redhedgehog12

Not OP but I've used GPT-3 quite extensively and can imagine that's exactly what they did.

You can give it anything - or nothing - and ask for any kind of output.

The relevance and accuracy of what it gives you can vary lots. You can give it examples of the types of things you want back etc. You don't necessarily have to give it examples either, just ask it a question. It normally performs better on semi-complex tasks when you give it examples though.

From October 2022, all Google Ads destinations will have to comply with the requirements laid out by the Better Ads Coalition. This includes basic requirements like no auto playing videos with sound etc.

From October 2022, Google will disallow ads that lead to destinations that violate these rules.

You can't pay to shuffle the organic results.

As for how much you pay for a click on any specific keyword, it isn't fixed and depends on two main things. I am simplifying here.

1. How related (google thinks) your page and ad copy is to the intent behind the keyword. More related = (generally) lower cpc

2. The reserve price that google sets for that keyword.

It used to be a second price auction in that you'd only ever pay 1p above the second highest bidder. It has now changed in that there is a reserve price for each keyword based on your page, ad copy and google's valuation of that keyword. This reserve price can be lowered or raised depending on how good and related Google thinks your page and ads are. It can fluctuate lots depending on your input but if google's valuation is high you'll never get it to pennies per click.

Insurance for injury claims for example will always be more than £10 per click no matter how good your page or ad copy is. Google just knows that those conversions are worth tons so people WILL pay high cpcs for them.

So in the Ford Chevy example, Ford's page is much more related to someone searching for Ford, Google knows the intent is likely to find a ford page so ford would pay FAR less than Chevy.

Chevy's page likely isn't matching the intent that google assumes the user has so their reserve price and hence final cost per click would be much higher.

Competitor bidding on google search is expensive.

Brand protection - bidding on your own brand terms - is (in my 7 years experience doing this) always incredibly cheap, 1 or 2 pence per click.

Can I ask why this is your opinion on this? Not being argumentative, just curious.

In my personal view this is a good thing. I was in the early access to DALLE and without fail any searches for CEO or executive would return exclusively white people. Searches for low skilled jobs would return minorities. Surely such an obviously biased AI that is only going to get more popular should be steered away from this?

Not sure if you're being sarcastic... If not, you're just being facetious. Just because a thing is digital and therefore copiable, doesn't mean there's no reason to ever pay for it.

Which large majority now operate this way? Google only offers this payment model for display campaigns which (most of the time) convert rarely when meaningful conversion actions are tracked. Facebook only offers this for a small set of actions like mobile installs etc. Bing doesn't offer this at all.

These three platforms make up a majority of the ad industry without a doubt so I'm not sure where your statement comes from? If you've got info or sources though I'd be very keen.

A lot of people get confused about targeting a cost per conversion which is extremely common now, and actually paying per conversion.

Targeting cost/conv is not the same thing and is purely when the ad platform will adjust who and when it shows your ads too based on an amount you give it, normally the most you'd be willing to pay for a sale or lead.

> They could stop encouraging SEO.

Have you read any of Google's advice to site owners? It amounts to "provide your users with what they're looking for, and do it with a fast and easy to use site". If you think SEO is an easy hack to get any site to the position 1 for any search, you're just ignorant of the landscape. All the "SEO" crap you see about keyword density or whatever, is just an industry trying to sound different and like they've got the key to position 1.

> They could start penalizing sites that show different things to googlebot and a real browser again.

Google is ridiculously good at this. Would be keen to see examples of a site that does this in a meaningfully negative way that ranks well for searches that matter.

I don't fully agree with all of your other points but I can see why you'd mention them.