|
|
|
|
|
|
by IX-103
1609 days ago
|
|
|
I don't even understand the point of the "feature" as described in the article. Dropping bids (possibly including the second highest bidder), sure, that happens all the time when the creative is deemed inappropriate for the website. Changing the way charging is done and doing all the necessary accounting to create a "slush fund" to use to boost other bids? That doesn't really even make sense. Keep in mind that Google is already choosing the optimal bid prices based on the page & individual so why would they charge their slush fund when just charge the advertiser's account. It sounds a lot like someone is upset that Google values ads on their site lower than ads on other sites and is upset that Google consistently bids less on their site than for other sites for the same ad (again no shock there as Superbowl advertising costs more than daytime television). |
|
|
To artificially increase the competitiveness of advertisers who use Google's ad tools, as said in the article.