Newest Content
Latest NYC Coverage
NY Web Tech Directory
Most Popular Content
Freshly Baked Jobs
Press Releases
New Interviews
Recent comments
- Re: Let's Discuss Disqus
2 hours 19 min ago - Re: IZEA's Ted Murphy Suggests He Performs Better Than The A-Lis
3 hours 55 min ago - Re: Let's Discuss Disqus
7 hours 49 min ago - Re: The Stats Explain Why We Don't Read Banner Ads (And What We
9 hours 7 min ago - Re: Let's Discuss Disqus
11 hours 14 min ago
Google goes PPA... why the others won't be eaten alive... and Google as Payperpost II
Yesterday Google started a beta test with their Adwords product with regards to PPA (Pay-per-action) advertising. Mike has an excellent overall recap of the service. I want to discuss my views on a couple of his points from a publisher standpoint.
Mike says... "Affiliate marketing networks like Commission Junction and LinkShare are screwed."
My belief is that CJ ruined themselves with their horrible signup process and poor customer service. But from this Google announcement, I have to disagree. Sure Google will pound on them like they P&G pound on everyone, but from what I can tell, from the publisher perspective, this will probably follow the other Adsense model which is: tell them nothing, pay them whatever and they will like it. Will publishers see what the PPA amount is? If so, there is nothing that says this on the blog post or FAQ.
Whether you use CJ, Jim Kukral's blog kits, or most other PPA ad options, you know how much you are going to make. 25c, 2% of sale, etc. If Google shows me what I am making before hand, that will certainly change things. If not, I am not sure publishers will be so willing to move to this. We already deal with the lower and lower earnings from Adsense.
Mike says... "And Yahoo is now in the unenviable position of playing follow the leader again, even as they catch their breath from the massive Panama release earlier this year."
Yep! Yahoo should have moved forward instead of moving closer. When you take one step forward, you are in reality not moving at all. Yahoo needs to innovate and the simple truth is that text ads are text ads - no matter how much fancy icing you put on them, they are still text ads to most advertisers.
Mike says... "Google also announced a new “text link format” ad unit today. They’ve crossed a hazy ethical line here. If this product was announced on its own, it would be heavily debated by the blogs and press."
Google notes the following in their FAQ... "For example, you might see the following text link embedded in a publisher’s recommendatory text: “Widgets are fun! I encourage all my friends to Buy a high-quality widget today.” (Mousing over the link will display “Ads by Google” to identify these as pay-per-action ads)."
Now correct me if I am wrong, but is this Payperpost or not? So Google is suggesting here that you make up good wording to "sell" the product. They don't even suggest you should try or test the product first. And their "disclosure" is only a mouseover. Everyone bitches and moans about PPP and their disclosure, yet this is ok? I am very confused. I agree with Mike about the ethical line. I just don't get why Google has been pushing and pushing lately.












What you mention with the text ads wording is no different than what you can do with most affiliate programs now. For example, you could do the same with an amazon affiliate link to sell books. It seems to be different because with affiliate progams you're being paid for actual sales (however you want to do it) whereas with PPP you're paid directly by the company to talk about the product.
Allen,
The *main* problem with PPP isn't their apparent model of paying folks to write reviews for advertisers. It is more with the IMPLEMENTATION of it.
PPP goes out of its way to promote the make-money aspect of it. Just watch few Rockstartup episodes. What happens now is that folks are writing reviews - that seem very credible - about a product chances are the reviewer has never even used or heard of.
So while folks can ABUSE google's new model to be like PPP, that is not google's core market and they aren't PROACTIVELY telling folks to write good stuff about things being sold on Google. Then you have PPP whose business growth seems to DEPEND on low credibility reviews.
Can this be abused? Sure, and it's not hard to put in fixes when abuses happen. In Google's case, they will I'd imagine while PPP because for most part it'll run them out of business.
Remember Amazon has had this feature for a while yet you don't see folks tactically writing positive things about a $1,000 item they have not used in hopes someone buys it through their amazon link.
--Zaid
Hi Zaid - I have issues with PPP which I have noted here several times. What I am saying is that if Google says, "say something nice and post a link" in essence that is an advertorial, same as the PPP - albeit shorter.
I have been an Amazon affiliate since the day they started the program. I have never considered writing something positive just to link over to Amazon.
From a publisher standpoint, PPA ads honestly suck most of the time.
CPM = best
CPC = good, but requires action
PPA = worst because user must make a purchase in x sessions or x time. While this should pay the most, it requires the most action and can result in the most issues. And if you look at Amazon, on a $10 book, you make about 30 cents.
I agree, it's very similar to PPP, in that publisher is endorsing the product by including it in the body, while under the current system, there is a clear differentiation between the sponsored vs. non-sponsored (legitimate) content. As an advertiser, it's very appealing, but I can see why it's going to be a hardsell for publishers, who will have to find creative ways of incorporating these links into the body of their content.
What's most intriguing, how is Google planning to track these completed actions? Is it relying on the advertiser to report the offline actions such as sales transations? What if the advertiser doesn't have an accurate tracking system and what if the advertiser 'forgets' to report the sale/action. And what about products with with long sales cycles? Will Google and its partners be willing to wait that long to collect?
Nice post! I definitely think that Pay-Per-Action (PPA) is the future, it's what's needed to bring the majority of small/mid-size businesses online but Google's not the first to do it, i believe that honor goes to Snap who's doing a pretty good job with it.
As for the text link ad format announcement, they strategically tied it in with the ppa release hoping to lessen the backlash which is forthcoming.
You guys are spot on. this is just another way to pay less and less to their publisher base.