Google Updates AdSense Rules, Still Working on Radio

Photocritic writes "The practice of placing images above or next to adsense banners has been around for a while — the idea is to trick visitors into thinking that the Googe Ads are clickable image captions. Unsuspecting visitors click on the ads, and the webmasters make money. Now, Google has officially announced that the practice is no longer allowed. Meanwhile, the Marketwatch site is reporting that the company's previously discussed move into radio advertising is getting a mediocre reaction. Google, as yet, does not have enough access to airtime for the project to be profitable. The company plans on purchasing more airtime to expand the program, and is reportedly also looking to begin selling television ads as well." From the article: "Until Google can strike a deal with CBS, or some other radio giant, 'there will be no significant impact until mid-2007' on Google's bottom line, or the radio industry in general, [analyst Jordan] Rohan said in his research note. 'We believe a critical mass of advertisers is interested in testing the platform,' Rohan said, based on his interviews with his own sources. 'However, there is simply not enough radio inventory in the Google Audio system (yet) to enable buyers to run campaigns.'"

Adsense makes me a ton of money

[ZahnRosen]

I think these rules are good, there's no point in tricking people into clicking. They have to see a value then the ads serve their purpose. Go Go Google!

Re:Good idea, but...

[TheThiefMaster]

Not necessarily, because people who click on an ad accidentally don't tend to buy from the site they visit, so it lowers the value of google's adverts. So they get money in the short term, but less advertisers in the long run.

Re:Good idea, but...

[Beached]

I don't think that Google would make more money. They make more when advertisers believe that the click through's are from prospective/interested buyers. If there is a perception that the clicks are generally not legit or that enough of them are illegitimate, the advertisers will buy and pay less.

Re:Do no evil (when it counts)

[hajejan]

Think about this as an user of the website in question. If you are trying to navigate a website, then what looks like an image caption should be an image caption. Anything else is just usability flaws, which is bad form, bad manners, and bloody annoying. I think it's a good mood, and I think you're off topic in your rant.

Similar policies exist, or do they?

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

In most magazines and newspapers, if an advertizer mimics the content of the mag or newspaper too closely, the publisher adds a prominant "ADVERTISEMENT" headers and footers to separate the ad from the content. So it might appear that google policy is just an on line implementation.

On the other hand, unless I have misunderstood the policy completely, here Google prohibits content from mimicking the ad too closely. Do we have any thing like that in the print world? Time Mag specifically making its article look like an ad?

Does it mean that someday TiVo would ban TV shows from inserting fake ads to fool its ad-skipper? Nah, TiVo has already sold out to the corps. MythTV does not have the clout.

Re:Is it worth it?

[otacon]

If google could advertise on satellite radio that would be ideal, because the stations are geared towards a specific genre, whether it be sports or rap music, and you could gear ads towards a certain demographic.

I wonder what will happen to share price...

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

I wonder what will happen to share price when people realize that Google is more-or-less a traditional media company?

Also, I wonder why Google doesn't just hand this "challenge" to its gaggle of geeks and say, "no deadline, no pressure, and you can call it beta if you're afraid to stand behind it."