The Two Faces of Quality Score
When Google first introduced the quality score, they went to beyond normal lengths, for Google that is, to explain the rationale behind the release, even informing advertisers in advance. Subsequent quality score updates ensued at somewhat regular intervals and continue to address perceived factors that Google feels impact the relevance of the ad. Recent updates have expanded into factors outside of pure relevance and into those that deal with the overall user experience as well, e.g. the speed with which an advertiser’s page loads. Cynics will say that constant quality score updates focus more on disintermediation, hidden agendas, and increasing ecpm in order to provide the levers necessary to have financial results in order. Purists will contend that by making advertisers more accountable and putting in place a system that rewards ads and products that make sense for the keywords on which they appear and punishes those that offer limited value and leave a potentially bad taste in clicker’s mouths, Google has achieved advertising nirvana – ads that come closer to parity to organic results and higher earnings. Both sides might be right. Now more than two years after the first release, one fact both sides can agree on is that dealing with quality score and quality score updates have become a fact of doing business with Google. Life under quality score hasn’t remained static, as unlike the earliest edicts from the Google quality team, the level of disclosures that Google current provides regarding the updates varies rather extensively. With a new one just released but not announced (evidenced only in the drop in certain search publishers’ business) we clearly see the updates falling along two axes – building the foundation and plugging the leaks.
Building the Foundation – Better Ads for Better Revenue Experience
It’s hard not to admire the outward simplicity and elegance of Google’s quality score; it ranks as the latest in a series of logical innovations in the search space which just as easily sound like user-focused additions as they do a means to maximize revenue. If you remember back to the introduction of AdWords, Google established early on that they wouldn’t follow convention. Instead of simply ranking ads by price, Google decided to optimize them based on performance – combining click through rate and price. Besides making them more money and penalizing advertisers who took advantage of high bids non-action oriented ad text, Google’s system, which by focusing on eCPM or RPM, didn’t operate that differently from how an ad network viewed inventory monetization. In addition to performance tracking, Google did something quite unique, looking at advertiser performance on an account level and not just on an ad by ad level. Like quality score today, dealing with the notion of account history became a fact of life, one that ingeniously forced advertisers to become both aggressive (in price and ctr) but cautious (strategic roll-outs), the combination of which meant better yields but still under the guise of relevance. Like the proverbial woman scorned, when it comes to being an advertiser on Google, they don’t forget or forgive, and over time the triggers for ending up on the black list became easier and more vague.
Their flawed justice system aside, Google has with each roll-out struck a balance between making them more money and yet allowing them to announce with a straight face the benefits to the user. Unfortunately for advertisers – both legitimate and other – despite the immense literature talking about quality score, Google’s own information contains just enough to confuse you but not enough to act as a roadmap. Ultimately, they play an intentional obfuscation, because like a system trying to keep its people under control, they know that too much information can result in the system breaking down. With each new enhancement, though, it becomes more difficult to stay on top of the requirements and ironically, despite their desire to work with advertisers directly, each update seems analogous to tax code changes, meaning that search engine marketers are the new accountants and won’t be out of a job anytime soon.
Plugging The Leaks – Quality Score to Prevent Gaming the System
Some Google quality score updates would appear to make them less money and thus go against the slightly cynical perception above that quality score and revenue enhancements go hand-in-hand. Whether that actually has occurred remains up for discussion, as their revenue and profit numbers never seemed to take the predicted hit some search followers might think by wiping out six and seven figure advertisers with a single release. From a performance marketers point of view these releases, which occur announced, seem targeted at those who helped build Google’s business – arbitragers, be it pure play affiliates to lead generators, this risk prone group spends money without necessarily making money and attacks without abandon, willing to absorb huge losses in the process of making money. The reckless abandon and not the expansive spending became the focus of Google, and the notion that a non-exclusive intermediary could make large returns on search began to sit less well with the folks providing their marketplace to wealth. Now, it has escalated not into an all out war but a gorilla style skirmish with a certain type of nimble marketer continuously poking and prodding the beast looking to exploit holes in its defenses.
After trying to understand the announced quality score updates, e.g., those targeting ringtone affiliates, thin affiliates with sites acting as a funnel to one advertiser, and especially the click based arbitragers recognizable for ad copy inclusive of "Top 5 Sites For," the changes all focus on a perceived imbalance by Google. The reason Google can, with a straight face, describe their other changes, ones that more often than not have a direct revenue benefit to the company, as focused on the user, comes from a balance between Google, user, and advertiser. The advertiser in this regards can mean a direct advertiser or a marketer / affiliate / arbitrager. Whenever Google makes a change, they push the needle on all fronts. They don’t make a change to one variable without it impacting the other, i.e., you won’t see a change that benefits Google without an equal benefit to the user. The advertiser is the linchpin in this equation, and if an advertiser’s strategy benefits them but not the user, it comes under fire; similarly, if an advertiser receives a benefit without Google receiving the benefit, assuming a neutral to no impact on user experience, which is what some of the more sophisticated jump pages do, Google will put an end to the practice. With jump pages and thin-affiliate sites, the issue too involves user confusion, having them interact with a site that has only a loose connection to the ultimate site. The affiliate makes money; the end advertiser makes money (paying only on actions), but Google feels used. It’s all about understanding who benefits, and if the answer doesn’t include Google and scale exists in the strategy, expect it to come under pressure. No longer does it count to simply drive quality users and make sure the advertiser benefits; more and more it comes down to whether the page could qualify as one that would show up in the organic listings, and the further away a page falls from that criteria, the more likely it will ultimately fall off the paid results.
