<![CDATA[Gawker: valleywag, adsense]]> http://tags.gawker.com/assets/base/img/thumbs140x140/gawker.com.png <![CDATA[Gawker: valleywag, adsense]]> http://gawker.com/tag/valleywag/adsense http://gawker.com/tag/valleywag/adsense <![CDATA[How Google AdSense Could Make You Poorer]]> Not only does Google AdSense pay badly, it can wreck your unemployment benefits. The State of New York cut one woman's benefit checks and told her running the ads was "self employment." AdSense earned her $1.30 per day. [TechDirt] (Pic)

]]>
http://gawker.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=5381018&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[Google Sees Right Through Julia Allison]]> NonSociety, Julia Allison's experient in making macro bucks from microcelebrity, hasn't come up with a clever way of paying the bills. So she's running cheapo Google AdSense ads! Do they ever tell a story.

Google's ads pick up on keywords in NonSociety, a collection of egoblogs maintained by Allison and two friends, vapid handbag designer Mary Rambin and insecure Silicon Valley heiress Meghan Asha Parikh. The search engine's ad-placing algorithms are mercilessly insightful. The current selection:


Davos, debt, and digestion. Pretty much sums up the threesome, doesn't it?

The other day, Wall Street Journal editor Robert Thomson opined about Google on the Charlie Rose Show:

But one of the — Google — I mean, the harsh way of just defining it, Google devalues everything it touches. Google is great for Google, but it's terrible for content providers, because it divides that content quantitatively rather than qualitatively. And if you are going to get people to pay for content, you have to encourage them to make qualitative decisions about that content.

As much as we hate to disagree with Thomson, we think Google has made an excellent qualitative judgment on NonSociety.

]]>
http://gawker.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=5153489&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[Misplaced Prop 8 ads sparking Google boycott]]> As the election approaches, more bloggers are noticing ads from backers of Proposition 8, the gay-marriage ban appearing on Californians' ballots, courtesy of Google. The search engine's algorithm is mindlessly matching them to phrases like "gay marriage," regardless of whether the blog in question is for or against. Scott Beale, who blogs about Internet culture at Laughing Squid, has blocked the yes-on-8 ads, and, for good measure, taken Google's ads off his site altogether until after the election. He's not alone; one fashion website adminitrator tells Valleywag she's taken similar measures.

I haven't heard of any cases of the opposite happening, but I wouldn't be shocked if some socially conservative bloggers were similarly offended by no-on-8 ads placed on their blog by Google. Which returns me to my original question about these ads: If Google's algorithms are so good at placing ads, why aren't they able to gather whether a blog's audience generally supports or opposes gay marriage, and target ads where they'll do the most good?

(Screenshot by Scott Beale/Laughing Squid)

]]>
http://gawker.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=5075269&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[Google's scary reassurances]]> In tough times, overcommunicate, says Kleiner Perkins partner John Doerr, doing an inadvertent impression of so-sharey-he's-scary videoblogger Robert Scoble. One Kleiner portfolio company has gotten the message: Google! Kim Scott, the company's director of online sales and operations for AdSense, the company's system for placing ads on other websites, has sent a mass email to Web publishers who use the product. The letter refers to "recent economic turmoil" and reassures publishers that the company is "continuing to invest in innovations" — as opposed to, say, milking publishers for everything they're worth. The question Scott's letter really raises: Who's Google afraid of?

Surely not Yahoo. Microsoft and AOL don't even play in the AdSense market; of Google's rivals, most have large pageview minimums which smaller publishers won't meet. Perhaps Scott is worried that small Web publishers will simply throw in the towel? Her memo:

Dear Publisher,
We understand that the recent economic turmoil has created a lot of uncertainty in the lives of AdSense publishers. During these difficult times, we're continuing to invest in innovations that improve publisher monetization and advertiser value in the content network.

We're focusing on further developing our product offerings and boosting ad performance for publishers. We recently announced advancements in AdSense for search and experiments to make ads more effective. We're bringing DoubleClick technologies to AdSense publishers, and we'll continue to launch new products and features. We're also continuing to improve our offerings for AdWords advertisers, making it easier for them to target the Google content network. Features for advertisers, such as the new display ad builder, are designed to improve ad performance on AdSense publisher sites.

We'll keep driving technological progress, but our best asset will always be our publisher partners. The strength of AdSense lies in the value of the content you bring to users and the quality of the sites you bring to advertisers. Our success is tied to yours. We look forward to partnering with you for the long term, and remain dedicated to helping you succeed.

Sincerely,

Kim Scott
Director AdSense Online Sales & Operations

Google Inc.
1600 Amphitheatre Parkway
Mountain View, CA 94043

]]>
http://gawker.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=5071949&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[Sexing up Sarah Palin with Photoshop draws AdSense ire]]> A photo that may or may not depict a young, nude and brunette Sarah Palin, the governor of Alaska and the Republican Party's vice presidential nominee, has made the tabloid rounds after being featured on blog Hollywood Newsroom. It was sent in as part of a Photoshopping contest, but looks legitimate enough as a photograph (though not necessarily of Palin). Either way, it's too racy for Google — which strictly forbids placing its automated advertising next to "adult or mature" content.

Naturally companies like Wu Yi Source, which had an placed by AdSense when I dropped by, would certainly be offended that their ancient Chinese weight loss secret might be associated with a display of svelte bodies. The blog is now looking for another advertiser, and have promised that their next photo compositing contest will feature Google cofounders Larry Page and Sergey Brin in compromising — and AdSense-unfriendly — positions.

]]>
http://gawker.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=5045675&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[AdSense video unit, presumed extinct, discovered in the wild]]> YouTube has an embeddable player with features that might feel familiar to publishers who've used Blip.tv's show player — it's not meant for casual embeds, and isn't accessible from the standard embed code found on most video pages. It's meant for static placement on Web sites for featuring multiple videos from a single partner, and can carry both the standard in-video overlay ads as well as a text ad block from Google. It was released last October for AdSense customers, but isn't in particularly wide use. Why mention it now?

Because an appearance on a political blog was enough to surprise the New York Times's Saul Hansell into remarking on an instance he found "festooned with ads." Though the screenshot featured a video taken from television news and therefore the thumbnail itself was already overly busy with infographics, which contributed most to the impression of the "gaudiness of MySpace." The fact that one of the Times's technology bloggers took so long to take note of an AdSense video unit in the wild tells the real story — even with the promise of a slightly less pitiful revenue sharing check, nobody is using the thing.

]]>
http://gawker.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=5034110&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[Google testing video AdSense for games]]> VentureBeat's Dean Takahashi did the reporting so I don't have to: "Sources close to the matter said that Google has developed an in-game advertising technology that allows it to insert video ads into games. In demos of the technology, a game character can introduce a video ad, saying something like, 'And now, a word from our sponsor,' before showing a short video at the end of a sequence in a game. Since testing has been going on for some time, Google could launch the technology fairly quickly, if it so chooses." Microsoft bought Massive, a company which inserts ads into games, in 2006, and Google bought AdScape, a similar startup, in February 2007. Sony's also getting into placing ads in videogames, but most past efforts have dealt with still images, not video.

]]>
http://gawker.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=5031153&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[Google's Ad Planner no threat to Nielsen, ComScore]]> Media buyers and major publishers say that despite ComScore shareholders' worries, Google's Ad Planner, which provides Web metrics and demographic data to online advertisers, won't dislodge Web-traffic measurement leader ComScore or its rival Nielsen. “[Google needs] to add so many things, it’s not even a consideration at this point,” Mediasmith CEO David Smith told Mediaweek. “It’s absolutely not ready for prime time.” And publishers say Ad Planner won't provide advertisers a more accurate look at their inventories. “Their numbers are as bad or worse as anybody else’s out there,” Forbes.com CEO Jim Spanfeller said. So why bother? Google just wants advertisers to pay more attention to the sites it reps through its AdSense network.

]]>
http://gawker.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=5021128&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[Why doesn't Facebook serve contextual ads against messages?]]> When our video producer, Richard Blakeley, sent me an invite to the Belmont stakes this weekend, a link appeared below his message. It read:

Gambling Problem? The New York Racing Association encourages responsible wagering. If gambling is a problem for you or someone you care about, help is available 24 hours a day. Call toll-free 1-800-437-1611 or 1-800-522-4700.

For a bit, we both thought we'd discovered a new advertising product for Facebook — contextual ads against messages similar to the kind Google runs against Gmail messages. Turns out we were wrong. The message came from one of the Web pages Blakeley linked to in his message and Facebook was trying to preview it for me as an attachment. Still, it got us thinking: Facebook will only earn revenues around $300 million this year. Why not serve contextual ads against Facebook messages. People plan a lot of nights out over Facebook. Wouldn't restaurants, movie theaters and bars pay to be a part of that conversation? And with all the talent the company is hiring away from Google, couldn't they poach a few engineers from the AdSense team? Check out Blakeley's note and its misleading attachment, below.

]]>
http://gawker.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=5013977&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[Google's Blogger flooded by spammers]]> Over the last few months, wily spammers may have figured out how to crack the security feature known as "captchas." With an army of compromised Windows PCs known as botnets, they've been using their new power to flood Google's Blogger with spam. Why Blogger?

Likely because of the rumored privilege afforded to it by Google's search algorithm. Blogger blogs appear on the blogspot.com domain, which has high rank in search results, and Google makes it easy to run profitable AdSense text links on the site. That adds up to easy money.Researchers aren't clear if spammers have managed to compromise captchas through automation or simply by employing cheap labor, but if the latter, then even KittenAuth won't be able to stem the tide of spam blogs gaming keywords for clickfraud riches. Your move, Google.

]]>
http://gawker.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=384107&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[Is Slide worth half a billion? Only if Facebook buys them]]> slide.pngIn January a pair of money managers, Fidelity and T. Rowe Price, bought 9.1 percent of Slide for $50 million. Fortune asks, "Are these widgets worth half a billion?" The mag doesn't come up with anything more than "maybe," but I'm willing to go a little further. Slide worth $550 million? No, despite its huge traffic numbers. While it's true that advertisers are desperate to reach the 18-24 market, I hardly think SuperPoke is what they had in mind.

Slide won't be running an IPO any time soon. The only way founder Max Levchin and Fidelity and T. Rowe Price cash out is by being acquired, perhaps for a hefty chunk of Facebook stock. Mark Zuckerberg's company already has a huge amount of eyeballs, but picking up Slide would give them even more — and most importantly, massive reach across the other social networks that Slide's widgets run on.

Zuckerberg has already said he wants to expand Facebook across the Web, looking ahead to the inevitable day when growth on his site stagnates, the way it already has on rival MySpace. Beacon, his first attempt to extend Facebook, flopped last year amid charges that the privacy-invading feature ruined some users' Christmases.

An ad network for widgets could be Facebook's answer to Google AdSense. Google makes a ton of money from ads placed on Google.com, but reaches thousands more sites by offering them a cut of ads it sells and places. It also helps track users as they move around the Web.

Combining Facebook's existing ad ventures with Slide's huge audience of drunken-party-pic posters would give Zuck a hedge against fickle users abandoning his site for the next new thing. As Google showed us, the advertising business is where the money is made. It would be smart for Zuckerberg to solidify his hold on the market while he still can. Of course, he'd have to buy Slide for inflated stock, not cash — but Web entrepreneurs like Levchin love to deflect reporters' questions about their wealth by saying it's all on paper.

]]>
http://gawker.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=371431&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[Googlers vent: Working here sucks, too]]> Last quarter, Google hired 889 people, bringing the total headcount to 16,805. What do all these new employees do? Stab each other in the back, apparently. A tipster writes: "The management within Google, especially AdWords and AdSense (the money making machines of the entire company ... engineering gets the glory but advertising brings in the big bucks) are completely disorganized and chaotic (in a BAD way- because Google sometimes tries to spin the whole 'chaotic' thing in a good way)." There's much more:

Great post on Marissa Mayer. I can attest to its truth.

Second, the management within Google, especially AdWords and AdSense (the money making machines of the entire company...engineering gets the glory but advertising brings in the big bucks) are completely disorganized and chaotic (in a BAD way- because Google sometimes tries to spin the whole 'chaotic' thing in a good way).

I'm surprised that you guys don't shed more light on this, but AdWorders only make $45,000 base plus meager bonuses that are only a few hundred per quarter. It's the worst department because everyone hates their job "Hello, this is AdWords, how may I help you?" The dreaded phone shift, chat shifts, answering emails is the core job. They don't tell you that when recruiting and hiring kids from elite universities.

Managers that started as entry level and 'made it' to manager level are extremely paranoid and neurotic because they only have measly community college bachelor degrees and feel threatened (and rightfully so) by the new hire managers that are straight out of Harvard, Northwestern, INSEAD & Stanford MBA Programs. Yet they can't get the boot because they're well-connected and the people who suffer from their poor management are lower on the totem pole and could never risk the backlash that would undoubtedly result.

I know of one manager who everyone hated, yet nothing ever happened to her. Instead, her direct reports just prayed that they'd get to switch managers within the quarter. Her name is Tracy-Lee Blumberg. I know of at least 6 different employees who cried every single day that she was their manager. THREE were male. And other bad managers include Heather Huffman and Stacy Brown-Philpot.

It really is a crazy system because everyone is cut throat and if you happen to land a good project or get an opportunity (to work on a coveted project or work from a remote international office) people really try to bring you down.

(I happen to be an engineer and don't have a great manager but I can deal with him. I just keep hearing horror stories from my Adwords buddies).

Update: It seems Tracy Lee-Blumberg doesn't have many fans. Here's "Tracy's" LinkedIn summary:
I am an assistant manager at Google and I'm horrible at my job.

I'm a micromanager, I don't take criticism well (but I LOVE giving it out), and I am very manipulative and deceptive.

I believe that no one can tell me what to do. If I don't like you, you are screwed

I've been a super bitch lately and it's not just because I'm pregnant. I'm ALWAYS a bitch.... pregnant or not.

I've been at Google for several years, so I'm "well-connected"...Emily White loves me. So be careful...I know people and if you make me upset I will destroy you.

I'm pretty sure my bosses at Google are going to find out that I suck at my job and so I will need a new job once I'm let go....if anyone out there has a job for me, I'd appreciate it. Thanks.

(Photo by Extra Ketchup)]]>
http://gawker.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=362868&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[Glam Media raises $84 million, far short of its $200 million goal]]> Glam Media, the women-focused ad network, has raised $84.6 million, leaving the company valued at a rich $500 million. That still falls short of founder Samir Arora's hopes: According to a private-placement document circulating last year, he was seeking $200 million. Why'd he fall short?

Glam has a hefty publisher client list — websites it doesn't own, but for which it provides ads. (The list includes some sites which compete with Jezebel, owned by Gawker Media, the publisher of Valleywag.) Glam is also now the "largest women's network" according to ComScore, with nearly 45 million "readers."

Impressive? Not really. ComScore allows publishers to "assign" their traffic to another organization, letting ad networks pool the traffic from all client sites. If a widely used ad network like Google AdSense used this system, Google's network would be by far the largest. But, it's a disingenuous statistic, especially since Glam likes to pretend it's not an ad network.

Glam does have an argument that it's more than a network: That's because, like Microsoft has done with Facebook and Digg, and Google has done with MySpace, it buys up some sites' inventories at a guaranteed rate. That means the profit — or more likely loss — from those ad buys is entirely Glam's. But it's a very risky model. In a recent earnings call, Google executives complained that ads on MySpace weren't performing well. Google can afford that kind of risk. Can Glam? With only $84 million to play with, Arora hasn't raised the kind of bankroll that speaks well to that question.

]]>
http://gawker.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=360436&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[26 million publishers commit click fraud — get over it]]> BanditsFraudulent clicks accounted for 28.3 percent of all clicks on ad networks like Google's AdSense and the Yahoo Publisher Network during the fourth quarter of 2007. After some approximations, Freakonomics puts the number of publishers who are theoretically complicit in click fraud as high as 26 million. Which means advertisers need to get over it. Buy ads on a cost-per-action basis, where you only pay when clickers turn into buyers. Or do your own math and discount what you pay for a click accordingly — which is, in effect, what Google, Yahoo, and the like are already doing to publishers. Whining about the problem gives zero ROI. (Photo by Jason Upshaw)

]]>
http://gawker.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=359779&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[Trojan targets Google's AdSense revenue]]> Google is the target of a trojan that could be more damaging than the worm that has affected literally dozens of Orkut users. This new trojan, however, hits Google where it hurts — its ever-swelling advertising revenues. It redirects Web ads from the AdSense program to a rival ad provider. Bitdefender, the Romanian security-software maker which identified the trojan, does not specify who is serving these third-party ads or how the trojan is propagating. Researchers do say that Google may be powerless to stop the attack, because the malware affects personal computers, not the company's ad servers. Google is unlikely to lose substantial sums, but the search giant cannot enjoy being this helpless. No wonder it's pushing antivirus software.

]]>
http://gawker.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=336429&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ChaCha turns Indiana University into its billboard]]> Hoosier-powered search engine Chacha is turning to an unlikely source to fund its already cozy deal with Indiana University. Chacha is introducing Google AdSense ads to the university's search results. ChaCha already features both Google and Yahoo ads as sponsored links, on its public search, but until recently IU had a strict policy against advertising:

In general, IU restricts the ability to place advertising on [university] websites. This policy allows IU to present a comprehensive and recognizable visual identity on the Internet without interference from external source providers.
A wise policy for a publicly funded institution. But IU's executive leadership, which includes former ChaCha leadership, has been all too happy to bend rules for ChaCha. Why should ads be any different?]]>
http://gawker.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=331499&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[Another Googler takes credit for AdSense]]> Fortune is reporting that Google engineer Gokul Rajaram is leaving the Googleplex for a stab at his own company. Rajaram's greatest achievement? Oh, this little thing called AdSense, you heard of it? The ad system that places Google ads on blogs and Web 2.0 apps, keeping them financially viable against all business logic? After being hired in 2003, Rajaram supposedly worked to create the ad publishing network which now brings in, Fortune writes, "one-third of Google's revenue." Let's get this straight, people.

Susan Wojcicki did not invent AdSense, Marissa Mayer wasn't really involved at all, and this dude is saying he's the "godfather" of the system? Perhaps true, but more in a distant-send-you-a-birthday-card definition of "godfather." Looks like Fortune realized the error. The title of the story now refers to Rajaram as an AdSense "developer," but look at the URL. The original headline "adsense-creator-leaves-google" is still up there. And Rajaram is still quoted as saying, "When we started AdSense ..."

AdSense was a product created by Applied Semantics, a company Google acquired after it hired Rajaram, so for him, starting AdSense would be an especially neat trick. Oh, Rajaram meant the in-house ad system Google claims it rebranded as AdSense after buying Applied Semantics? Well, why didn't he say so?

]]>
http://gawker.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=323900&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[How to get real Google bucks from fake press releases]]> Phony press releases have become the grist for the newest Internet profit mills. If you're like Chris Anderson and us, you don't read press releases. But several tech blogs were taken in by a dubious press release issued by a nonexistent company allegedly backed by real investors who may or may not have invested in several fake companies. Huh? Exactly. How the scam was uncovered, how it works, and how to avoid falling victim after the jump.

Although there's evidence of many fake press releases floating around the Internet, the scam first came to the attention of Silicon Alley Insider because one particular release mentioned Internet television, a must-cover topic on its beat. But "the world's first broadcast-quality Internet television service" raising an alleged $45 million, profitable and yet no one's heard of it? SAI managing editor Peter Kafka's eyebrows were raised.

Alas, no eyebrow raisings took place at VentureBeat or PEHub, which were suckered despite PaidContent's observation that the HD AmeriTV announcement was a ripoff of a Joost release.

The confusion was exacerbated when these bloggers contacted First Mutual Credit, the only real company listed as an investor for confirmation. Two separate sources initially confirmed First Mutual's investment, but the New Zealand company has since denied any involvement. (Maybe it was that strong Kiwi accent.)

Several other fake companies and fake press releases have been identified. But what is the scam in advertising a nonexistent company? Peter Kafka, who has been closely tracking the story for Silicon Alley Insider, is stumped, but we think he's already stumbled upon the answer: Fake press releases get picked up by a host of PR-aggregating sites that profit off of Google AdSense ads.

Fake blogs already remix existing blog posts to generate nonsensical pages that nonetheless turn up in Google search results and display Google-sold ads targeted to relevant keywords. Press releases filled with buzzwords make even more lucrative fodder for AdSense.

So who makes money here? Press release aggregators like PR Leap would never admit it, but their cash register rings whether or not their press releases are accurate. And the perpetrators of the HD AmeriTV press release? There's no proof, but we smell a search-engine optimization scam, where they get paid by clients to try to improve the ranking of websites by seeding the Web with fake pages.

There's a simple solution, of course: don't read press releases ... real or fake.

]]>
http://gawker.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=322268&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[Google has changed the clickable area within...]]> AdSense heatmapGoogle has changed the clickable area within AdSense ads to include just the title and the url of the ad, rather than the entire ad box. This should raise the value of ad clicks in the long run by reducing the likelihood of accidental clicks. [Google Blogoscoped]

]]>
http://gawker.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=322321&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[Facebook SocialAds revealed!]]> social-ads.gifFacebook updated its code over the weekend and, according to reports, Facebook's much-anticipated SocialAds are now officially part of the ones and zeroes. Based on the updates, Allfacebook created this mock-up of what a SocialAd might look like. Hmm. Looks like an ad. Here's a more revealing shot.

OK, so the leaked screen looks pretty much like any old Facebook page. But still, there's some new information here. SocialAds won't just be a distributed ad network like Google's AdSense. They'll also feed updates into users' news feeds. Let's say you click on an ad and buy a Vermont ski vacation package? Now all your friends will know you did. Great! Google's AdSense ads, targeted to the content of the Web page you were reading, were just creepy. Now Facebook's SocialAds promise to be creepy and embarrassing.

social-ads2.gif

]]>
http://gawker.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=318755&view=rss&microfeed=true