Adwords. Am I missing something, or is it a ripoff?

So, I need some traffic. I ran an adwords campaign last year but didn't put
much effort in, but thought I'll give it another go. So, I dig up the
account and spent a while yesterday evening with the "traffic estimator".

Well, I've not much of a budget. But it seemed to suggest that the keyword
that would have the most clicks would cost about 0.18 per click, which is
quite a lot really when you think about it, one surfer who's probably going
to bugger off anyway. So I took a look at 0.1 per click, and the estimator
said I'd get clicks for that. Still quite costly this cpc thing really,
isn't it?

So, I just put my ad together, bunged it a list of keywords, and it came
back that they're all "inactive for search" and I have to bid more.

It's saying to get that keyword "active" I need to spend [sharp intake of
breath] *one dollar* per click. I run a paysite. If I get a full signup, I
net about 15 bucks. So I've got to make a sale every 15 clicks just to break
even. I mean, no *way* is that even vaguely cost effective. How can anybody
afford to pay a dollar for every visitor?

And the thing is, if I do a search for that keyword on google, only two
adverts show up. So there's only two ads running presumably. So the way I'd
thought it was- it doesn't matter what I pay, I don't mind being 3rd on a
list of 3. I can live with that. But it won't let me.

Now with Google being all ethical and all, I'd thought this was a genuine
free market. If lots of people are bidding, the price goes up. If there
aren't many, that means the price is too high so low bids should be able to
bring the price down. Clearly that keyword is overpriced (I *mean*. A dollar
for one lousy rubbernecking surfer?!) but apparently Google won't let the
price drop, or at least that's all I can ascertain from this. So, they won't
get my money, because Google are rich enough and I'm skint.

So, am I missing something? Why would the traffic estimator tool say I'd get
X clicks for 10 cents per click, when they won't sell it below 100 cents per
click?

Am I seriously misunderstanding something here?

Ian

--

On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 23:11:24 -0000, Jaxtraw wrote:

So, I need some traffic. I ran an adwords campaign last year but didn't put
much effort in, but thought I'll give it another go. So, I dig up the
account and spent a while yesterday evening with the "traffic estimator".

Well, I've not much of a budget. But it seemed to suggest that the keyword
that would have the most clicks would cost about 0.18 per click, which is
quite a lot really when you think about it, one surfer who's probably going
to bugger off anyway. So I took a look at 0.1 per click, and the estimator
said I'd get clicks for that. Still quite costly this cpc thing really,
isn't it?

So, I just put my ad together, bunged it a list of keywords, and it came
back that they're all "inactive for search" and I have to bid more.

It's saying to get that keyword "active" I need to spend [sharp intake of
breath] *one dollar* per click. I run a paysite. If I get a full signup, I
net about 15 bucks. So I've got to make a sale every 15 clicks just to break
even. I mean, no *way* is that even vaguely cost effective. How can anybody
afford to pay a dollar for every visitor?

And the thing is, if I do a search for that keyword on google, only two
adverts show up. So there's only two ads running presumably. So the way I'd
thought it was- it doesn't matter what I pay, I don't mind being 3rd on a
list of 3. I can live with that. But it won't let me.

Now with Google being all ethical and all, I'd thought this was a genuine
free market. If lots of people are bidding, the price goes up. If there
aren't many, that means the price is too high so low bids should be able to
bring the price down. Clearly that keyword is overpriced (I *mean*. A dollar
for one lousy rubbernecking surfer?!) but apparently Google won't let the
price drop, or at least that's all I can ascertain from this. So, they won't
get my money, because Google are rich enough and I'm skint.

So, am I missing something? Why would the traffic estimator tool say I'd get
X clicks for 10 cents per click, when they won't sell it below 100 cents per
click?

Am I seriously misunderstanding something here?

Ian

I suspect your ad(s) don't appear to have high relevance to the keywords.

For each keyword phrase, does at least one of its words appear in your ads'
title lines?

Without high relevance, you get clobbered on AdWords.

"Sharewarer" <hiding (AT) secret (DOT) com> wrote

On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 23:11:24 -0000, Jaxtraw wrote:

So, I need some traffic. I ran an adwords campaign last year but didn't
put
much effort in, but thought I'll give it another go. So, I dig up the
account and spent a while yesterday evening with the "traffic
estimator".

Well, I've not much of a budget. But it seemed to suggest that the
keyword
that would have the most clicks would cost about 0.18 per click, which
is
quite a lot really when you think about it, one surfer who's probably
going
to bugger off anyway. So I took a look at 0.1 per click, and the
estimator
said I'd get clicks for that. Still quite costly this cpc thing really,
isn't it?

So, I just put my ad together, bunged it a list of keywords, and it came
back that they're all "inactive for search" and I have to bid more.

It's saying to get that keyword "active" I need to spend [sharp intake
of
breath] *one dollar* per click. I run a paysite. If I get a full signup,
I
net about 15 bucks. So I've got to make a sale every 15 clicks just to
break
even. I mean, no *way* is that even vaguely cost effective. How can
anybody
afford to pay a dollar for every visitor?

And the thing is, if I do a search for that keyword on google, only two
adverts show up. So there's only two ads running presumably. So the way
I'd
thought it was- it doesn't matter what I pay, I don't mind being 3rd on
a
list of 3. I can live with that. But it won't let me.

Now with Google being all ethical and all, I'd thought this was a
genuine
free market. If lots of people are bidding, the price goes up. If there
aren't many, that means the price is too high so low bids should be able
to
bring the price down. Clearly that keyword is overpriced (I *mean*. A
dollar
for one lousy rubbernecking surfer?!) but apparently Google won't let
the
price drop, or at least that's all I can ascertain from this. So, they
won't
get my money, because Google are rich enough and I'm skint.

So, am I missing something? Why would the traffic estimator tool say I'd
get
X clicks for 10 cents per click, when they won't sell it below 100 cents
per
click?

Am I seriously misunderstanding something here?

Ian

I suspect your ad(s) don't appear to have high relevance to the keywords.

For each keyword phrase, does at least one of its words appear in your
ads'
title lines?

Without high relevance, you get clobbered on AdWords.

I don't see how an automated system can judge relevance. Why would I want to
put a keyword in my advert? I'm trying to get an ad on a page for a keyword;
my product appeals to people looking for that thing but it isn't exactly
that thing, though very similar. For instance (this isn't my case, it's
similar), suppose I were advertising a science fiction film which is similar
to Star Wars, and I believe Star Wars fans might buy it, but it isn't Star
Wars. I don't want to say I'm selling a Star Wars something because I'm not.
If you get my drift.

Bah.

As an aside, I just did a search for dungarees (needed to draw some, wasnt'
sure exactly what they look like). Not only were none of the google results
much use, the adwords ads were a hopeless mess of untargeted stuff. Jeans.
501s. General clothing. And of course ebay. Yes, an ebay ad for dungarees,
because of course ebay sells everything. I can get "products and information
about dungarees" on ebay. Now that's targetted. How much are they paying?

/rant

Anyway, I still don't see why the estimator gave me such wildly different
prices to what I was offered. I can't avoid concluding that Google are just
jacking prices up. How they hell *do* they set prices? Is it another secret
Google algorithm? Or is it that as people bid higher and higher, the "entry
bid" gets higher and higher and never comes down again, even if there's
nobody advertising on a particular phrase because it's got too expensive?

Ian

On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 01:32:30 -0000, Jaxtraw wrote:

I don't see how an automated system can judge relevance.

If a lot of people click on an ad, it is deemed to be relevant. Why do they
click on an ad? Because it appears to address the subject they searched
for. How do you make an ad appear to address the subject? By echoing the
search term in the ad (especially the title). This all makes sense to me,
and I commend Google for their focus on relevance.

But read on...

Why would I want to
put a keyword in my advert? I'm trying to get an ad on a page for a keyword;
my product appeals to people looking for that thing but it isn't exactly
that thing, though very similar. For instance (this isn't my case, it's
similar), suppose I were advertising a science fiction film which is similar
to Star Wars, and I believe Star Wars fans might buy it, but it isn't Star
Wars. I don't want to say I'm selling a Star Wars something because I'm not.
If you get my drift.

This is a special situation that I've also run into. And you're quite
right: it fits outside the logic of the para above. Sort of. You're trying
to show your ad when someone is searching for a direct competitor by name.
I've never found a good way to get round this, being reluctant to have my
ad say "100X better than Star Wars" or "Star Wars Really Sucks!" or
whatever.

When you Google Search on one of my competitor's products there are NO ads,
but Google wants $1.00 for me to qualify. This would be a LOT lower if I
made the ad more relevant, by getting the competitor name into my ad
somehow. (And how do you do this without running into trademark issues?)

Some experts advise giving Google it's damn $1.00 for a while, while you
earn a decent CTR -- if you can. Then you "walk down" your bid to a more
normal level. Remember your ad is not assessed solely by what you bid, but
by

Bid * CTR%

I did manage to ride on the coat tails of one competitor without mortgaging
my home, but the CTRs were miserable. So what you're trying to do may well
be a complete waste of time and money.

I think the problem with this tactic is that you've got to convince the
user to switch horses. If I'm searching for a good deal on Quicken, you're
going to have a tough time convincing me I should abandon my purchase
decision and buy YOUR accounting package instead. In other words, it's
going to be hard to make your ad sound relevant to me. So we come full
circle.

Bah!

Bah indeed!

As an aside, I just did a search for dungarees (needed to draw some, wasnt'
sure exactly what they look like). Not only were none of the google results
much use, the adwords ads were a hopeless mess of untargeted stuff. Jeans.
501s. General clothing. And of course ebay. Yes, an ebay ad for dungarees,
because of course ebay sells everything. I can get "products and information
about dungarees" on ebay. Now that's targetted. How much are they paying?

Sounds like a profitable opportunity for a targeted ad.

/rant

Anyway, I still don't see why the estimator gave me such wildly different
prices to what I was offered. I can't avoid concluding that Google are just
jacking prices up. How they hell *do* they set prices? Is it another secret
Google algorithm? Or is it that as people bid higher and higher, the "entry
bid" gets higher and higher and never comes down again, even if there's
nobody advertising on a particular phrase because it's got too expensive?

Yes, it's another secret Google algorithm! What they do make crystal clear
is that they are obsessed with relevance. Make your ads relevant, and your
costs come tumbling down.

HTH

Old George

On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 00:11:24 +0100, Jaxtraw
<jax (AT) knickersjaxtrawstudios (DOT) com> wrote:

It's saying to get that keyword "active" I need to spend [sharp intake of
breath] *one dollar* per click. I run a paysite. If I get a full signup,

My understanding is that in reality you will be not paying that
amount - in most cases your click will be much cheaper. Just the Google
displays some stupid values. But I can be wrong and I can't afford
to test it

Best,
Borek
--
http://www.chembuddy.com
http://www.chembuddy.com/?left=BATE&...ion_equilibria
http://www.chembuddy.com/?left=CASC&...n_calcul ator

On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 02:32:30 +0100, Jaxtraw
<jax (AT) knickersjaxtrawstudios (DOT) com> wrote:

Is it another secret Google algorithm? Or is it that as peoplebid higher
and higher, the "entry bid" gets higher and higherand never comes down
again, even if there's nobody advertisingon a particular phrase because
it's got too expensive?

Mechanism you have just described can be a secret algo as well.

You call it a bug? We call it a feature

Best,
Borek
--
http://www.chembuddy.com
http://www.chembuddy.com/?left=BATE&...ion_equilibria
http://www.chembuddy.com/?left=CASC&...n_calcul ator

On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 02:32:30 +0100, Jaxtraw
<jax (AT) knickersjaxtrawstudios (DOT) com> wrote:

As an aside, I just did a search for dungarees (needed to draw some,
wasnt' sure exactly what they look like). Not only were none of the
google results much use, the adwords ads were a hopeless mess of
untargeted stuff. Jeans. 501s. General clothing. And of course ebay.

What are dungarees? I didn't know the word and Webster defines them as

dun-ga-ree (dung guh ree') n.
1. <dungarees>.
a. work clothes, overalls, etc., of
blue denim.
b. BLUE JEANS.
2. blue denim.

so the search results seems reasonable. Ar am I missing something?

Best,
Borek
--
http://www.chembuddy.com
http://www.chembuddy.com/?left=BATE&...ion_equilibria
http://www.chembuddy.com/?left=CASC&...n_calcul ator

On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 11:44:02 +0100, Borek
<m.borkowski (AT) delete (DOT) chembuddy.these.com.parts> wrote:

On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 02:32:30 +0100, Jaxtraw
jax (AT) knickersjaxtrawstudios (DOT) com> wrote:

As an aside, I just did a search for dungarees (needed to draw some,
wasnt' sure exactly what they look like). Not only were none of the
google results much use, the adwords ads were a hopeless mess of
untargeted stuff. Jeans. 501s. General clothing. And of course ebay.

What are dungarees? I didn't know the word and Webster defines them as

dun-ga-ree (dung guh ree') n.
1. <dungarees>.
a. work clothes, overalls, etc., of
blue denim.
b. BLUE JEANS.
2. blue denim.

so the search results seems reasonable. Ar am I missing something?

Best,
Borek

Dungarees are what Uncle Jessie wears in Dukes of Hazzard, the tv
show, not the movie.

BB
--
www.kruse.co.uk/ seo (AT) kruse (DOT) demon.co.uk
The buffalo have gone

On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 13:00:05 +0100, Big Bill <kruse (AT) cityscape (DOT) co.uk> wrote:

What are dungarees? I didn't know the word and Webster defines them as

dun-ga-ree (dung guh ree') n.
1. <dungarees>.
a. work clothes, overalls, etc., of
blue denim.

Dungarees are what Uncle Jessie wears in Dukes of Hazzard, the tv
show, not the movie.

Very helpfull - for someone watching the same TV you do

Best,
Borek
--
http://www.chembuddy.com
http://www.chembuddy.com/?left=BATE&...ion_equilibria
http://www.chembuddy.com/?left=CASC&...n_calcul ator

On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 14:54:33 +0100, Borek
<m.borkowski (AT) delete (DOT) chembuddy.these.com.parts> wrote:

On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 13:00:05 +0100, Big Bill <kruse (AT) cityscape (DOT) co.uk> wrote:

What are dungarees? I didn't know the word and Webster defines them as

dun-ga-ree (dung guh ree') n.
1. <dungarees>.
a. work clothes, overalls, etc., of
blue denim.

Dungarees are what Uncle Jessie wears in Dukes of Hazzard, the tv
show, not the movie.

Very helpfull - for someone watching the same TV you do

Best,
Borek

http://images.google.com/images?sour...es&sa=N&tab=wi
That will give you an idea Borek

plh
Paul


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----