In all the time I’ve used Google’s search and other products, I can’t recall ever clicking on an ad because I found the ad appealing or useful. Most people I know don’t click on too many ads either, which just doesn’t add up. Given that Google is a multi-billion dollar behemoth whose revenue is almost entirely comprised of fees for ad-clicks, someone’s got to be clicking those ads, they just don’t happen to be people I know.
Google Blogoscoped has an interesting post about how Google’s text ads aren’t easily distinguishable from search results. It seems Google commissioned a market study by Eye Square and TNS Infratest to assess the efficiency of sponsored links on result pages.
Following the completion of that study, Google circulated a presentation to their advertisers with one slide depicting the results of an eye tracking study, showing what users eyes focus on in results during the first 5 seconds; one of the major focus areas is the yellow box displaying AdWords at the top. Another slide in the same presentation tells advertisers how easily those AdWords are confused with organic search results.
Google’s presentation even goes on to quote parts of an interview with a test user:
INT [interviewer]: “Why do the results on top have a yellow background, did you notice?”
TP [tester]: “I didn’t notice this.”
INT: “What does it mean?”
TP: “It definitely means they’re the most relevant.”
That goes a long way towards explaining who’s clicking the ads–a lot of novice and intermediate Internet users that don’t know the difference between ads and search results.
Hmm, wonder where on Google’s “evil scale” that little trick lies…
Don’t know about the "evil scale" but I wonder where this lies on the "stupidity scale", releasing research findings like this publicly.
A cynical thought, considering that Cleartrip runs online campaigns.
Don’t you think that advertisors are the ones getting value from Google Ads? Why else would they keep increasing online advertisement budgets, and bid the most for the coveted "yellow" spot?
There’s nothing hush about this research finding. Anyone with about INR 200,000 (to buy the required equipment primarily) to spare can conduct their own user testing on the Google search results page and will probably arrive at the same conclusions. It’s not like Google can stop them.
Google even allows AdSense publishers to customize the look and feel of the ads. Most publishers use the some style elements so that visitors are unable to differentiate the content and the ads. At my previous organization, they had made the ad look exactly like the listings on the Classifieds portal and the revenue went up by 400%.
With this slide you talk about, Google is now openly admitting their attempt at fooling consumers.
Is this really evil? As an end user, I want Google to scour the web and point me to the most relevant resources. If it does a good job of this, it doesn’t matter whether Google made a buck or two during the process. If anything, doesn’t this force the ‘Sponsored Results’ to be all the more relevant, since advertisers won’t want visitors to click through and then not convert?
Varun–I’m not so sure about that.
In a Playboy interview, Google co-founder, Sergey Brin, had this to say about distinguishing ads from results:
"One thing that’s important to us is the distinction between advertising and pure search results. We make it clear when something is paid for. Our advertising is off to the side and in a couple of slots across the top. Ads are clearly marked. There’s a clear, large wall between the objective search results and the ads, which have commercial influence. Other search engines don’t necessarily distinguish."
Clearly some corporate doublespeak going on there.
To your point, this behaviour forces two things:
1. Actual web sites and pages are forced to load up with spam and keywords to boost their natural search rankings
2. Ads are placed next to natural results that look "spammier" and more dubious every day
There’s plenty of web sites with great content out there; and there’s only one reason Google manages to serve ads that are more relevant than the search results–ads bring in the bucks, search results don’t.
You can also check out a couple of our previous blog posts on a similar subject:
http://blog.cleartrip.com/journal/2007/8/31/google-and-the-spam-ecosystem.html
http://blog.cleartrip.com/journal/2008/1/3/google-changes-its-spots.html
So if you believe people don’t really click on these ads, why does Cleartrip spend so much booking so many keywords for their ads?
Karan–I didn’t say I believe people don’t click on ads.
What I actually said can be nicely summed up as:
* I don’t personally click on ads
* I don’t know anyone who does click on ads
* But Google is a multibillion dollar company, so there’s obviously lots of people who are clicking on the ads
Firstly, Google ads are a lot less "in your face" than those presented by other search engines.
Secondly, this heatmap concept is incorrect. I have read studies that show people look at content in an "F" pattern and largely ignore images. This is an incorrect interpretation of the data. I am not going to explain here why, only on my own site.
Stevo–seems you missed the point, both of them.
1. The point is that Google enjoys high clickthrough rates precisely because their ads are "less in your face." Visitors don’t know that what they’re clicking is an ad.
2. The heatmap is from Google, you should give them a heads up about your correct "F" shaped pattern.