Comments on: Google goes PPA… why the others won’t be eaten alive… and Google as Payperpost II http://www.centernetworks.com/google-goes-ppa Web 2 and Social Media News and Reviews Sat, 21 Nov 2009 01:50:56 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: Justin Chen http://www.centernetworks.com/google-goes-ppa/comment-page-#comment-12577 Justin Chen Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-12577 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. 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.

]]> By: Zaid http://www.centernetworks.com/google-goes-ppa/comment-page-#comment-12578 Zaid Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-12578 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 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

]]> By: centernetworks http://www.centernetworks.com/google-goes-ppa/comment-page-#comment-12579 centernetworks Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-12579 <p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>From a publisher standpoint, PPA ads honestly suck most of the time. </p><p>CPM = best</p><p>CPC = good, but requires action</p><p>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.</p> 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.

]]> By: Mia Dand http://www.centernetworks.com/google-goes-ppa/comment-page-#comment-12580 Mia Dand Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-12580 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? 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?

]]> By: Theo Tonca http://www.centernetworks.com/google-goes-ppa/comment-page-#comment-12581 Theo Tonca Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-12581 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. 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.

]]> By: jackmayhofferr http://www.centernetworks.com/google-goes-ppa/comment-page-#comment-12595 jackmayhofferr Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-12595 You guys are spot on. this is just another way to pay less and less to their publisher base. You guys are spot on. this is just another way to pay less and less to their publisher base.

]]>