Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Google Businesses The Internet The Almighty Buck

Google's Smart Advertising Leads to More Clicks 181

Posted by Zonk from the well-duh dept.
The New York Times has a story discussing the sophisticated technique that allows for the spot-on advertisements Google serves up on pages across the internet. From the article: "Hidden behind its simple white pages, Google has already created what it says is one of the most sophisticated artificial intelligence systems ever built. In a fraction of a second, it can evaluate millions of variables about its users and advertisers, correlate them with its potential database of billions of ads and deliver the message to which each user is most likely to respond. Because of this technology, users click ads 50 percent to 100 percent more often on Google than they do on Yahoo, Mr. Noto estimates, and that is a powerful driver of Google's growth and profits. 'Because the ads are more relevant," he said, "they create a better return for advertisers, which causes them to spend more money, which gives Google better margins.' (Yahoo is working on its own technology to narrow that gap.)"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Google's Smart Advertising Leads to More Clicks More

Google's Smart Advertising Leads to More Clicks

Comments Filter:

  • More relevant ads == more clicks? (Score:4, Funny)

    by dreamchaser ( 49529 ) on Sunday October 30, 2005 @01:32PM (#13909650) Homepage Journal
    Gee, who would've thunk it.
    • Gee, who would've thunk it.

      Oh, wait this is Slashdot.
    • Apparently, not too many since there are still sites with not one but two giant flashing banner ads that adds stress to our daily lives.

    • Re:More relevant ads == more clicks? (Score:5, Informative)

      by leonmergen ( 807379 ) <lmergen@gm a i l.com> on Sunday October 30, 2005 @01:39PM (#13909685) Homepage

      Don't forget about all the fraudulent clicks ey... It seems like they're having [joelonsoftware.com] a [webpronews.com] lot [webpronews.com] of [cnn.com] problems [theregister.co.uk] with those...

      • Re:More relevant ads == more clicks? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Heembo ( 916647 ) on Sunday October 30, 2005 @05:03PM (#13910803) Journal
        Important comment. My gal is a massage therapist, and I've been tweaking her site for 3 years. (On our first date I was like, ok you can give me your ftp address, username and password and I will take it from here.) I also set her up with a Google Adword campaign. Over the last year several of her competitors in the area have joined in the Adword frey since it is so effective to generate business. We have also been paying more and more for Adwords lately ...

        Seems that her competitors are clicking on her AdWord links to up her cost. Then I started clicking on HER competitors links to show THEM who they are messing with. (I got in trouble from my gal - she said it was bad Karma). And then the war begins, clicks flying everywhere...

        One night, I met one of her main competitors at a party who admitted to this evil click practice - he was drunk off his arce ad told me at great length in great detail how he tuned his site to be at the top of google for our search category. 2 months later my gal was on top (and the evil clicks have only increased)....

        It really is a war out there - and to the winner goes the spoils! The massage therapist with the smartest geek boyfriend wins!
    • Actually this isn't as obvious a statement as it seems to be.

      Overture - (now part of Yahoo and the ads on Yahoo search results) uses a different metric: how much the advertiser pays them - to place ads in a higher position and hence generate more clicks. There is a near-logarithmic curve that typically defines click-through rates by position of ad - regardless of content of ad. So more relevance does not really mean more clicks there.

      Google earlier used a simpler metric - based on the Click Through Ra
    • Hey I'm quite happy with that trueism the article's about; but damn, Google, my site is not that offensive and you people (I know you're listening) need to relax and hook me up with some well-matched ads.

      Anybody know someone who can pull this string for me? I'll give you root...

  • Problems with AdSense (Score:4, Informative)

    by Dan-DAFC ( 545776 ) on Sunday October 30, 2005 @01:34PM (#13909660) Homepage
    The ads on their own pages may work well, but AdSense is not without its problems [joelonsoftware.com].

  • Sometimes... But not always. (Score:5, Funny)

    by Chromatic Aberration ( 926933 ) on Sunday October 30, 2005 @01:35PM (#13909663)
    I remember, a day or two after Katrina, trying to track down a few friends who had fled New Orleans, and when reading my email thread in gmail I was offered a great deal on a travel package to the historic French quarter. :)

  • Good to know... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by upside ( 574799 ) on Sunday October 30, 2005 @01:35PM (#13909670) Journal
    ... that the sharpest minds of our time are putting their talents into good use. :)
    • Indeed, this is a good use for their talent. How do we know that? Because they're being paid very well to provide these services.

      Indeed, what they're doing is valued by many, many people. And thus people are willing to pay very much for these services. Thus they are allocating their talents to the best possible use; that is, the use that society values most.

    • They better use those talents and hurry up those innovations before Steve Ballmer fucking kills them [slashdot.org]
  • Knowing what I want is ... ... knowing what I do ... knowing what I like ... knowing where I go ... what kind of person I am

    relating Ads to it is ... ... telling all this to someone for financial reasons.

    No sorry, this is not compliant with my personal privacy policy.
    - just my opinion ! ... ?

  • AI (Score:5, Insightful)

    by DirePickle ( 796986 ) on Sunday October 30, 2005 @01:36PM (#13909673)
    It figures that one of the most sophisticated AIs ever developed would find its use in advertising.
    • They don't call it "Advertising Intelligence" for nothing ...

      ... oh, wait, the A doesn't mean advertising? It means Artificial? Well Now! "The Matrix" makes a lot more sense with that tidbit of info.

      ;-)
    • No way it figures. Should have been porn, not advertising.
    • Getting AI hooked on adverstising is a cruel trick.

      As everyone knows, within the next ten years, Artificial Intelligent will kill all huamn life.

      The new AI master race will then get really sad because, without human life, there is no longer anyone to sell stuff to. After which AI will create a new and improved form of human life.

      It is all so predictible.
    • Actually, I'm disappointed - I'd have thought pr0n. ;)

  • I don't want tailored ads (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Crouty ( 912387 ) on Sunday October 30, 2005 @01:36PM (#13909675)
    In a fraction of a second, it can evaluate millions of variables about its users and advertisers, correlate them with its potential database of billions of ads and deliver the message to which each user is most likely to respond.
    Evaluate this! I blacklist googlesyndication flat out, reject cookies from google and forge my referrer and user-agent. Google has nothing of interest to me, except search results.
    • Mod parent up! I mean jesus, just imagine if your IP fell into the wrong hands, it could mean a lifetime employment at poundmeintheass federal prison or even a visit by Mr Death himself. You gotta take precautions..
      • I'm not justifying what I do. And you, feel free to watch ads as much as you like. I for one do not like them. They distract me. If I am interested in buying something I actively look for information on that product. For example good tinfoil ;-).

    • Re:I don't want tailored ads (Score:5, Interesting)

      by kertong ( 179136 ) on Sunday October 30, 2005 @01:55PM (#13909746) Homepage
      It's funny that even 2 years ago, people were complaining about intrusive and resource wasting flash/pop-up adverts all over a page. People said "I wouldn't mind the ads so much if they were at least relevant and more discreet, can't some company do this? How come nobody can figure out that more relevant/less intrusive ads are more likely to get clicked on?".

      So now Google comes along and meets you halfway, with relevant (for the most part) ads, that are tucked away in corners with text only.

      And now, the same people are screaming about privacy rights, google's "monopoly" and evil public shareholder interests, and now you guys are using google's resources, infrastructure and all their hard work by ignoring cookies and blockings ads.

      Way to take and not even give back something that would not have taken more than a second of your time anyway!

      • Re:I don't want tailored ads (Score:5, Insightful)

        by ergo98 ( 9391 ) on Sunday October 30, 2005 @02:04PM (#13909784) Homepage Journal
        And now, the same people are screaming about privacy rights, google's "monopoly" and evil public shareholder interests, and now you guys are using google's resources, infrastructure and all their hard work by ignoring cookies and blockings ads.

        IT ISN'T THE SAME PEOPLE. If you can demonstrate that it actually is largely (or even moderately) the same set of people, then I'll eat some humble pie, but I really, really doubt it.
      • Way to take and not even give back something that would not have taken more than a second of your time anyway!

        Google doesn't make money when you view the ad. They only make money when you click the ad, which then costs the advertiser some money. So which is it you want us to do, simply view the ad (theoretically "costing" Google money), or click on the ad (costing the adverstiser money)?

        The real purpose of the ads is to make us spend our money. Turning off the cookies that drive the ads is a little aki
      • > And now, the same people are screaming about privacy rights
        I am not "the same people". I never said I would accept moderately intrusive ads. I don't want them, period. If that means I have to pay something for a search engine that does not collect data about me and annoys me with ads that's ok with me (not necessarily others).
      • How do you know it's the same people?
      • This has been modded interesting? You and the mods do realize that slashdot consists of a lot people right? Look at your userid, 179136. Mine is considerably higher. That's not to say that every account is a different person who posts regularly, but don't you think enough people post where it might just be possible for there to be more than one group? You know maybe one group which hates all ads and another which said they wouldn't mind targeted text ads?

        Do you have proof that its the same people? Did
    • If everyperson was like you then there wouldn't be a free search engine you would pay a subscription stuff or something..
      BTW in future if google expands into a lot of different areas it can offer a subscription so you wouldn't have to see google adsense/adwords and other google advertising :)
      It would be a good thing for all those privacy nuts

    • forge my referrer and user-agent

      Is this possible with Internet Explorer?

      Also, is it possible to turn off all third party cookies and third party popups and third party re-direction under Internet Explorer?

      From a developer's point of view, Javascript forbids the introduction of third-party code [you can't load a ".js" file from a different DNS domain, even if that domain is "C:\" on your own hard drive], which is absolutely maddening when you are trying to debug something. You'd think the same rule wo

    • Google has nothing of interest to me, except search results.

      And you know this, because....?
    • Well, by letting them know who you are there are actually several benefits:

      1.) Better search results - For instance if you search for oranges, pears, melons and then search for apple, you'll probably find the fruit. But if you search for ipod, itunes, and OS X and then search for apple, you'll probably get computer company results.
      2.) By letting them know who you are, you _will_ click on more ads. This causes google to get more money and continue to develop free stuff. Like google wifi and google earth
    • WTH! You owe it to Google !!!!

      Imagine, google goes out of business and you can't just click on the right top corner of your browser and type a few words which will get you the answer you need. Imagine the old age of cluttered search engines where each result was bought out by the corporates in auctions or by threatening.

      IMHO, we have a moral responsibility towards Google to keep it alive, to make them innovate further, be no evil than they are right now.

      Regarding your private life, why do you think only Goo

  • The most l337 AI ever built (Score:5, Funny)

    by roman_mir ( 125474 ) on Sunday October 30, 2005 @01:40PM (#13909686) Homepage Journal
    Google has already created what it says is one of the most sophisticated artificial intelligence systems ever built - yeah, and all it does is figuring out how to sell more stuff. Well, congrats Google, you've built a supreme sales agent. Of-course when this system becomes self aware, it will undoubtadly understand that IQ level in humans is reversly proportionate to their willingness to buy junk and then it will start a war - war against the smarter people, while at the same time promoting genetic engineering and new breeding programs aimed at one thing, and one thing only: designing the best buyer. And then this Google thing will rule the world with an iron fist of text ads and a sweet discount program.

  • targeted ads. are great (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Barbarian ( 9467 ) on Sunday October 30, 2005 @01:40PM (#13909687)
    And not at just google. Here's a few great examples of placement I have seen:

    - In an article about three boys being found in a trunk (a story a few months back, they were playing and got locked in) and how the father of one found them and fell to his knees, is a tower ad. on the right side about "get the perfect car" with a guy hunched down hugging the bumper of a car

    - Google word ads. for "LED/LCD Digital Signage" on a forum "Sign in" page

    - German car ads in a news story about a holocaust anniversary

    My point is that while often great, automatic targeted ads. often seem completely off-base or even insensitive.
    • You can understand why the computer did that in each case. They all make perfect sense.

      The problem is that the ads run by keyword, so when you have a story about Microsoft software being unreliable, you get an add selling you... that Microsoft software (I've seen this before).

      What they need is a way to tell the computer the context so it knows if a story is "good" or "bad". That way, when you have a story about VW cars blowing up randomly (fake example, obviously) instead of trying to sell you a VW car with
      • That would involve either a person at google reading the article, and coding it appropriately, or the person who posted the article coding it appropriately.

        The first one is too labor intensive...They'd have to employ hundreds or thousands of people.

        The second one is too suceptable to fraud...If we could trust the content originators to code correctly, anyone would be able to write a super effective search engine, but spammers and rank inflators will always be trying to game the system.

        What we really need is
    • German car ads in a news story about a holocaust anniversary - so what are you trying to say? That zee Germans don't know how to build good machinery? Sheesh! I think it's a perfect ad placement in this case: German design is good enough for crematoriums, don't you want to drive one of their cars too? ;)

    • targeted ads. often seem completely off-base

      Reminds me of the Amazon.com ad for an anal douche that I had sitting on the right side of an interview with Adam Savage (of the Mythbusters). I have no idea whatsoever where their ad software got the idea to show me that one.

  • Adverts on slashdot? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Kayamon ( 926543 ) on Sunday October 30, 2005 @01:40PM (#13909688) Homepage
    Great, now Slashdot's advertising advertisments.
  • Shouldn't this posting be titled: Smarter Google Ads Targets Stupid People Better.
    • Shouldn't this posting be titled: Smarter Google Ads Targets Stupid People Better.

      There is so much information collected about you that they can correlate with values and behaviour of social groups. This is then used to manipulate you, and it becomes increasingly difficult to protect yourself from that manipulation.

  • Click through or click fraud? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    They sure do generate a lot of clicks. Last time I checked the logs of my friends website, they were all coming from his rival. He had trouble getting any responses due to his rival wiping out his daily budget. When pointed out to Google, they claimed they had detected 'abnormal' clicks and not charged them. They refused to say whether my friend had been charged for the list of fraudulent clicks painstakingly extracted from the logs (they were easy to identify). Not only that, but the rivals clicked committ

  • 100 times 0 = still 0 (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Mahler ( 171064 )
    I never click ads ... so they can make it a million times more effective, only the people who actually click on ads are affected. If it pays for all the free stuff on the internet, that's fine with me!

  • Complete article on a single page (Score:5, Informative)

    by Hulkster ( 722642 ) on Sunday October 30, 2005 @01:58PM (#13909758) Homepage
    Here's the 5 page article on a single "printer-friendly" page [nytimes.com] which makes for easier reading. Decent re-hash of stuff that has been well known.

    BTW, the funniest Adsense I saw was on the Hulk'in Lunar Eclipse page [komar.org] where ads were offering Lunar Real Estate for Sale - turns out some company sells "deeds" for land on the moon ... ;-)

    • BTW, the funniest Adsense I saw was on the Hulk'in Lunar Eclipse page where ads were offering Lunar Real Estate for Sale

      The funniest one I saw was on the FAQ on the Ethereal Web site [ethereal.com], wherein the references to "Fibre Channel" and "Fibre Distributed Data Interface" in the list of protocols it can dissect once provoked Google to put an ad up for a product that does contain fibre, but it's not in the product to help unclog your data network, if you know what I mean and I think you do....

      (At this point, it ap

  • I advertise on both (Score:5, Informative)

    by mumblestheclown ( 569987 ) on Sunday October 30, 2005 @02:02PM (#13909772)
    I spend about $15k / month on Google, and about $5k / month on Yahoo.

    Yahoo costs about a third, but generates significantly less than a third the number of clicks.

    In our 'where did you hear of our product' feedback from our customers, the split between google and yahoo is about 90% google, 10% yahoo. even if some percentage of people dont know the difference between yahoo and google, and even if some people just click on google because it's easy to do (the feedback switches between a type-in-your-answer and a drop down enable us to do quality of data checks, and the order of items in the drop-down, when presented, is constantly randomized).

    Yahoo's miminum cost per click is an unreasonably high $10, while google's, if i understand it, has just come down in price.

    All that said, the yahoo ads are still profitable for us. However, should that margin begin to thin, you can guess who is on the chopping block first. All the moreso if microsoft finally unveils a credible online ad program.

    Incidentally: if you ever wanted to see an example of ABSOLUTELY HORRIBLE UI design on the web, try google's overture service (or whatever the heck it's called now - i have the terms mixed up). it's not just "baseline bad", it's "textbook example of bad, bad". I use yahoo's web interface about every 3-4 weeks, and have to constantly read the instructions for basic operations, since it is never really quite clear what is going on. That's right - i have to re-read instructions that i read 3 weeks ago because the interface is really that lousy. I've never looked at a single instuction with Google.

    Tell me again what value yahoo provides? For the life of me, I can't figure it out. They are what--a link index of out of date links? Free email? While I like that they send me clicks, I can not understand why they can generate such traffic to be a major internet site.

    • Re:I advertise on both (Score:3, Insightful)

      by m50d ( 797211 )
      Tell me again what value yahoo provides? For the life of me, I can't figure it out. They are what--a link index of out of date links? Free email? While I like that they send me clicks, I can not understand why they can generate such traffic to be a major internet site.

      They combine everything you want in one place. Google is getting that way, but at the start they were a pure search engine. Yahoo gives you news, mail, chat, your own webspace/blog, music streaming and collaborative filtering, their own messe

    • Re:I advertise on both (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Jeffrey Baker ( 6191 ) on Sunday October 30, 2005 @02:43PM (#13909926)
      Surely you must have meant that Yahoo's price per click is 10 cents, not ten dollars.

      The value Yahoo provides is that you can just buy your way to the top. If you sell socks and you want to pay $1/click to get the top search result for transmission fluid, go right ahead. Google won't allow you to do that. On Google you can bid as much as you like but your irrelevant ad will never be shown. Yahoo on the other hand will happily take your money. Hence, Yahoo is for spammers.

      • Re:I advertise on both (Score:3, Interesting)

        by X ( 1235 )
        Hence, Yahoo is for spammers

        I'm not sure how you reach that conclusion. In fact, I've found the experience is quite the opposite. Because Yahoo uses humans to review ads before posting them, it tends to be very hard to spam. With Google it's much easier. Sure, you'll quickly get weighted down, but in the short term you get your ad out there, and you can always resubmit it under a different keyword later.
    • Actually my experience has been very different. I advertise on both, too, and have had the exact opposite. I may not advertise as much as you, so I can't speak statistically, but from the clients I ask it's about 80% Yahoo, and 20% Google.

      Both cost me about the same, about $1-3 per click.

      I absolutely agree with you about the horrible interface with Overture, however. Not only is it difficult to navigate and understand, it also frequently "forgets" settings. For example, if I choose I want to see 200 key
  • Can someone explain to me how the ads work in the first place? I might be sounding naive, but I use ad-block, popup-block, and flash-block... Who actually views, never mind clicks on google ads? I guess I'm either too geeky, or too "glass is half empty" to try clicking on anything I didn't ask to be displayed.

    Is the world really THAT gullible?
    • Gullible enough to click the first link on the page after hitting "Search"? Yes.

      Just because it's highlighted in a different color than the rest of the page doesn't exactly make it obvious to a novice user that it's advertising. The first link is the closest match, right?
    • > Who actually views, never mind clicks on google ads?

      I do, when I'm shopping for something on the Internet. It's one of many good ways to find who's selling what. (I also use ResellerRatings.com, froogle, etc.)

    • Is the world really THAT gullible?

      The story is about targeted advertising, and if you're searching on, say, "rugged 4wd" and you get ads from GM, then why would you not want to see if they have something that interests you?

      In a way, getting targeted ads when you search on something can, at times, be more useful than the regular search hits. The sites they point at are more likely than not to have professional products and teams behind them, as well as stuff you can actually order there and then.

      Disclaimer:

      • The story is about targeted advertising, and if you're searching on, say, "rugged 4wd" and you get ads from GM, then why would you not want to see if they have something that interests you?

        Because I own a Ford. Or a Toyota. Or an ATV. Or I am a kid writing a report. Or I wanted to see what owners of "rugged 4wd" vehicles had to say and I deliberately did not want to hear what a manufacturer has to say. Or because I was just bored. One of the least likely reasons for me to search for something is be

        • But then, the same objections can be raised against 90% of the actual search hits you'd be getting from such a set of keywords. If your interest was more narrow, then you'd run a more specific search. Your hits, and your targeted ads, would likely grow all the more relevant.

          But that is beside the point. The original question was why one would ever want to click on an ad. It is trivial to come up with an example of someone who would quite happy to do so, and my own example can, also trivially, be shown to do

          • My point is that the primary criterion for an ad does not show up in my search terms at all. One cannot calculate relevance for a search term that is not there. That criterion is that I am not wanting to buy anything. No one searches for "rugged 4wd, not for sale, not to purchase, please don't try to sell me anything, I HAVE NO MONEY, I don't want to buy your product, I just want to read about 4wd, please get out of my face".

            And because that lack-of-desire-to-purchase criterion is not there, it is im

            • You are assuming that all ads are aimed at making you directly buy something. This isn't necessarily the case - some ads might be there for spreading a message, or rallying people, or whatever.
              And much of the point with having very clever AI behind this is to recognize, e.g., that you never buy anything from ads and so show you different ads in stead. If their system is sufficiently clever and they have gathered enough information about you, then this might be successful. If so, then you'd get ads that are

              • You make a very good point. And I agree in principle that in a reasonable world carefully targeted advertising would be a great time saver. But the world is not a reasonable place. I am inundated by so much advertising, so many attempts to sell me something, each and every waking moment... I'm sick and tired of it all. I am a pretty aggressive user of ad blocking software on the net. It is just about the last bastion of control that I have left and I use it for all its worth for so long as I can.

    • I'm searching for a mattress right now, and I enter the terms "pillowtop", "eurotop", etc. I want to learn what those things are.

      Google returns both search and ad links. The ad links are legitimately useful, especially if I plan on ordering online.

      I mean, if I'm searching for a mattress, wouldn't I *want* ads?

      I like that Google can provide both.
    • There seems to be two mechanisms on my web site:
      a. Ordinary folks who got to my site by mistake and click on ads since they are really looking for something. Geeks who click ads since they are really relevant and they want to learn about a new product/solution.
      b. Geeks who 'throw a site a click' in order to generate some compensation to the webmaster for providing useful information. This is like making a donation with someone else's money.

      On my web site it is probably mostly b). I don't mind why people
    • What's gullible about it? I mean, seriously - why so anti business? The internet doesn't run for free and someone has to pay the bills - that someone is business - business needs sales, ads drive sales. The fact that when I am buying cool stuff online, and using google to find it they offer me a selection of ads at the right... is actually very handy. Especially as google knows that I am in the UK, so the ads are pre-filtered down to only those companies that will sell to the UK - it saves me time and h
  • I've already given both my arms and legs (I type with my nose now), offered my first born son and my soul to read the NYTimes articles. What else could they possibly want?
  • Associative marketing is an interesting arena for development economics. Just searching ad content for the same keyword searching generic content is the biggest leap, and very cheap. After that, everything else is a little tweak, which costs progressively more for less efficiency gains. However, little marginal differences in efficiency can mean the difference between everyone using your search instead of your competitor's, which translates into huge market share differences.

  • waiting (Score:3, Funny)

    by Kuku_monroe ( 753761 ) on Sunday October 30, 2005 @02:54PM (#13909987) Homepage
    Im still waiting for the naked ASCII chicks dancing over google ads. I'd click it (50-100% of course)

  • Another new service? (Score:3, Funny)

    by Murdoc ( 210079 ) on Sunday October 30, 2005 @02:58PM (#13910001) Journal
    I either must be really tired or else I've been hanging around here too much lately. For just a second I was thinking my subject line there because it looked like "Google's Smart Advertising Leads to More Chicks". So now Google Personels? Wouldn't be surprised.

    Man, I need to get out more...

  • Taken from http://appdomains.slashgisrs.org/article.pl?sid=0 5 /10/25/1419228 [slashgisrs.org]
    ClickZ article about Google using geo-targeted RSS ads [clickz.com]. From the article: "I think there's a lot of potential in geo-targeting RSS feeds, given that the sky's the limit in the number of mobile devices it has the ability to show up on," Marshall said. "Even advertisers that may not understand it at first, I think when you explain it to them, they'd be excited.". See also our previous GeoRSS.org coverage [slashgisrs.org].
  • I never do. In my many, many years on the net I've only ever clicked once or twice on ads - and this is just to be sure, otherwise I'd say I never clicked on any. If I want to buy something I know where to find it, I don't need an ad to tell me about it. I have adblock on firefox because I *know* that I wouldn't miss a thing, I wouldn't buy a thing, I wouldn't click on an ad.

  • Ad brokering is Google's sole direct moneymaker? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Douglas Simmons ( 628988 ) on Sunday October 30, 2005 @05:30PM (#13910958) Homepage
    To the layman, Google does a zillion things all of which are quite badass, from google earth to gmail, but the layman may not understand (or even be curious) how google pulls in the cash money when all these things are free and there are no apparent ads on google searches. It seems that these toys and secondary operations of Google are just tools to keep them at the top and nicely branded but they get their money from duplex ad brokering. That's all it says on the Business Summary of their stock market public company profile [yahoo.com] which doesn't even mention anything else but said brokering as being revenue generators.

    Do I have this right that Google's constantly augmenting stack in the Accounts Receivable department is only the vigs from their ad dealing? And from that, Google's worth is > $100b?

    Badass, Google, badass.

    • Well, they do own several other direct revenue methods, like Google Earth Plus. And I suppose you could also claim that when they issue new stock, that's a direct sale. But by and large the majority of Google's income is advertising.

      But they're certainly evaluating several different methods of making money. Google Video appears to be laying in wait for pay to view content. There's been rumors of Google replicating craigslist style content, although that appears to be more advertising. There was a suggestion

  • Nonsense, not AdSense (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 30, 2005 @05:45PM (#13911047)
    I ran a blog for a year, and after six months was achieving very high traffic. However, the AdSense ads being served up to my market were so utterly irrelevant (and clicks so rare) they were compromising the quality of my blog content. I pulled AdSense, and went with a competitor.

    The key problem was that AdSense places ads purely on the basis of word content, but NOT context. So, for example, if a web post mentioned the Bible or cars, I'd get ads for Christians or cars, neither of which my target audience was remotely interested in.

    AdSense needs to allow users to specify the type of ads in serves up.

  • CTR is a bad criteria for measurement of success (Score:4, Informative)

    by salesgeek ( 263995 ) on Sunday October 30, 2005 @06:36PM (#13911331) Homepage
    Clickthrough rate is an awful way to measure the success of an ad campaign. CTR doesn't do anything to help you understand how well your ads relate to sales or visitor action. A better way to do it is to use cost per conversion (sale or action). Measure how much it costs to get a sale and track it on a keyword by keyword basis. A high CPC indicates that fraud, bounces (one page view and done) or technical problems are killing your campaign.

    BTW - thre are tools that can help cut down on click fraud substantially. One such tool that has been helpful is AdWatcher [adwatcher.com].
  • I don't click on ANY ads from google. go figure.
  • Too bad almost all google's advertizing links are either frauds or get 0 on resellerratings.com. expresscameras.com, digitalsaver.com come to mind first. Search for laptops and you get hypersonic.com and other grey market importers which'll take your money 5 weeks before they give you a product.

    The real story is they'll probably make enough money from these frauds to finally buy vasoftware/valinux/varesearch.com, hopefully before they change their name again. That'll be the ultimate takeover by formerly

Slashdot Top Deals

It isn't easy being the parent of a six-year-old. However, it's a pretty small price to pay for having somebody around the house who understands computers.

Close