7 ms·

I'm going to come out in defense of patio11 here. Not because the ad isn't deceptive - it undoubtedly is. But because he fell into the dark side of a grey are

by teej 15y ago

I'm going to come out in defense of patio11 here. Not because the ad isn't deceptive - it undoubtedly is. But because he fell into the dark side of a grey area and it's worth discussing HOW good people end up there. From a rationalist perspecive, the ad is justified. He is effectively capturing the majority of the market possible through adwords. So what's next? It makes sense to take your know-how in one market and apply it to another. The problem is that the other markets are filled with sharks. Sharks that will stop at nothing to generate leads for scammy, high-value businesses (for-profit ed, weight loss, etc) As a moralist, one would turn their nose up at these shark-filled waters at the start. If scammy people advertise through it, why should I? Personally, I think it's really important to dive in deep to the grey area. Not because you can make more money, but to better understand the inner-workings of the "dark" side of the business. Most of the successful players there use a slathering of evil techniques combined with a wealth of direct marketing experience that whitehat marketers use every day. It's important to test -everything-, learn as much as you can from empirical data, and then move forward with both your knowledge and moral compass in mind. I often say I have the full Zynga playbook at my disposal and the judgement to know when not to use it.

patio11 15y ago
I'm curious as to why you'd draw a distinction between AdWords and scam filled advertising. Google's bread is buttered by credit cards, diet pills, and degrees. Search any relevant keyword if you don't believe me. Most of the advertisers I share pages with on the AdWords Content Network are also not pages you'd want your mother going to. The economics of Internet advertising heavily favor scams. Would it be better for the world and users if a site about teaching activities had off-topic ads inviting people to sign up for weightloss pills (snake oil with a rebill scam) or software which actually makes teaching activities?
- staunch 15y ago
  You're reduced to arguing that, since you offer a good product, it's okay to use the same dishonest tactics that the bad guys use. I suppose you're right. Better that a user is tricked into clicking onto Bingo Card Creator than a herbal Viagra affiliate. It's just not a very high moral position to take.
  - tptacek 15y ago
    Can we just note again here that in your construction, "the bad guys" include Google themselves? The tactic we're talking about is, as Patrick notes at the very start of his post, the same one Google uses at the top of every SERP.
    - staunch 15y ago
      No. Only if Google included barely distinguishable paid placements in their organic results would it be a fair comparison. I'll concede that some minority of users might not be able to distinguish paid results from organic on Google, but no one could do it with these "blended" ads -- that's why he's getting such a high CTR. Users are being tricked.
      - tptacek 15y ago
        Did you read the article? Was maybe Patrick too subtle about the point that many (probably most) of Google's users perceive the paid placement at the top of every SERP as a search result? These "blended" ads are labeled as sponsored results as well.
        mechanical_fish 15y ago
        Ironically, I view the paid placements atop Google's SERPs as legitimate search results. I find myself doing Google searches just to click on the ads and see what kinds of products my web-enabled colleagues are explicitly advertising to people with my needs. And I don't think it's at all foolish that people subconsciously believe that those highlighted results at the top of SERPs are "the high-quality results". They often are! They lead directly to well-designed product pages that tell you just what you are looking for and that have refreshingly direct BUY NOW buttons. Whereas the top non-paid search results are, as often as not, either duplicates of the paid content at the top (by no coincidence, companies with great SEO often know about AdWords as well) or passive-aggressive advertisements-in-disguise. (Give me a straight sales pitch instead of all that tiptoeing around.) Google is basically the equivalent of all those trade magazines: If you're in the optics business and you need to know who sells lenses, you subscribe to Laser Focus World specifically for the ads and the product reviews. Or the local alternative newsweekly: I leaf through those to look for new restaurants or clubs. Or a coupon book. I can afford to laugh at coupon books, but people do read and use those things.
- teej 15y ago
  Let me clarify - I would much rather a teaching activities site be filled with BCC ads over weight loss ads. That doesn't justify the use of deceptive advertising beyond exploration. This is the -exact same- line of thinking that goes on at social games companies with viral game features. Good people say: "20% of users respond to this request, it must be interesting to people. Send more!" This is completely oblivious to the negative value you're imposing upon those other 80%. Just because your negative value is LESS negative than a rebill scam doesn't make it positive. There are potential customers on sites outside of Adwords network. You've proven that. Now capture them in a way that doesn't trick people into clicking on your ad.
  - tptacek 15y ago
    So, just so we can be as specific and absolute as possible: you also think that every Google SERP is dishonest. Because the whole premise of Patrick's post is, "here's how Google's ads work; I wonder what would happen if I crafted my ads to fit into pages the same way Google's do?"
    - olaf 15y ago
      Do you automatically sanction Google's deeds? I think, they are clearly doing evil in this case.
      - tptacek 15y ago
        Do you remember what Google's ad strategy was a reaction to?
        olaf 15y ago
        I never knew. How can that justify that they deceive many users?
        tptacek 15y ago
        Google's Adwords strategy was a reaction to competitors who literally sold placement in search results.
- _dps 15y ago
  I don't know how to get any good data on this, but I think saying "Google's bread is buttered by <undesirables> ..." is at least accidentally misleading. Google supports a tremendously diverse ad ecosystem, some of which is questionable. However, at least in my experience, very few of my search queries involve such ads. The perception (if not provable fact) that they're mostly a class act is a big part of their enduring brand value. Of course, it's possible that the "typical" user gets a much larger fraction of "scam ads" than I do. I don't know how to evaluate this empirically without knowing something about the overall query distribution. Still, at least for my search patterns, there is a very large difference between AdWords and "scam filled advertising". This is in sharp distinction to my average experience on, say, Facebook (never mind other fairly mainstream web behaviors like gaming forums).
  - paulsilver 15y ago
    I think when he was talking about ads for weight loss programmes etc he was talking about what comes up on the Content Network, not what is seen on Google's results pages. The Content Network is what you're in if you display Adsense adverts on your website.
    - _dps 15y ago
      It's possible that's what he meant, but I find it unlikely. He specifically suggested searching for keywords, and, as you point out, the content network is known as AdSense, not AdWords (both officially and in common parlance). I would agree that AdSense has a less pristine reputation than AdWords, particularly since they started offering image ads. I imagine that Google has less market power in image ads, and so they tend to "pander" to advertisers more than they do in search (I can't imagine the DoubleClick acquisition helped in that regard). Still, AdSense has clear quality guidelines and actual enforcement, however imperfect. I don't think I would agree with describing AdSense as "scam filled", even though I could do without another "Learn one weird trick for X" ads.
mechanical_fish 15y ago
HOW good people end up there patio11's post tells us right up front where he learned this particular technique: Google taught it to him. I'm not even speaking metaphorically. Google invented this technique, they use it on every search-results page where there's any money to be made with it, and they published an educational page that explicitly teaches the technique to everyone else, a page which Patrick links to and quotes. Those of you who rail about the evils of advertising in general, or this technique in particular, are entitled to your opinions, but do please aim your rage at the appropriate target: Google.
- teej 15y ago
  "Those of you who rail about the evils of advertising in general, or this technique in particular, are entitled to your opinions, but do please aim your rage at the appropriate target: Google." Let's be clear - I'm not at all railing on the evils of advertising. I'm as much of a marketer as I am a product designer and programmer. Google does not put faked user-generated content (review stars) next to their ads. This is functionally equivalent to me putting an ad on Facebook with the text "5 of your friends like this" embedded in the image. It's a deceptive lie aimed at blindly increasing CTR without regard to click quality. I would be 100x happier with the ad if he had simply left out the stars.
  - tptacek 15y ago
    This is at least a productive comment. It's the review stars that bother you? If he took the review stars off, replaced them with some other element, you'd be fine with the ad?
    - sector 15y ago
      I'm never a fan of advertorials, despite their occasional efficacy, because I think they devalue their surroundings. I'm particularly bothered by then when substantial effort is made to make it difficult for even keen-eyed observers to recognize their existence.
    - statictype 15y ago
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
dhruval 15y ago
This actually is not a gray area at all. It is specifically against Adsense TOS. See here under 'encouraging clicks': https://www.google.com/adsense/support/as/bin/answer.py?answer=48182&gsessionid=MBZwgnHOhEA9OKlVpaCGKw https://www.google.com/adsense/support/as/bin/answer.py?answ... Nor is this a new idea. Google addressed this issue back in 2007, and specifically warned publishers not to post images next to ads. I know because I was one of them. Here is a snapshot of my earnings from a site I ran back in 2007. Note the big drop in CTR around Feb 7th. http://i.imgur.com/Kwbgw.jpg http://i.imgur.com/Kwbgw.jpg. In my defense I was a brash 18 y/o at the time, this was a hobby, and I wasn't thinking long term. And ofcourse I did remove the images after Google clarified their TOS. But at some level, even then, I knew that what I was doing was morally wrong. Technical loophole not withstanding.
- jacquesm 15y ago
  These are not adsense ads, so adsense t.o.s. do not apply. The ads are served up by buysellads.com. (see last line of the blog post)
  - dhruval 15y ago
    Fair point. Didn't see that line earlier and made the assumption it was adsense as the author talked about how Google serves up ads.
astine 15y ago
Patrick makes a good point when he points out that people filter out spammy looking ads so blending, more even than relevance, is necessary for click through. The most surefire way to get folks to click on your ads is to put them on Google, but half the folks on Google don't even realize that they are clicking on ads. Spammy text ads really just don't work. On the other hand, Patrick's ad here blends just a smidgeon too well for my comfort. I didn't realize that it was an ad until Patrick mentioned it in the text. That's saying something because I was expecting it to be an ad. (I'm a little drowsy today so I'm not as sharp as I usually am.) It looked too legit. I'd have given it a yellow border or slightly different color scheme. I think then it would still attract the viewers attention without feeling like a trick when the user clicked on it.
nate 15y ago
I can't believe we are calling this stuff patio did as dark side and someone else brought up "ruining the internet". And bringing up "morals". Go spend some time on "dark side" seo forums. Some of that shit is what's ruining parts of the internet. The guy made an ad that blends into reality. Who cares? There's a fat label that says it's sponsored. Is Apple evil because I watch House on television? Oh, did you notice they like to use Apple computers on that show. Glowy Apple logos everywhere. Did you see what they did there? Watch the credits. Sponsored by Apple. Or go to CNN.com. Go to From our shows. See a show not like the rest? It's called "Advertisement" in small grey print. This stuff isn't evil. He simply took advantage of something he could take advantage of and played by the rules. The site needs it's advertisers, and the people to keep this valuable resource of a site going for free needs it's advertisers. If the teacher's site doesn't like his product or how he represents it they can not approve the BuySellAd. If people don't want to buy the damn Bingo software after they click the ad for it, they won't.
- tripzilch 15y ago
  > There's a fat label that says it's sponsored. Are we talking about the same screenshot with "Bingo Card Creator", five stars and "rated by lots" ? Cause all I'm seeing is a tiny 8px light grey label that says "Sponsored Placement". Is there also a big fat label that I missed somehow?
joelrunyon 15y ago
The title of the piece is "Image Ad Blending Works Really, Really Well" not "Image Ad Blending Is Really, Really Ethical." I'm not promoting it, but take it for what it is. Adapt it to your best judgment. That said, the stars saying "rated by lots" is both genius and evil :).

by teej 15y ago

patio11 15y ago

I'm curious as to why you'd draw a distinction between AdWords and scam filled advertising. Google's bread is buttered by credit cards, diet pills, and degrees. Search any relevant keyword if you don't believe me. Most of the advertisers I share pages with on the AdWords Content Network are also not pages you'd want your mother going to. The economics of Internet advertising heavily favor scams. Would it be better for the world and users if a site about teaching activities had off-topic ads inviting people to sign up for weightloss pills (snake oil with a rebill scam) or software which actually makes teaching activities?

staunch 15y ago
You're reduced to arguing that, since you offer a good product, it's okay to use the same dishonest tactics that the bad guys use. I suppose you're right. Better that a user is tricked into clicking onto Bingo Card Creator than a herbal Viagra affiliate. It's just not a very high moral position to take.
- tptacek 15y ago
  Can we just note again here that in your construction, "the bad guys" include Google themselves? The tactic we're talking about is, as Patrick notes at the very start of his post, the same one Google uses at the top of every SERP.
  - staunch 15y ago
    No. Only if Google included barely distinguishable paid placements in their organic results would it be a fair comparison. I'll concede that some minority of users might not be able to distinguish paid results from organic on Google, but no one could do it with these "blended" ads -- that's why he's getting such a high CTR. Users are being tricked.
    - tptacek 15y ago
      Did you read the article? Was maybe Patrick too subtle about the point that many (probably most) of Google's users perceive the paid placement at the top of every SERP as a search result? These "blended" ads are labeled as sponsored results as well.
      - mechanical_fish 15y ago
        Ironically, I view the paid placements atop Google's SERPs as legitimate search results. I find myself doing Google searches just to click on the ads and see what kinds of products my web-enabled colleagues are explicitly advertising to people with my needs. And I don't think it's at all foolish that people subconsciously believe that those highlighted results at the top of SERPs are "the high-quality results". They often are! They lead directly to well-designed product pages that tell you just what you are looking for and that have refreshingly direct BUY NOW buttons. Whereas the top non-paid search results are, as often as not, either duplicates of the paid content at the top (by no coincidence, companies with great SEO often know about AdWords as well) or passive-aggressive advertisements-in-disguise. (Give me a straight sales pitch instead of all that tiptoeing around.) Google is basically the equivalent of all those trade magazines: If you're in the optics business and you need to know who sells lenses, you subscribe to Laser Focus World specifically for the ads and the product reviews. Or the local alternative newsweekly: I leaf through those to look for new restaurants or clubs. Or a coupon book. I can afford to laugh at coupon books, but people do read and use those things.
teej 15y ago
Let me clarify - I would much rather a teaching activities site be filled with BCC ads over weight loss ads. That doesn't justify the use of deceptive advertising beyond exploration. This is the -exact same- line of thinking that goes on at social games companies with viral game features. Good people say: "20% of users respond to this request, it must be interesting to people. Send more!" This is completely oblivious to the negative value you're imposing upon those other 80%. Just because your negative value is LESS negative than a rebill scam doesn't make it positive. There are potential customers on sites outside of Adwords network. You've proven that. Now capture them in a way that doesn't trick people into clicking on your ad.
- tptacek 15y ago
  So, just so we can be as specific and absolute as possible: you also think that every Google SERP is dishonest. Because the whole premise of Patrick's post is, "here's how Google's ads work; I wonder what would happen if I crafted my ads to fit into pages the same way Google's do?"
  - olaf 15y ago
    Do you automatically sanction Google's deeds? I think, they are clearly doing evil in this case.
    - tptacek 15y ago
      Do you remember what Google's ad strategy was a reaction to?
      - olaf 15y ago
        I never knew. How can that justify that they deceive many users?
        tptacek 15y ago
        Google's Adwords strategy was a reaction to competitors who literally sold placement in search results.
_dps 15y ago
I don't know how to get any good data on this, but I think saying "Google's bread is buttered by <undesirables> ..." is at least accidentally misleading. Google supports a tremendously diverse ad ecosystem, some of which is questionable. However, at least in my experience, very few of my search queries involve such ads. The perception (if not provable fact) that they're mostly a class act is a big part of their enduring brand value. Of course, it's possible that the "typical" user gets a much larger fraction of "scam ads" than I do. I don't know how to evaluate this empirically without knowing something about the overall query distribution. Still, at least for my search patterns, there is a very large difference between AdWords and "scam filled advertising". This is in sharp distinction to my average experience on, say, Facebook (never mind other fairly mainstream web behaviors like gaming forums).
- paulsilver 15y ago
  I think when he was talking about ads for weight loss programmes etc he was talking about what comes up on the Content Network, not what is seen on Google's results pages. The Content Network is what you're in if you display Adsense adverts on your website.
  - _dps 15y ago
    It's possible that's what he meant, but I find it unlikely. He specifically suggested searching for keywords, and, as you point out, the content network is known as AdSense, not AdWords (both officially and in common parlance). I would agree that AdSense has a less pristine reputation than AdWords, particularly since they started offering image ads. I imagine that Google has less market power in image ads, and so they tend to "pander" to advertisers more than they do in search (I can't imagine the DoubleClick acquisition helped in that regard). Still, AdSense has clear quality guidelines and actual enforcement, however imperfect. I don't think I would agree with describing AdSense as "scam filled", even though I could do without another "Learn one weird trick for X" ads.

mechanical_fish 15y ago

HOW good people end up there patio11's post tells us right up front where he learned this particular technique: Google taught it to him. I'm not even speaking metaphorically. Google invented this technique, they use it on every search-results page where there's any money to be made with it, and they published an educational page that explicitly teaches the technique to everyone else, a page which Patrick links to and quotes. Those of you who rail about the evils of advertising in general, or this technique in particular, are entitled to your opinions, but do please aim your rage at the appropriate target: Google.

teej 15y ago
"Those of you who rail about the evils of advertising in general, or this technique in particular, are entitled to your opinions, but do please aim your rage at the appropriate target: Google." Let's be clear - I'm not at all railing on the evils of advertising. I'm as much of a marketer as I am a product designer and programmer. Google does not put faked user-generated content (review stars) next to their ads. This is functionally equivalent to me putting an ad on Facebook with the text "5 of your friends like this" embedded in the image. It's a deceptive lie aimed at blindly increasing CTR without regard to click quality. I would be 100x happier with the ad if he had simply left out the stars.
- tptacek 15y ago
  This is at least a productive comment. It's the review stars that bother you? If he took the review stars off, replaced them with some other element, you'd be fine with the ad?
  - sector 15y ago
    I'm never a fan of advertorials, despite their occasional efficacy, because I think they devalue their surroundings. I'm particularly bothered by then when substantial effort is made to make it difficult for even keen-eyed observers to recognize their existence.
  - statictype 15y ago

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

dhruval 15y ago

This actually is not a gray area at all. It is specifically against Adsense TOS. See here under 'encouraging clicks': https://www.google.com/adsense/support/as/bin/answer.py?answer=48182&gsessionid=MBZwgnHOhEA9OKlVpaCGKw https://www.google.com/adsense/support/as/bin/answer.py?answ... Nor is this a new idea. Google addressed this issue back in 2007, and specifically warned publishers not to post images next to ads. I know because I was one of them. Here is a snapshot of my earnings from a site I ran back in 2007. Note the big drop in CTR around Feb 7th. http://i.imgur.com/Kwbgw.jpg http://i.imgur.com/Kwbgw.jpg. In my defense I was a brash 18 y/o at the time, this was a hobby, and I wasn't thinking long term. And ofcourse I did remove the images after Google clarified their TOS. But at some level, even then, I knew that what I was doing was morally wrong. Technical loophole not withstanding.

jacquesm 15y ago
These are not adsense ads, so adsense t.o.s. do not apply. The ads are served up by buysellads.com. (see last line of the blog post)
- dhruval 15y ago
  Fair point. Didn't see that line earlier and made the assumption it was adsense as the author talked about how Google serves up ads.

astine 15y ago

Patrick makes a good point when he points out that people filter out spammy looking ads so blending, more even than relevance, is necessary for click through. The most surefire way to get folks to click on your ads is to put them on Google, but half the folks on Google don't even realize that they are clicking on ads. Spammy text ads really just don't work. On the other hand, Patrick's ad here blends just a smidgeon too well for my comfort. I didn't realize that it was an ad until Patrick mentioned it in the text. That's saying something because I was expecting it to be an ad. (I'm a little drowsy today so I'm not as sharp as I usually am.) It looked too legit. I'd have given it a yellow border or slightly different color scheme. I think then it would still attract the viewers attention without feeling like a trick when the user clicked on it.

nate 15y ago

I can't believe we are calling this stuff patio did as dark side and someone else brought up "ruining the internet". And bringing up "morals". Go spend some time on "dark side" seo forums. Some of that shit is what's ruining parts of the internet. The guy made an ad that blends into reality. Who cares? There's a fat label that says it's sponsored. Is Apple evil because I watch House on television? Oh, did you notice they like to use Apple computers on that show. Glowy Apple logos everywhere. Did you see what they did there? Watch the credits. Sponsored by Apple. Or go to CNN.com. Go to From our shows. See a show not like the rest? It's called "Advertisement" in small grey print. This stuff isn't evil. He simply took advantage of something he could take advantage of and played by the rules. The site needs it's advertisers, and the people to keep this valuable resource of a site going for free needs it's advertisers. If the teacher's site doesn't like his product or how he represents it they can not approve the BuySellAd. If people don't want to buy the damn Bingo software after they click the ad for it, they won't.

tripzilch 15y ago
> There's a fat label that says it's sponsored. Are we talking about the same screenshot with "Bingo Card Creator", five stars and "rated by lots" ? Cause all I'm seeing is a tiny 8px light grey label that says "Sponsored Placement". Is there also a big fat label that I missed somehow?

joelrunyon 15y ago

The title of the piece is "Image Ad Blending Works Really, Really Well" not "Image Ad Blending Is Really, Really Ethical." I'm not promoting it, but take it for what it is. Adapt it to your best judgment. That said, the stars saying "rated by lots" is both genius and evil :).