Internet Marketing Firm Misses Point

[Dan0]

http://www.internetretailer.com/dailyNews.asp?id=10173

I guess it got 'em some press, at least. They've reported the unsurprising result that conversion rates of visitors from Adsense (context-based ads) are lower than the conversion rates for visitors from search-based ads.

This should not come as a shock to anyone. What surprised me was that this marketing firm didn't seem to consider the other value of context-based ads.

I barely break even on the context-based advertising, if you just count clicks and track the profit from what they spend. On the other hand, I've received nearly a million impressions of advertising that in effect cost me nothing. Even if none of the visitors referred by Adsense had converted, it's still a great deal.

Interesting, too, that buyers referred by Adsense tend to make larger purchases, somewhat offsetting the lower conversion rate.

Tip for those who want to get branding value out of Adsense: use your company name in the ad - maybe even the headline.

[ihelpyou]

LOL. Amazing that there are soooo many advertising firms out there who have lots of OFFLine experience, and still know next to nothing about advertising. :D

On the other hand, I've received nearly a million impressions of advertising that in effect cost me nothing. Even if none of the visitors referred by Adsense had converted, it's still a great deal.
Very good point!

[ihelpyou]

NewGate says the results from its study suggest an advertiser could pay 30% higher for cost-per-click ads by using AdSense as compared to using Google’s Internet search ads. It says the study also indicates that click-through rates were 4.2% higher for Google’s Internet search ads, while the percent of spend-per-lead was 81% higher for search than for links posted next to content.
Well DUH????

And they needed to spend money to do that research? :green:

[Dan0]

Right...

Let's see, one guy is looking for a lawn mower, and tries a search on Google. Pretty good chance he'll buy one if he sees an ad and is moved to click on it.

Another guy is reading about gardening some website he found by chance. There's an ad there, so maybe he pops over to take a look at the new John Deere, but he's not buying today. Either way, if he saw the ad, it makes an impression.

The key to successful advertising is repetition, and Adsense makes that repetition laughably cheap. My conversion rates from Adwords/Adsense continue to rise, without any changes to the site. Coincidence?

[ihelpyou]

Totally agree. The only work you did with AdSense is load the code for the page at the start. Since then, you simply go to your mail box and pick up the check. Of course, you then have to drive to your neighborhood bank and make a deposit. Depending on how far that is will give you the gas you consumed and spent, and also give you the time involved with making that transaction.

So, we have the labor to upload the new google code.

We have the gas spent, AND wear and tear on your vehicle to get to the bank.

We have the time spent driving to and fro from your bank.

hmmm. I think that about covers it.

Gee, I wonder why Google AdWords has a higher CPM than Google Adsense? I think I will spend a few thousand on "research" to find out the reasons. :lol:

And yes, the more an ad is seen by a visitor, the more likely that visitor is going to click on it eventually.

[cline]

I have one client who got very heavy Adsense exposure. Ultimately I had to conclude that Adsense was not economical for them. Of course, a specific case can easily defy what may be generally true.

Conversions from Adsense were substantially below what was necessary to cover advertising costs. While there probably was a long-term branding effect, one couldn't really discern it from the sales and traffic numbers.

Key issues in this case are that the marketing allowable per visitor is pretty low for them, so they can only afford low-cost clicks (which they get in abundance on Adwords), and that the sales cycle is pretty quick.