5 ms·

Google changed it lately without any special notification. Unfortunately. There are more things to watch out. For example if you set a budget of 100 dollars pe

Google changed it lately without any special notification. Unfortunately. There are more things to watch out. For example if you set a budget of 100 dollars per day, Google can, and most likely, will, spend 200 dollars in short campaign per day. Another thing: in display campaign, on default, most of the budget will be drained by mobile fraud applications that generate fake clicks. And also by video clicks made by babies on YouTube. And Google removed an option to disable mobile apps altogether lately. Keyword targeting - on default Google uses broad matching including variants etc. Eventually you can pay for clicks for non relevant keywords that will also drain most of the budget. Another thing: Google advises to put ads on your company name. It is a neat strategy, because you pay for something you had for free. And campaign seems to have better statistics. Another thing. You wont believe it, untill you see it. Aprox up to 80% of ad traffic are bots. And advertising platforms does not recognize it or refund. And so on... I am working on Google Ads campaigns for several years now. Always say to my client two things: 1) Google and Facebook will spent every penny you want to spend 2) Spend on ads only such amount on money, you can live without, and keep it running for a longer time without interruption. 3) Optimise often

buboard 7y ago
> And Google removed an option to disable mobile apps altogether lately. can you adjust bid to -100% for mobile?
- tomaszs 7y ago
  It excludes websites. And nowadays you dont want to block ads on websites viewed on mobile devices. You want to block Android ad fraud apps. Google blocked the possibility to do it. Essencially making fraud apps creators extremely easy and luxurious. And as you can expect, Google has 10 times stricter requirements for websites showing their ads, than for Android apps...
- riku_iki 7y ago
  Minimum modifier is -90%, so you only can penalize mobile.
artur_makly 7y ago
I can personally confirm another f'd up Google Display Ad scheme... When looking at the list of mostly gambling sites that their almighty algo decided we would have most success in for a niche UX platform!
kaugesaar 7y ago
Oh yes, those baby clicks on YouTube. Annyoing as hell. Stay away from broad affinity / in-market groups or you'll end up spending 20%-40% of your budget on channels for toddlers. By time though you'll build up a nice list that you can exclude, but it's going to cost you in the start.
- jonbennett18 7y ago
  This killed my budget on a display campaign I setup last year and there seems to be no easy way to mass exclude these channels. I even tried setting the content of my ads as not family friendly but still found this didn’t solve the problem for retargeting campaigns.
  - tomaszs 7y ago
    That is exactly why i dont use display. Eventually you can set reach with frequency set to 1 and lowest cost per view possible. And each our ban all junk. There is a lots of it, so it is impossible to remove all. But after two, three days, you get a nice list of websites where actually you want to display ads. Than you can show ads only on these pages. Other way is to use keyword setting. Not as topic or observation, but page containing a keyword. With good set of keywords it is possible to rule out baby clicks
- dessant 7y ago
  > Oh yes, those baby clicks on YouTube. A friend's toddler was watching a cartoon with songs on YouTube, and they were deeply focused on it when an ad popped in their face. They didn't stop crying for an hour. By excluding channels for kids from your ad campaign you can both save money and avoid scaring children, so go for it. :)
tiborsaas 7y ago
> if you set a budget of 100 dollars per day, Google can, and most likely, will, spend 200 dollars in short campaign per day. How is this possible? It sounds like a bug, but it's probably not, so what's their justification? Launching an ad campaign feels like rocket science now mixed with a good amount of woodoo magic. 80% down the drain by default? That's a number I could believe, but freaks me out how to market my side project to get actual people on my service. And I'm on a ridiculous budget, I can't afford the "throw money on the wall and see what sticks" method with 500$.
- kchamplewski 7y ago
  As I understand it the reasoning given tends to be that ad auctions happen extremely quickly, and therefore too quickly to check some single source of truth for your current budget. Therefore, the budget is only "eventually consistent" - i.e. at the end of the campaign or after a day or so, the number you're being charged is accurate. However during the campaign itself it's not possible to guarantee that things won't go slightly over budget as each individual ad auction cannot feasibly check the central budget. That said, it definitely feels like there should be a way to implement this such that it backs off as the budget is approached, so that overshoots are likely to be minor, rather than 100% of the budget as apparently happens on a regular basis.
  - jakobegger 7y ago
    I'm pretty sure fixing bugs that make money is on the very bottom of the list of priorities....
    - lrem 7y ago
      Back when I was in the ads org, there was no month without a big important future launch, that was supposed to make us make less money in the short term.
    - hnick 7y ago
      They don't need a bug fix as a stopgap. The fair thing to do would be refund the excess. If I set a limit and they display ads and exceed it, why should it be my problem?
2sk21 7y ago
Given their monopoly power, this is beginning to sound increasingly like a tax on businesses.
jrobn 7y ago
So why even use a platform that so easily throws your money away for nothing? With those points you laid out I would be better off keeping my money. Facebook is the same way with all of this crap too. I’ve seen more success with the hard way, networking and getting content made about me and distributed in magazines or online blogs from people who get to use my service for free.
- tomaszs 7y ago
  And it is best you can do. Essencially Ads should be the last resort and used with extreme care to not waste a dime. And this takes a lots of focus unfortunately. Keep the budget low, so you wont bother about it, and use money for anything else than Google Ads. And its not like i am against Google or something. Actually i have a company that runs Google Ads for clients. So i dont have any hidden interest to criticize Google Ads, contrary. But its the truth and its just something i think everyone should be aware of.
  - dhimes 7y ago
    I think it best to think about the ads in the same way you would in any other medium. Unless you have a special offer or something, it's just branding. The original hypothesis upon which Google was founded, that people would be interested in buying things if they were searching the internet for something relatable, seems to have failed- at least in the near-term sense. Just because I am looking for campsites in the Rockies doesn't mean I am in the market for a sleeping bag. But to put the ad in front of me then to make me aware of your brand might be useful. That's the game played by advertisers since they began with media advertising. Given this, all of the data collection/tracking/etc. seems like a round-off error in effectiveness, and doesn't seem to be worth the loss of individual privacy.
    - tomaszs 7y ago
      Yes, for near terms its branding. In theory it should make you consider the company when you move to buying stuff stage. But the theory also tells you would need to be exposed to the company with multiple channels. Search counts as one. So it does not work solo.
dhimes 7y ago
I've been seeing 80% of clicks as fraud/nonsense/fake/whatever for a decade.
silexia 7y ago
I am a Google certified premier partner managing hundreds of thousands of dollars in spend a month for Google AdWords... Google ads have become a giant scam over the last few years. Be extremely careful, they are constantly changing things in ways that border on outright fraud. Google used to be a company I respected and loved, I am disappointed to see what's happened recently. It would be great to see someone with integrity step up and set the company back on the right path.

buboard 7y ago

> And Google removed an option to disable mobile apps altogether lately. can you adjust bid to -100% for mobile?

tomaszs 7y ago
It excludes websites. And nowadays you dont want to block ads on websites viewed on mobile devices. You want to block Android ad fraud apps. Google blocked the possibility to do it. Essencially making fraud apps creators extremely easy and luxurious. And as you can expect, Google has 10 times stricter requirements for websites showing their ads, than for Android apps...
riku_iki 7y ago
Minimum modifier is -90%, so you only can penalize mobile.

artur_makly 7y ago

I can personally confirm another f'd up Google Display Ad scheme... When looking at the list of mostly gambling sites that their almighty algo decided we would have most success in for a niche UX platform!

kaugesaar 7y ago

Oh yes, those baby clicks on YouTube. Annyoing as hell. Stay away from broad affinity / in-market groups or you'll end up spending 20%-40% of your budget on channels for toddlers. By time though you'll build up a nice list that you can exclude, but it's going to cost you in the start.

jonbennett18 7y ago
This killed my budget on a display campaign I setup last year and there seems to be no easy way to mass exclude these channels. I even tried setting the content of my ads as not family friendly but still found this didn’t solve the problem for retargeting campaigns.
- tomaszs 7y ago
  That is exactly why i dont use display. Eventually you can set reach with frequency set to 1 and lowest cost per view possible. And each our ban all junk. There is a lots of it, so it is impossible to remove all. But after two, three days, you get a nice list of websites where actually you want to display ads. Than you can show ads only on these pages. Other way is to use keyword setting. Not as topic or observation, but page containing a keyword. With good set of keywords it is possible to rule out baby clicks
dessant 7y ago
> Oh yes, those baby clicks on YouTube. A friend's toddler was watching a cartoon with songs on YouTube, and they were deeply focused on it when an ad popped in their face. They didn't stop crying for an hour. By excluding channels for kids from your ad campaign you can both save money and avoid scaring children, so go for it. :)

tiborsaas 7y ago

> if you set a budget of 100 dollars per day, Google can, and most likely, will, spend 200 dollars in short campaign per day. How is this possible? It sounds like a bug, but it's probably not, so what's their justification? Launching an ad campaign feels like rocket science now mixed with a good amount of woodoo magic. 80% down the drain by default? That's a number I could believe, but freaks me out how to market my side project to get actual people on my service. And I'm on a ridiculous budget, I can't afford the "throw money on the wall and see what sticks" method with 500$.

kchamplewski 7y ago
As I understand it the reasoning given tends to be that ad auctions happen extremely quickly, and therefore too quickly to check some single source of truth for your current budget. Therefore, the budget is only "eventually consistent" - i.e. at the end of the campaign or after a day or so, the number you're being charged is accurate. However during the campaign itself it's not possible to guarantee that things won't go slightly over budget as each individual ad auction cannot feasibly check the central budget. That said, it definitely feels like there should be a way to implement this such that it backs off as the budget is approached, so that overshoots are likely to be minor, rather than 100% of the budget as apparently happens on a regular basis.
- jakobegger 7y ago
  I'm pretty sure fixing bugs that make money is on the very bottom of the list of priorities....
  - lrem 7y ago
    Back when I was in the ads org, there was no month without a big important future launch, that was supposed to make us make less money in the short term.
  - hnick 7y ago
    They don't need a bug fix as a stopgap. The fair thing to do would be refund the excess. If I set a limit and they display ads and exceed it, why should it be my problem?

2sk21 7y ago

Given their monopoly power, this is beginning to sound increasingly like a tax on businesses.

jrobn 7y ago

So why even use a platform that so easily throws your money away for nothing? With those points you laid out I would be better off keeping my money. Facebook is the same way with all of this crap too. I’ve seen more success with the hard way, networking and getting content made about me and distributed in magazines or online blogs from people who get to use my service for free.

tomaszs 7y ago
And it is best you can do. Essencially Ads should be the last resort and used with extreme care to not waste a dime. And this takes a lots of focus unfortunately. Keep the budget low, so you wont bother about it, and use money for anything else than Google Ads. And its not like i am against Google or something. Actually i have a company that runs Google Ads for clients. So i dont have any hidden interest to criticize Google Ads, contrary. But its the truth and its just something i think everyone should be aware of.
- dhimes 7y ago
  I think it best to think about the ads in the same way you would in any other medium. Unless you have a special offer or something, it's just branding. The original hypothesis upon which Google was founded, that people would be interested in buying things if they were searching the internet for something relatable, seems to have failed- at least in the near-term sense. Just because I am looking for campsites in the Rockies doesn't mean I am in the market for a sleeping bag. But to put the ad in front of me then to make me aware of your brand might be useful. That's the game played by advertisers since they began with media advertising. Given this, all of the data collection/tracking/etc. seems like a round-off error in effectiveness, and doesn't seem to be worth the loss of individual privacy.
  - tomaszs 7y ago
    Yes, for near terms its branding. In theory it should make you consider the company when you move to buying stuff stage. But the theory also tells you would need to be exposed to the company with multiple channels. Search counts as one. So it does not work solo.

dhimes 7y ago

I've been seeing 80% of clicks as fraud/nonsense/fake/whatever for a decade.

silexia 7y ago

I am a Google certified premier partner managing hundreds of thousands of dollars in spend a month for Google AdWords... Google ads have become a giant scam over the last few years. Be extremely careful, they are constantly changing things in ways that border on outright fraud. Google used to be a company I respected and loved, I am disappointed to see what's happened recently. It would be great to see someone with integrity step up and set the company back on the right path.