I do paid search for a living, and it has been fascinating to watch the evolution of the SERPs.
This one is a big step backwards IMHO. For many queries now, the first page has essentially become an interstitial.
I have to say I feel it is quite "un-Googley" in the sense of the search team's balance against the AdWords team. Many people like to rail against Google for various things, but historically they've always done a pretty solid job of maintaining this internal balance.
Some will argue that "if the results are relevant to the query, that is all that matters." But this is going a step too far in that the only results are the ones paid for, which means there is another factor beyond "relevancy" at play (despite how CTR impacts Quality Score).
All of this is on top of advertiser concerns that CPCs are likely to rise as a result (which I agree is likely to occur). While not the case for my account in particular, the net result is also likely to make it harder for small local advertisers to compete on the paid side when they are up against large national advertisers.
Personally, I'm going to focus on beefing up our Bing presence and other non-paid channels. Diversification is important, and ultimately there's not much that can be done about it. Businesses will continue to pay the CPCs they can afford until they are no longer profitable, and then they won't. Those who don't diversify will suffer the consequences of putting all their eggs in one marketing basket.
Also I find interesting, and not mentioned in any Google news is they seem to be showing less (or zero) ads to more generic and low value searches E.g. Search 'Cat' vs. 'Credit Card'
Given people can pay up to ~$20 for a credit card click and more generic clicks are closer to $1, I wonder if they found if they pile ads on the high value KW's only they maximise profit whilst keeping the Google image 'we value organic search results' feeling by not showing ads in the low profit areas.
Like you I feel they are loosing credibility in this latest evolution. Its amazing to see how little, if any, real-estate organic results holds on a typical laptop screen. I kinda feel they are increasingly opening the door for competitors to step in on their cash cow. I personally have moved to give DuckDuck another go since this.
In my experience, Bing Ads are far more profitable than AdWords anyway. I don't know if it's an audience thing or if businesses ignore Bing altogether or underfund/manage it.
"It's a bug that you could rank highly in Google without buying ads, and Google is trying to fix the bug." (1)
I love that quote - by HN's own jrockway - when he was under employ at Google. He wound up effectively retracting and clarifying (2) but I believe it wholeheartedly in original form.
When you take apart Google's "Page Quality Score" algorithm they use to determine what to charge / rank you for each click you can see the brilliant intersection of Google's business and their product.
AKA they believe that the most reliable way to drive search relevancy is to make sure the guy on the other end of the table is willing to pay for that user's attention.
And they'll penalize the advertiser if they don't hit "relevancy" metrics to make it more expensive for that advertiser to reach you.
The relevancy metrics they'll use include page speed (good for user), time user spends on site (relevancy), actions taken - tracked by Google Analytics (relevancy), and content quality / uniqueness (relevancy).
If you've got a guy willing to pay with high relevancy it's a compelling reason to show nothing but ads.
Now is that REALLY good for the user across the board? No way.
Does this leave in the dust the small guys and dramatically favor the big guys with time and attention to get everything right? Totally.
Is every small business going to wind up paying a "Google Tax" - no question.
Now that you mention that, does anyone else find it incredibly scummy that Google shows ads for a company, leading to the company's website, above the first result, which is also the company's website when I search for something like the company name?
The ad is minimally distinguished from the content, and most users don't care anyway, they'll click the top result and cost the company money that they could have saved if Google didn't present that ad there.
I guess, however, that the alternative is an ad for Bar, Inc appearing above Foo, Inc when you search for "foo, inc". In that case, it feels like extortion ("if you want us to show your website first when users search for you, buy the ad").
Okay, so let's search for...I dunno, 'crm' in a maximised google chrome browser on a 13" macbook pro: http://i.imgur.com/rT51tmt.png
This is not okay. I have to scroll down quite a bit just to see an actual search result. From searching. On Google. Does anyone else see the problem here?
...and this is how Google opens itself to attack from a group that is ready to "disrupt" search. I, for one, love DuckDuckGo because my search results yield ...wait for it, search results! No, seriously, that's why I go there in the first place. To find stuff.
Google has forgotten why they were successful in the first place and has instead pushed monetization to the detriment of their flag ship product.
Anecdotally, most users do not know the difference between paid results and organic results, and the top paid result is usually what the user wants anyway.
Do you think Google didn't test this on millions (billions, even) of searches? If showing additional paid results negatively impacted either CTR or first-search successes or whatever metrics Google thought were important for their long-term success, they'd have surely not gone all in on this model.
I can see at least these reasons why someone would search that phrase:
* They want to buy business cards
* They want more information on what business cards are.
* They want an image of a business card to use as a reference
Arguably the results for business cards are actually quite relevant, since someone searching for them probably wants to buy them. Maybe Wikipedia could be up there to satisfy #2.
Plus, the organic search results are essentially ads. Is the search quality actually improved by you seeing Vistaprint's organic search ad instead of their Adwords ad?
I see the same thing for "business cards". On the other hand, a few other searches I tried ("android", "books", "facebook") returned 0 ads at all anywhere.
This article was posted yesterday, heres my predictions:
Extremely interested and slightly wary as to how this will affect ppc. My informed predictions:
- CPC increases across the board
- CTR increases across the board
- AdWords loses smaller ad buyers who simply can't compete for a top 3 spot
- More stringent requirements about ad content
- Awareness ads (not directly leading to a purchase or conversion) will be unable to compete on cpc
- Longtail keywords become more important, overall number of keywords brands are targeting will increase
Ultimately I think this helps big brands who can afford top spots. They can afford higher cpcs, and better keyword bid strategies. Google's revenue will increase, but the number of ad purchasers will decrease. Ad quality (if there is such a thing) will become "better" by aligning more with users search intentions (Read: ads looking more and more like organic results).
I work at a digital agency, so these are only 90% bullshit predictions.
Title is a bit misleading. It should say that Google also adds a fourth line in the ads displayed above organic search results. The title makes it look like the only changes was the removal of the side ads.
The thing that's interesting is that quite frequently the site or page I am searching for shows up as an ad as well as an organic result.
While I've trained myself to ignore ad results, I find myself feeling guilty when in this situation. Should I click the ad? Does it support the site, or hinder it?
There is little net effect. Its discussed in detail above, but the brand pays very little when you search for "nike" and click on the top ad that is "nike.com" Google knows you were going there anyway, and their metrics support it, so cpc is low for Nike but would be insanely high for Adidas.
4 ads on top for a search page, what a fucking joke. On a small screen you'd probably only see the ads before a single actual search result. This is pure greed and abuse of monopoly at this point.
On my search page, I just saw exactly one search result after 4 ads and a Google "summary" grid. And the first search result was spammy.
Fucking joke indeed.
Edit: just switched my default search engine in Chrome to DuckDuckGo, 2 Ads and 6 decent search results on the first search page. Let's give it a shot and see if I ever go back.
Google has consistently operated as "do as I say, not as I do". They've rolled out these 4 ads above the fold off and on, in addition to Product Ads, and Hotel/Insurance comparison ads. Golden Rule: He who has the gold makes the rules.
It has the nice side effect of pushing down the organic results. On a 1440x900 screen, I see only 1 organic result above the fold for most "purchase intent" queries now.
It feels like there must be insane internal pressure to continue the double-digit percentage YoY gains in ad clicks.
I think this is more about competition from Amazon than other search engines. The focus on "commercial queries" tells me there's a mini death spiral of buyers going straight to Amazon to do those commercial searches. This will let them get in between more purchases short term but drive more users straight to Amazon long term.
To be fair the side ads were the least noticed by me. There were times when I even confused the top ad with the actual search result.
Slightly off topic but has anyone noticed the new side loading ads on a youtube video? I keep accidentally clicking on them when moving the slider. It passes through all ad blockers and obstructs part of the playing video.
Also there are spam sites that are almost the same name as actual sites such airline tickets and concert venues. They manage to come on top of search results.
Is there any info on how much a Google contributor subscription does or does not affect the ad placement for search results? I've been considering signing up for that so I don't see as many ads, and opening up Google ads in ublock, but multiple ads above results on the top of searches would quickly become unbearable.
Contributor will replace ads from AdSense (ads you see on independent publisher sites), not AdWords (ads on Google result pages). They're separate networks.
They should rename "Google search" into "Google advertisement search". Since when I search on Google I just get ads above the fold. This is a slight inconvenience for me and but significant inconvenience for my mother in law.
I cannot judge whether this is good or bad from point of view of Google.
They should just switch to showing nothing but ads in the first page of results and be done with it. I'm sure they will find a way to justify how this is "good for the users", but for me, with my widescreen laptop, the 4th ad will ruin usability even further.
I've worked in paid search for some time now and can't help but chime in.
I'd agree CPC/CTR will increase. But if you think about it, the real logical reason for the change is that Google needs more real-estate. Search is continuing to evolve (I.e, the way the you and I look for information), and Google has been testing new ad formats to better serve queries.
Limiting the number of traditional paid search ads is the only way they can continue to maintain a balance between SEO & paid search while testing new ad formats.
I wouldn't at all be surprised if they began testing a new product in the latter half of 2016
It's surprising google hasn't reduced the number organic listings from 10 to 7 or even lower on page 1. For alot of queries ad's are really better results. Google definitely has plans for all that new white space real estate.
Inevitable I guess because of mobile. I don't imagine it will be popular with their smaller advertisers though.
The main block tends to be dominated by the brands and the cost to get into the main block is too expensive for a smaller advertiser. Aiming for the top of the side bar ads can do pretty well getting business for a reasonable price.
Add in the number of knowledge graph results that now come from some horrifically spammy sites and G is looking a very unfriendly place for a tiny business to start up with.
[+] [-] shostack|10 years ago|reply
This one is a big step backwards IMHO. For many queries now, the first page has essentially become an interstitial.
I have to say I feel it is quite "un-Googley" in the sense of the search team's balance against the AdWords team. Many people like to rail against Google for various things, but historically they've always done a pretty solid job of maintaining this internal balance.
Some will argue that "if the results are relevant to the query, that is all that matters." But this is going a step too far in that the only results are the ones paid for, which means there is another factor beyond "relevancy" at play (despite how CTR impacts Quality Score).
All of this is on top of advertiser concerns that CPCs are likely to rise as a result (which I agree is likely to occur). While not the case for my account in particular, the net result is also likely to make it harder for small local advertisers to compete on the paid side when they are up against large national advertisers.
Personally, I'm going to focus on beefing up our Bing presence and other non-paid channels. Diversification is important, and ultimately there's not much that can be done about it. Businesses will continue to pay the CPCs they can afford until they are no longer profitable, and then they won't. Those who don't diversify will suffer the consequences of putting all their eggs in one marketing basket.
[+] [-] Gustomaximus|10 years ago|reply
Given people can pay up to ~$20 for a credit card click and more generic clicks are closer to $1, I wonder if they found if they pile ads on the high value KW's only they maximise profit whilst keeping the Google image 'we value organic search results' feeling by not showing ads in the low profit areas.
Like you I feel they are loosing credibility in this latest evolution. Its amazing to see how little, if any, real-estate organic results holds on a typical laptop screen. I kinda feel they are increasingly opening the door for competitors to step in on their cash cow. I personally have moved to give DuckDuck another go since this.
[+] [-] ssharp|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] swiley|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] aresant|10 years ago|reply
I love that quote - by HN's own jrockway - when he was under employ at Google. He wound up effectively retracting and clarifying (2) but I believe it wholeheartedly in original form.
When you take apart Google's "Page Quality Score" algorithm they use to determine what to charge / rank you for each click you can see the brilliant intersection of Google's business and their product.
AKA they believe that the most reliable way to drive search relevancy is to make sure the guy on the other end of the table is willing to pay for that user's attention.
And they'll penalize the advertiser if they don't hit "relevancy" metrics to make it more expensive for that advertiser to reach you.
The relevancy metrics they'll use include page speed (good for user), time user spends on site (relevancy), actions taken - tracked by Google Analytics (relevancy), and content quality / uniqueness (relevancy).
If you've got a guy willing to pay with high relevancy it's a compelling reason to show nothing but ads.
Now is that REALLY good for the user across the board? No way.
Does this leave in the dust the small guys and dramatically favor the big guys with time and attention to get everything right? Totally.
Is every small business going to wind up paying a "Google Tax" - no question.
But still, that's why they do it.
(1) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3535153
(2) http://searchengineland.com/google-clarifies-no-ads-shouldnt...
[+] [-] StavrosK|10 years ago|reply
The ad is minimally distinguished from the content, and most users don't care anyway, they'll click the top result and cost the company money that they could have saved if Google didn't present that ad there.
I guess, however, that the alternative is an ad for Bar, Inc appearing above Foo, Inc when you search for "foo, inc". In that case, it feels like extortion ("if you want us to show your website first when users search for you, buy the ad").
[+] [-] unknown|10 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] Lazare|10 years ago|reply
This is not okay. I have to scroll down quite a bit just to see an actual search result. From searching. On Google. Does anyone else see the problem here?
[+] [-] aklemm|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ricree|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] swiley|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] HappyTypist|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|10 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] wheaties|10 years ago|reply
Google has forgotten why they were successful in the first place and has instead pushed monetization to the detriment of their flag ship product.
[+] [-] ftio|10 years ago|reply
Anecdotally, most users do not know the difference between paid results and organic results, and the top paid result is usually what the user wants anyway.
Do you think Google didn't test this on millions (billions, even) of searches? If showing additional paid results negatively impacted either CTR or first-search successes or whatever metrics Google thought were important for their long-term success, they'd have surely not gone all in on this model.
Paid results are search results.
[+] [-] swampthinker|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] melted|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] imh|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pavanky|10 years ago|reply
The change is only happening to people who are searching on google to buy something. It will not affect regular queries.
[+] [-] MichaelBurge|10 years ago|reply
* They want to buy business cards
* They want more information on what business cards are.
* They want an image of a business card to use as a reference
Arguably the results for business cards are actually quite relevant, since someone searching for them probably wants to buy them. Maybe Wikipedia could be up there to satisfy #2.
Plus, the organic search results are essentially ads. Is the search quality actually improved by you seeing Vistaprint's organic search ad instead of their Adwords ad?
[+] [-] poooogles|10 years ago|reply
Circled the only real responses. I don't exactly have a low resolution monitor either. I can only imagine it's worse on an older laptop.
[+] [-] habosa|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] grahamburger|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] soared|10 years ago|reply
Extremely interested and slightly wary as to how this will affect ppc. My informed predictions:
- CPC increases across the board
- CTR increases across the board
- AdWords loses smaller ad buyers who simply can't compete for a top 3 spot
- More stringent requirements about ad content
- Awareness ads (not directly leading to a purchase or conversion) will be unable to compete on cpc
- Longtail keywords become more important, overall number of keywords brands are targeting will increase
Ultimately I think this helps big brands who can afford top spots. They can afford higher cpcs, and better keyword bid strategies. Google's revenue will increase, but the number of ad purchasers will decrease. Ad quality (if there is such a thing) will become "better" by aligning more with users search intentions (Read: ads looking more and more like organic results).
I work at a digital agency, so these are only 90% bullshit predictions.
[+] [-] ninedays|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bhartzer|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nevir|10 years ago|reply
While I've trained myself to ignore ad results, I find myself feeling guilty when in this situation. Should I click the ad? Does it support the site, or hinder it?
[+] [-] soared|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Grue3|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] smegel|10 years ago|reply
Fucking joke indeed.
Edit: just switched my default search engine in Chrome to DuckDuckGo, 2 Ads and 6 decent search results on the first search page. Let's give it a shot and see if I ever go back.
[+] [-] chipperyman573|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jaredmck|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tyingq|10 years ago|reply
It feels like there must be insane internal pressure to continue the double-digit percentage YoY gains in ad clicks.
[+] [-] Klathmon|10 years ago|reply
This isn't adsense, so they don't really need to follow those rules (and wouldn't need to anyway because they are the rulemakers).
But even aside from that, in a way they just made a current "block" of ads larger.
[+] [-] SmallBets|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nivla|10 years ago|reply
Slightly off topic but has anyone noticed the new side loading ads on a youtube video? I keep accidentally clicking on them when moving the slider. It passes through all ad blockers and obstructs part of the playing video.
[+] [-] peter303|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] peter303|10 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] kbenson|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] thirtyseven|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tlogan|10 years ago|reply
I cannot judge whether this is good or bad from point of view of Google.
[+] [-] melted|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Mattzy|10 years ago|reply
I'd agree CPC/CTR will increase. But if you think about it, the real logical reason for the change is that Google needs more real-estate. Search is continuing to evolve (I.e, the way the you and I look for information), and Google has been testing new ad formats to better serve queries.
Limiting the number of traditional paid search ads is the only way they can continue to maintain a balance between SEO & paid search while testing new ad formats.
I wouldn't at all be surprised if they began testing a new product in the latter half of 2016
[+] [-] sumoboy|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|10 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] anexprogrammer|10 years ago|reply
The main block tends to be dominated by the brands and the cost to get into the main block is too expensive for a smaller advertiser. Aiming for the top of the side bar ads can do pretty well getting business for a reasonable price.
Add in the number of knowledge graph results that now come from some horrifically spammy sites and G is looking a very unfriendly place for a tiny business to start up with.
[+] [-] HappyTypist|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] peter303|10 years ago|reply