continually seeking to improve the AdWords experience by its ongoing efforts to add new functionality, services and an improved interface.

Tags: adwords

My Comments on "Lost Rankings Due to Site Redesign or Spam?"

Jill Whalen has just published an interesting Q&A in her well-known "High Rankings Advisor" newsletter entitled "Lost Rankings Due to Site Redesign or Spam?" This article, which I recommend you read in its entirety, contains some very interesting and provocative points worthy of discussion.

Summary

To briefly summarize the scenario Jill described, Company X had their web site redesigned and, afterwards, their Google rankings went way down. Jill discovered that the SEO company they had hired was using some pretty questionable SEO practices.

Jill made two statements in particular that I would like to look at further.

"I don’t believe in relying on search engine rankings in order to successfully run your business"

Thank you Jill for reaffirming what I have written about previously (see under the heading "Don't Put All Your Eggs in One Basket" in my article "A Holistic Approach to Internet Marketing"), that any business that is dependent on being found in organic search results is being built on shaky ground. As I also mentioned in a recent post regarding Paid Links,

Google owes site owners nothing when it comes to organic search results and is free to rank its search results however it sees fit.

Now, I certainly don't condone the practices employed by the SEO company that Jill mentioned in her article. However, I also think Company X was wrong in making its business dependent on achieving certain rankings from Google and it is sad that someone had to be laid off as a result of their rankings dropping.

It needs to be remembered that Google's mission is "to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful," not to provide free marketing avenues to the world's businesses. It is generally recognized that Google has been actively trying to devalue commercial web pages in its search results so that informational pages are ranked higher. This is so that users of its search engine actually get information rather than commerical promotion when they search but it's also a way to encourage businesses to use the tool that Google has supplied for marketing via search, AdWords.

If you are building your business on Google's (or Yahoo's, or anyone else's) search results, think again because it is very shaky ground and not good business sense.

I’m quite sure that . . . there will be lawsuits based on this kind of bad SEO

Well, as you'll know if you're a regular reader of this blog, legal issues are a particular love of mine so this comment was just too provocative for me to ignore.

So, is this a realistic possibility and, if so, what would someone need to establish in order to successfully file such a lawsuit (in the U.S., that is)?

Well, I'll try to avoid getting too "legalesey" on you. In order to win such a lawsuit the action would probably be one based on negligence and one of the key elements you would need to establish (among several others) is as follows:

If the defendant undertakes to render any service in a recognized profession or trade . . . she is held, at a minimum, to the standard of care customarily exercised by members of that profession or trade--whether or not she personally possesses such skills. (Emphasis in original.)

(Quoted from Heath v. Swift Wings, Inc, 1979 in Gilbert's Law Summaries: Torts).

What this means in practice is that you would need to establish that your SEO company engaged in (bad) practices that would not generally be engaged in by members of the SEO profession. However, there are 2 key points here.

1. Is SEO a "Recognized Profession or Trade?"

Without engaging in some full-blown legal research to discover whether any court has ever held that SEO is a recognized profession, this really is an open-ended question. However, in my opinion, given the vast number of SEO professionals and SEO companies that exist around the world, I would find it hard to imagine that this profession wouldn't be recognized.

Do you think SEO is a recognized profession? Why? Why not?

2. Is there a set of practices that are generally held to be acceptable and unacceptable among SEO professionals?

This point is really where the rubber hits the road. In order to establish a set of "generally acceptable SEO practices" you would probably need to consult some expert witnesses that were leading lights in the SEO field, such as Jill Whalen herself! However, do the well-known names in SEO agree as to what are and are not "generally acceptable SEO practices?" Another pretty open-ended question.

Personally, I think there are some generally recognized "good practices" and some generally recognized "bad practices." Between those extremes is a gray area or practices that may be categorized more as "personal preferences" or practices that some people believe work, perhaps even with good reason, but that others believe are merely SEO superstitions.

It certainly will be an interesting day in court when an SEO company is being sued for losing a company business due to its bad SEO practices and I can't wait to see what happens! Also, as Jill indicates, it really is just a matter of time before this happens, so if you're working for an SEO company or are an SEO professional yourself, make sure that you find out which practices are acceptable in your profession and make sure you use them, and only them, or you could eventually find yourself on the wrong end of a negligence lawsuit.

Tags: seo, negligence, lawsuit, google, jill whalen

Google and Paid Links

As you've probably seen, there has been a lot of discussion lately about Google and their opposition to Paid Links. Rather than discuss this exact issue though, I'd like to share my thoughts in response to a post on seoclass.com entitled "Google Wants to Tell You How to Run Your Website."

Background
However, first of all I think a little background is needed. This whole topic has come to the forefront after a set of posts by the well-known Matt Cutts on the topic of hidden and paid links (post 1, post 2, post 3). The thing that has really caused an uproar is that Matt has requested that the general public report sites that contain paid links, even if they only suspect the links are paid. In addition, Matt is requesting that sites using paid links actively disclose them in both a human-readable and machine-readable manner. Which is pretty much where "graywolf" (the author of the seoclass.com post) enters the fray . . .

Discussion
Graywolf (aka Michael Gray) writes

So the question remains; does Google have the right to tell you how to run your website and dictate how you are allowed to make a living?

He also quotes a comment from Andy Beal on this issue

I don’t like to impose on others, my thoughts on disclosure (I personally disclose any relationships in our disclosure policy), but I think Google is going too far with this “best practice”. What business does Google have in dictating the disclosure of any business relationships on others?

I challenge Graywolf's basic premise, that Google is in any way telling us how we should run our websites.

Basically, all Google is saying is that they want to know which links are paid for so that they can discount them in its search results algorithms and that if you don't want to be penalized for them, you should disclose them. What's wrong with that?

Google has the right to use whatever algorithms and penalties it likes. No-one's forced to use Google or to submit to its demands. If Google wanted to rank pages simply according to the number of spelling errors on a page, or the number of 3-letter words on a page, it has every right to do so. Google owes site owners nothing when it comes to organic search results and is free to rank its search results however it sees fit. If people don't like it, then they should start using other search engines so that market forces come into play to effect change.

Now, that doesn't mean that I'm happy with what Google is trying to do and I also don't think it's being logical in the way it's going about this issue. However, Google is perfectly within its right to rank web pages in whatever way it sees fit and if that means penalizing pages containing undisclosed paid links, so be it.

Tags: google

Interesting Professional SEO Suggestions

I am currently doing some web development work for a client and was asked to implement some changes that he has been advised to make to his web site by a local professional SEO company. I thought their recommendations made interesting reading given some of the the topics that I have written about in this blog.

1. Ensure there are 15 keywords in meta name/description tags [Aside: I think that must mean title and description]
2. Use H1 tags for headings and H2 tags for subheadings
3. Change internal hyperlinks to incorporate relevant keywords rather than using generic terms such as "order online."

Now, I'm all for putting keywords in page titles and meta descriptions but I've never come across the magical number 15 before. Have you? If so, please leave a comment!

As far as H1 and H2 tags are concerned. When it comes to accessible web sites and just plain ole good practice, I'm all for using the Hn tags for their intended purposes but, as this previous post on the role of H1 tags indicates, I'm still not convinced one way or the other whether it has any benefit for SEO purposes.

Finally, using keywords in internal hyperlinks does seem to be a generally accepted "good practice" in SEO circles. For example, SEO guru Jill Whalen recently responded to the following question in her High Rankings forum with a clear unequivocal "Yes,"

can anyone tell me if it will help my search engine rankings if I have links going back to my home page (from my own pages) with the anchor text containing my main keyword phrase

I always find it interesting to see what other SEO organizations are advising their clients to do and how adamant many of them are that their methods are all essential and valid.

Personally, I certainly think there are some "must do" SEO tactics, such as optimizing your title tags, but I also think other methods happen to be successful on some sites and not on others. Therefore, as always, the bottom line is that you just have to try all of these methods and if they work, great; if they don't, scrap them and try something else!

Technorati Tags: seo

Stupid New AdWords Quality Scores!

Well, today I felt the effects of the new AdWords Quality Score algorithms and I'm not happy. I'm not just "not happy," I think their assessment is just plain stupid!!

I run a small AdWords campaign for my church, Proclaimers Church in Norwich , U.K. The church is called Proclaimers Church and the web site is www.proclaimerschurch.com.

Today I discovered that 3 of my keywords are now inactive for search and the minimum bid has been raised to £0.50 and they are classified as "Poor." Prior to the new changes, these keywords were costing me £0.03 or less!!

So what are these poor quality keywords for Proclaimers Church in Norwich? Well you might ask!

They are:

• "proclaimers church" (phrase match)
• proclaimers church (broad match)
• proclaimers church norwich (broad match)

Now, I guess that I can just about understand the logic behind the broad match keywords, because synonyms of "proclaimers," "church" and "norwich" wouldn't necessarily apply to this particular church. However, the following keywords are considered "OK":

• proclaimer's church (broad match)
• "proclaimer's church" (phrase match)

What's more, I even have one "GREAT" keyword, which is:

• proclaimers church norfolk

Now, that really is confusing, and here's why.

First, the church's name is "Proclaimers Church" NOT "Proclaimer's Church" yet the version with the apostrophe ranks higher!

Second, Norwich is the city in which this church is located and Norwich is in the county of Norfolk. However, the broad match proclaimers church norfolk is considered great whereas the broad match proclaimers church norwich is considered poor, even though it more accurately describes the church!!

What's more, in another ad group, the following keywords are also considered great:

• christian norwich (broad match)
• jesus norwich (broad match)
• church norfolk (broad match)

Yet this keyword is considered poor and now has a £5 minimum bid (which is nearly $10!!!):

• "norfolk church" (phrase match)

How can this make sense when the keyword "norfolk churches" (phrase match) is considered OK and has a £0.10 minimum bid.

So, take a look at the church's web site and see if you think those keywords warrant Google's assessment.

I wonder if there's a way to appeal these ratings because they sure are STUPID!!!!

Now, I gather that Google is aware of a bug in their new algorithm, I can only hope when they fix it these keywords assessments will make more sense, otherwise I see a fury ahead that will make the outcry against the last update seem like nothing in comparison.

Technorati Tags: adwords

AdWords & Checkout Icons

As you may have noticed, Google is now displaying Checkout icons by advertisements for advertisers who use Google Checkout. According to their blog post on the subject, "[w]hen people begin shopping by searching online, they're looking for places to shop that are convenient and secure. The Google Checkout badge makes it easier to find these places . . . ."

I see two possible repercussions of the Checkout badge.

First, those ads with the badge may get higher CTRs simply because the badge will draw people's attention to those ads, in the same way localized ads have an extra line of text. This could be a good thing for those advetisers, but not necessarily . . .

Second, those advertisers with higher CTRs may find their conversions dropping simply because their ads were clicked on out of curiosity regarding the Checkout icon, rather than the content of the ad itself.

My gut feeling, at this stage, is that the Checkout icon may well be a good thing for those advertisers. However, whether anyone will want to sign up with Google Checkout just so they get an icon by their ads remains to be seen.

The bottom line is that really Google is just trying to get more users of a system that pales in comparison to its well-established competitor, PayPal!

Technorati Tags: adwords

CPC Site Targeted AdWords Ads

Google has just announced it will soon be beta testing CPC site-targeted ads. Up until now, all site targeted ads have been on a CPM (cost per thousand) basis.

According to the announcement, "CPC bidding has often been requested by advertisers who would like to utilize site targeting, but are not comfortable bidding on a CPM basis."

I find that an interesting statement. My gut feeling is that, in most instances, CPC site-targeted ads will end up costing more than CPM ads. Furthermore, if advertisers are really uncomfortable with CPM ads and would prefer CPC ads, that implies to me that those advertisers are not expecting many clicks and feel they are, therefore, more likely to spend less on CPC ads than CPMs. In fact, this could possibly benefit advertisers who are not hoping for clicks but are merely wanting to be seen for brand awareness, or some other reason.

This change also indicates a change to the way Google AdSense will work in future. AdSense is on the flip-side of Site Targeted ads so we can only assume that, in future, AdSense publishers will be able to earn on a CPC basis for such ads rather than the current CPM-only basis.

Technorati Tags: adwords, adsense

AdWords: More Quality Score Changes

The official AdWords blog yesterday posted a message outlining two new changes that are going to be taking place over the next few days.

New Quality Score Column

The first change, which was first mentioned a while ago, is that there is soon going to be a new column in the AdWords interface. This column will display the minimum bid required for each keyword as well as a description of each keyword as "great," "OK," or "poor."

Quality Changes

The second change is that the quality score algorithm is being refined again. In theory, this change is supposed to encourage high quality ads and discourage low quality ads. This change essentially has two parts to it: the way the minimum bid is calculated and the actual quality score algorithm.

According to Google, these changes should result in some keywords having lower minimum bids and other ads having higher minimums.

Discussion

I am glad to see that Google have responded to their users' requests for more transparency regarding the quality score. However, having a simple 3-value scale is hardly transparent, but at least it's better than nothing!

As far as the algorithm changes are concerned, it's hard to predict at this point whether these changes will really be for the better. Personally, I don't think that Google has any means of accurately assessing the quality of many keywords and their "narrow targeting" approach is not always, in my opinion, the optimal means of advertising in some niches.

I can only hope, however, that these changes quell some of the outcry against high minimum bids for campaigns that, at face value anyway, appear to be well optimized and targeted.

I have to admit, I've lost some faith in the whole Quality Score mechanism, which is worrying given that Yahoo are introducing a similar methodology. I wait with bated breath to see the results of these latest changes.

Technorati Tags: adwords, quality score

More on HTML Heading Structure

Earlier this month I wrote a post about the role of the H1 tag in SEO. This post contained an overview of the correct usage of the Hn tags.

For anyone interested in reading a superb exposition of the role of Hn tags in your overall document structure, Kevin Yank of Sitepoint.com has just written a must-read article on the subject entitled "The Hard Facts about Heading Structure." If you are an HTML coder concerned with accessibility issues and standards compliance, you need to read this article!

DMOZ Is Back, So What?

Several bloggers have recently been posting about DMOZ's troubles and how it's now accepting submissions again. Personally, I couldn't care less about DMOZ. Does anyone actually use DMOZ for any purpose other than trying to get highly weighted backlinks to their own site?

It seems to me that if anyone wants to find anything online one of the last places they'd look is DMOZ ... unless you're trying to improve your SEO rankings, that is. In fact, does anyone use online directories of this nature at all any more? I used to use Yahoo's directory quite frequently but now I can't even find it (not that I've looked particularly hard). If Yahoo still has its directory, it certainly places less emphasis on it and, if so, it's because they know people primarily use the search box now, whether it be on Yahoo, Google, or elsewhere.

To use some alliteration, the day of the directory has departed and DMOZ is dead . . . and, as far as I can tell, no-one missed it. It's served its purpose, may it rest in peace.

Technorati Tags: dmoz

Internet Marketing Predictions for 2007

Well, everyone else seems to be posting about their predictions for 2007, so here are my 9 Internet Marketing predictions for 2007!

1. Some AdSense publishers will start getting paid for removing AdSense from their sites because Google no longer wants to be associated with the cr@p MFA ("made for AdSense") sites that are now cluttering the Web.

2. In response to public demand, Google will make the following changes to their search algorithm:

• The keywords meta tag will become the most heavily weighted element in determining a page's position in the search results
• Pages with multiple variations of keyphrases at the bottom of the page will be ranked according to (a) how close the font size is to 0 (zero) pixels and, (b) how close the font color is to the background color.
• Pages will be given extra bonus rankings for (a) discreet (wahoo!, I chose the correct spelling, and not "discrete!") use of keywords in img tag alt attributes. However, sites whose alt attributes actually describe the images will be penalized unless they also contain keywords unrelated to the image in question
• Sites who have spent time and money sending out "we just came across your site and have added a link to it on our site, please link back to us too ... oh, and by the way, if you don't we'll remove your site's link" emails will be rewarded in direct proportion to the amount of spam number of emails sent. In addition, the extra weighting given to these sites will be multiplied by an additional factor that is inversely proportional to the relevancy of the third party's web site to the spammer's email marketer's site.
• Pages containing the following HTML markup (or similar) will also be given bonus points to boost their ranking: <b style="font-weight: normal;">keyword, another keyword, etc.</b>
• Web sites that fail to employ any of these techniques, thereby highlighting the webmaster's complete lack of knowledge of effective search engine optimization techniques, will be penalized and, if Google becomes aware of this occurring across multiple sites owned by the same person, could result in being dropped entirely from Google's index. Indeed, there are rumors circulating around the "blogosphere" that Yahoo, Ask and Microsoft's Live Search are considering following Google's lead. Indeed, in order to sneak ahead of Google, Microsoft is also considering giving an additional boost to pages that contain deliberate common misspellings of keywords. Sneaky MS!

3. Google will publish complete instructions, that actually work, detailing how AdWords advertisers can increase their Quality Score (QS), particularly that of the landing page.

4. Futhermore, in order to boost the flagging interest in AdSense, landing pages with AdSense ads on them will (a) have an automatic increase in the QS and (b) have a discounted minimum cost per click, referred to as "Google Cashback."

5. In order to get a step ahead of Google and win back even more advertisers from Google, Yahoo will create an alternative to Yahoo Search Marketing that is only to be used by affiliate marketers. I have even heard from a secret sauce source that this will be known as naff-words. In addition, former AdWords advertisers promoting Clickbank products, will be given a special discount.

6. All the major players in PPC advertising will start rewarding advertisers in direct proportion to the number of keywords/phrases in their campaigns. This will be enhanced by an additional factor whereby, those advertisers who have clearly used lateral thinking in order to add extremely tangentially related keywords will be given a quality score boost (or equivalent, depending on the system in question).

7. AdSense publishers will be encouraged to click on their own ads in order to boost Google's waning income from ad revenue.

8. Google will move the Googleplex to Eureka, Nevada, in order to boost the flagging local economy.

9. Towards the very end of 2007, Yahoo and Google will merge and become known as Yahoogle.

Some of these prediction are purely wild stabs in the dark, some are educated guesses, and some are based on insider information. If you are interested in finding out more, email me personally or leave a comment and I'll respond directly. Unfortunately, much of my information is too hush-hush as yet to disclose in this blog.

H1 – What Role, If Any, Does the H1 Tag Play in Effective SEO?

I frequently read comments from supposed SEO experts regarding the importance of the H1 tag for search engine optimization. This has come from a variety of sources, from posts in various news groups to a formal report from an SEO company outlining its recommendations for various web sites.

However, my gut feeling about this has been that this tag is being over-emphasized, so I thought I’d ask around a bit and do some online research on the topic.

Again, I received some conflicting reports. For example, Jill Whalen of HighRankings.com felt that using the H1 tag doesn’t have much effect, if any (at least, as far as Google is concerned). However, Richard Ball of Apogee Web Consulting felt that using H1 (and H2) tags probably does make a difference.

Richard also raised a couple of other interesting points. First, whether there should only ever be one H1 tag on a page. Second, Richard speculated that, perhaps, Google prefers W3C compliant web sites and, as such, the structure of a page should possibly be undertaken by the correct usage of the H1, H2, etc. ("Hx") tags.

So, before we look further into the role of H1 in SEO, let's look further into the correct way to use the Hx tags.

Correct Usage of Hx Tags

First, I can find no authoritative text that states affirmatively that there should only be one H1 tag on a page. In fact, W3C simply states that H1 is for the most important headings, going down to H6 for the least important. Furthermore, the examples given on the W3C web site clearly presuppose multiple H1 tags on the page.

Second, when using different Hx tags, you should not skip numbers. Indeed, one page on the W3C web site states:

"Although the order and occurrence of headings is not constrained by the HTML DTD, documents should not skip levels (for example, from H1 to H3), as converting such documents to other representations is often problematic."

Third, using these headings in a logical and consistent manner, without skipping headings is just good practice and helps to define the logical structure of a document. This is particularly helpful for accessibility purposes. In today's CSS-oriented world, headings, subheadings, sub-subheadings, etc. are often indicated only by the use of visual cues, created with styles but often using the same basic tag, just with different classes. For example "div.heading", "div.subheading" and so on. Such markup provides no help whatsoever for visually handicapped users. Thus, if for no other reason, Hx tags should be used in the manner for which they were created in order to make your pages more accessible.

Fourth, and this is just my own personal belief, in an ideal, logical world, yes, there should be only one H1 tag per page. Thus, the ideal structure should be along the lines of

page title (using H1)
page subheading (using h2)
page sub-subheading (using h3)
page subheading (using h2)
page subheading (using h2)
page sub-subheading (using h3)
page sub-subheading (using h3)
page sub-sub-heading (using h4)
page subheading (using h2)

and so on.

However, what if your page doesn't have a main title/heading but, on the other hand, simply has multiple side headings of equal rank? On the one hand, there's the principle of one H1 tag per page but battling against that is the rule that you mustn't skip numbers. What to do?

In the past, I would probably have skipped the H1 tag and just used multiple H2 tags. However, my gut feeling now is that it is probably better practice to use multiple H1 tags in such a scenario.

It's also important to note that CSS now gives you the ability to control completely the look of your Hx tags. I have a feeling that, in the past, the rather pre-built look of these tags actually caused people to avoid using them because they didn't like their default appearance. However, today that reason is no longer valid; so I would ask you to reconsider using these tags for your section headings rather than DIV or P tags with associated classes and styles.

So, enough on the usage of these tags. Does H1 really play an important role in search engine optimization?

H1 and SEO

Again, my conclusion is an absolutely affirmatively definite "possibly." The reasoning behind this earth-shattering conclusion is as follows.

I am personally of the opinion that Google at least, and possibly other major search engines, really do give higher rankings, all other things being equal, to web pages with good HTML markup. I'm also a bit of an HTML purist (at least in theory, anyway) and I think that HTML tags should be used for the purpose for which they were initially created. Remember, HTML is really about document markup and the way to markup hierarchical headings in pure HTML is by the use of the Hx tags. That being the case, it is logical for search engines to give greater weight to H1 tags. However, if it were that simple, our documents would use no tags other than H1 (which is certainly possible given the power of CSS), so I'm sure there are spam triggers that evalute whether H1 tags are being used in the correct manner or for the purpose of spamming search engines.

I've also read some affirmative statements online that Google's algorithm does weight the text within H1 tags more highly. However, none of the places I read that were particularly authoritative and, without the necessary insider knowledge, I'm still on the fence regarding that particular point.

The second reason for my conclusion is that, to quote an old Elvis L.P., "50,000,000 Elvis Fans Can't Be Wrong." Or, to put it another way, despite Jill Whalen's opinion, there seem to be so many SEO professionals, gurus, and guru-wannabees that promote the use of the H1 tag in particular for SEO purposes that, surely, they must have some reason for this . . . surely they must, mustn't they?!

I have to admit, I do question this logic though. I've seen so many cases of the blind leading the blind and a brainless "lemming-like" mentality, where people just believe anyone who sounds knowledgeable when it comes to the mysterious world of SEO, that it wouldn't surprise me in the least if Jill Whalen's actually correct!

In addition, I would offer a few words of caution.

First, don't overdo the use of H1, whether by putting too many H1 tags on a page or blatantly keyword stuffing your H1 tags. Doing so will almost certainly trigger some SEO spam thresholds.

Second, don't think that simply using H1 tags is going to be the miracle cure for all of your SEO woes. It may help, but if it does, it's probably the result of an improvement in your overall document structure and correct usage of HTML elements than the actual H1/Hx tags themselves.

Third, even if Google does give more weight to text inside H1 tags, the overall effect of that weight on your page rankings may still be minimal. There are certainly other factors that carry more weight than your H1 tags.

Finally, I would encourage you to experiment. Create some similar pages, some with headings in Hx tags and others using DIVs and classes/styles, then see which ones are ranking more highly after a few months.

Technorati Tags: seo, search engine optimization, html, html markup, h1 tag

Free Hosted Business Pages with AdWords Starter Edition

Google is now making available a service whereby advertisers who don't have a web site can get a free, hosted web page with their AdWords account. The page requires no HTML knowledge to create and can be used as the landing page for their advertisement. As the Inside AdWords blog puts it

"A hosted business page is an informational webpage that new advertisers can create when they sign up for AdWords Starter Edition [which can be used] to tell people more about your business when they click on your ad."

This new feature is only available in AdWords Starter Edition for new signups in the U.S.

My first thought, is, so if they then upgrade to Standard Edition, presumably they then lose their landing page, so this feature is actually going to cause users to stick with the Starter Edition which, as we all know, is extremely featureless and inflexible compared to the Standard Edition.

My second thought is, given all the uproar that has occurred as a result of the AdWords algorithm changes that occurred this year, particularly with regard to landing pages, I can't help but wonder whether these free landing pages will somehow escape the same rigorous evaluation that everyone else has to put up with, so will these advertisers get an unfair advantage?

Also, it will be interesting to see, when and if the quality score is added to the ad group stats, as mentioned in a previous post, how these advertisers compare against those with their own web sites.

Note: More information on hosted business pages is also available in the AdWords Help Center.

Technorati Tags: adwords

AdSense, a Bifurcated System

Now, I always knew there were two tiers of AdSense users, the "premium" publishers who have such benefits as Google Keywords (google_kw) and the rest of us, i.e. the average AdSense publisher. However, until today, I didn't realize (oh naïve me) that there are also two sets of rules (well, there's probably as many sets of rules as there are premium publishers).

I was aware that some rules in the AdSense Terms and Conditions, and Policies are not applied as written, but today I learned that AdSense is prepared to forgo entire rules for publishers that are in a special relationship. How did I discover this?

A few days ago I happened to be reading John Chow's blog when I noticed that his blog was displaying both AdSense and Intellitxt ads. Immediately I thought to myself, "Self! Intellitxt is a contextual ad system and you are not allowed to display contextual ads on the same page as AdSense ads, so something's up." (See the "Competitive Ads and Services" section of the Google AdSense Program Policies).

Being the curious type and one who likes to see rules being applied equally to all people, I thought I would write to AdSense support to ask if I, being a mere mortal AdSense publisher would be allowed to display Kontera ads (similar to Intellitxt) on my blogs alongside my AdSense ads. I also pointed out that johnchow.com was doing this very thing. I received an interesting reply:

According to our program policies, Kontera and Intellitxt ads may not be displayed on the same page as Google ads on your site. However, you are welcome to display those ads on pages of your site that do not include Google ads . . . Additionally, I understand that you've noticed www.johnchow.com is displaying Google ads. Because we respect the confidentiality of all publishers, we cannot disclose any details of our relationship with this site.

So, if you're lucky enough to be one of the John Chow's of this world, not only may you get access to premium features, but Google may also be prepared to break its own rules to have you use their contextual ad publishing service.

Technorati Tags: john chow, adsense

NY Times: The Future of Web Ads is in Britain

The New York Times recently published an article entitled "The Future of Web Ads Is in Britain." The article states that Britain's online advertising spend, as a percentage of total ad spending, is the highest in the world at 14%, roughly twice that of the U.S. In fact, Terry S. Semel, chairman and CEO of Yahoo, Inc, is quoted as saying "The U.S. is so behind . . . [i]t’s certainly lagging the U.K. by at least a year or two."

The article goes on to emphasize the national nature of much British advertising, in contrast to the more regional nature of U.S. advertising. This struck a chord with me in view of problems that many users of systems such as Google AdWords have reported regarding their regionally targeted campaigns. Perhaps if there were a more reliable method of targeting online ads on a regional basis, U.S. online advertising spend wouldn't be so far behind.

In fact, I think the smaller marketplace available in the U.K. has enabled technological advances in other areas that have outstripped the U.S. such as interactive digital televsion and mobile phone services . . . but that's another story!

AdSense Publishers, Don't Forget Who Really Pays You

A week or so ago, I was rather frustrated by a poster on the official AdSense Help forum who wrote

"And I HAVE to ask - how on earth do you get clicks if you are not allowed to ask for them - I mean, REALLY!!! Come and look at all the beggars in my country who do better than I do begging on the streets than I do working my but [sic] off on ADsense!!";

This frustrated me because it highlights a disconnect that many AdSense publishers ("AdSensers") have regarding who exactly it is that pays them. The AdSense help forum is full of people, many from "third world" countries, who have heard how it's possible to earn more money from AdSense than many local people could ever hope to earn from regular employment and are desperately hoping to generate income for themselves. AdSense is seen as a way out of poverty and all you need is clicks. This has seen a tremendous rise in sites whose sole purpose is to generate AdSense clicks, with no intent to provide real content or any real usefulness at all, except to earn money for the AdSenser (which violates AdSense's Terms and Conditions, but that's another story) and this isn't just in "third world" countries, but throughout the globe.

What makes this situation worse is that these "AdSensers" only deal with Google, Inc., the fat, powerful, multi-billion dollar corporation in silicon valley. It's Google's name on the checks that arrive, it's Google's web site that they go to diligently to check their earnings . . . but it's not ultimately Google who pays them, it's Joe Advertiser, regular businesses and private indivuduals like you and me. It's our hard-earned cash that is funding AdSense through our AdWords advertisements, Google is just the middleman, the marketplace where AdWords advertisers and AdSense publishers meet.

Without AdWords advertisers advertising on the Content Network, there would be no AdSense. Those ads you're hoping for clicks on don't appear from nowhere, Google doesn't write them just so you can earn some money, they are paid for by someone just like you. Perhaps if every AdSense publisher spent some of their money trying to promote a product via AdWords, they would have a greater appreciation of how lucky they are to have such an amazing opportunity to earn money from people clicking on ads, people who may never even end up buying the product or service that's being advertised and each one of those clicks that earns you money, takes money from someone else . . . as the rule goes, "for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction."

Technorati Tags: adwords, adsense

Joel Comm or Joel Con?

Joel Comm (author of the bestselling "Adsense Code") is troubling me. I recently read his post about the new "paid-to-surf" program, Agloco.com. Towards the end of this post is a link, containing the text "www.agloco.com." This gives the definite impression that the link goes directly to Agloco.com. However, the actual URL is "www.makemoneywithjoel.com," which redirects the user to Agloco.com, presumably using Joel's affiliate code.

Now, it's not a big deal but it causes me to question his integrity. What do you think?

I'm also troubled by the MFA ("made for AdSense") templates that he sells ... but that's another story!

Technorati Tags: joel comm