(11)
Here is that screen capture:
Let's zoom in on the types of actions we can see from the screen capture.
As you can see, this user set up a sale action, a lead action, other actions, plus deleted a purchase/sale action. You can also set up a bid (which looks to be the amount you pay when the desired action is completed) and then you have the standard stats.
Google obviously provides tracking code that you must install on your site, and it seems like Google will verify if the code is properly installed - so that publishers will get paid.
I still hope to gain access to both betas (AdSense PPA and AdWords PPA) soon and have more details for you then.
Our past coverage on Google Pay Per Action:
- Google Testing AdSense Cost Per Action (CPA)
- Google Affiliate Management: Pay Per Action Ads
- Adsense to be Completely Replaced by Pay-Per-Action?
- Google's New Text Link Ad Unit
Forum discussion at Search Engine Watch Forums.
Comments:
Rachel Griffin
03/23/2007 03:59 pm
u guys rule:)
Sean
03/23/2007 05:49 pm
Did you say AdWords PPA too? I have only heard of AdSense PPA from all my reading...seems like a big risk to mess with AdWords' PPC model.
Nathaniel
03/23/2007 07:31 pm
These could be huge to Google and website owners. I can imagine this being very successful and spreading around lots of advertising money.
josh
03/23/2007 07:46 pm
This is awesome, thanks for the screenie.
Webkidsan
03/23/2007 09:52 pm
yes it is adwords PPA i.e. you don't pay till you get the desired action complete... you can have your action defined also ... We are trying with online sales i.e. payout only when there is a sale. I am not sure how many partners are participating in it. The good thing is I have the option to post image ads also not just text ads ... this is the size of the banners that you can create ... 468 x 60 Banner 728 x 90 Leaderboard 200 x 200 Small Square 250 x 250 Square 300 x 250 Inline 336 x 280 Large Rectangle 120 x 600 Skyscraper 160 x 600 Wide Skyscraper Beside this you can also have text link ads ... I guess people can have those ads within an article ... so far we are testing it with only handful of products ...
No Name
03/24/2007 01:50 am
this is actually quite bad, it makes it to easy for google to exploit the publisher since the publisher doesn't really get to know or verify if a sale was made. Why should a publisher be forced to provide free advertising for a site that may not properly use the right advertising phrases and words in their ads. The onus is on the advertiser NOT the publisher to make the sale.
webkidsan
03/24/2007 02:34 pm
Thats true, Google has always been in position where they can exploit ... I am not sure why you think its free since the option is there for you to choose if you want to advertise or not. As for verifing that the sale was made or not, I am sure Google is going to make sure that its being traced otherwise they are not going to get paid ...
death metal
03/24/2007 03:57 pm
I agree that Google is in a position to exploit, but let's face it - can't they cover their margins by being legitimate? If advertisers are not getting the service that is being offered to them, or at least are not satisfied with it, why will they return? Google has a vested interest in the keeping the advertiser and publisher happy - especially when testing this new CPA model.
Jeff Howes
03/24/2007 07:33 pm
There is no question that PPA or “CPA” (Cost-Per-Action) does, in fact, completely solve the click fraud problem. Our company will be publishing an extensive whitepaper (on our web site www.trafficsentry.com), on a specific new click fraud threat that is growing rampant and not being detected by the networks. Unfortunately, PPA is not a realistic solution, as we are comparing apples to oranges when we say "CPC vs CPA". The market and supply for CPC is huge; while the "supply" (availability) of CPA traffic is virtually non-existent in comparison. CPA is not advertising, and therefore will never attract masses of publishers, thus there will never be a sufficient supply. One quick side note; "Return Fraud" is a non-issue. Not only does the time/return ratio not make sense for would-be perpetrators, but all existing PPA programs already have built-in measures to debit affiliate accounts upon returns. In fact, this very feature opens up a completely new type of fraud; Advertiser Fraud (merchant fraud against publishers) can occur when unscrupulous advertisers falsify return records in order to receive advertising refunds. Merchant fraud is among several reasons that most publishers do not participate in CPA based programs. There are so many other reasons that listing them all here would be beyond the scope of this post, but the bottom line is that CPA completely reverses the table between publisher and advertiser. In a typical advertising scenario, publisher "sells" ad space within his media to the advertiser. The advertiser is the customer, and also the one taking the risk. The publisher must convince the advertiser that his media opportunity will produce effective results. The publisher's responsibility ends upon displaying of the advertisement to its audience. PPA is a boon for the advertiser. Not only does it wipe out the possibility of fraud, but it also completely removes his risk, as he is only paying for sales. Now, the publisher is taking all of the risk, and has no idea what, if any, revenue he will receive for the advertising. If the only risk was proving that his audience was a good enough match to produce good response to the ad, the publisher would be more likely to accept the terms (this is, in effect, CPC). However, the publisher is also taking the gamble that the advertiser has both a marketable product AND an effective marketing plan, all the way through the conversion process to the close of the sale. All of this is outside of the publisher's control, so that's quite a big gamble. If their is little market for the advertiser's product, or if the advertisers price is not competitive, or the advertiser's web site is unprofessional in appearance, or any number of other reasons that lead to loss of the sale, the publisher gets nothing. Add to this the problem that reporting of affiliate sales/actions is notoriously flawed. In addition to relying on the advertiser to accurately report sales and actions (again leaving the door open to dubious merchants), there are huge technical problems with tracking end consumers all the way to the point where an action takes place. This is typically done via browser cookies, which are more and more commonly being blocked or deleted by end users, effectively eliminating any chance of the publisher to receive credit for any subsequent actions that occur. So PPA does not solve the problem of fraud, it reverses the problem, and causes several new problems. Of course advertisers love PPA; they are not taking any risk, and instead of paying for advertising, they are effectively gaining a small army of commission-only sales and marketing people. Although any smart advertiser will tell you that his budget is "unlimited" for CPA, the problem is the ad inventory is simply not available. There is no supply. Should Google's new CPA program make it out of beta and become available to all advertisers, the problem will not be getting advertisers signed up; they will come in droves... The (seemingly insurmountable) hurdle will be in convincing publishers to supply the program, and without supply there can be no sales.
Zohaib
03/30/2007 05:57 pm
Great work guys. Keep it up.
thomas
06/10/2009 03:24 pm
can someone help me open an adsense account? please.