WebProNews

Tag: Interstitials

  • DoubleClick Ad Exchange Gets Native Ads, Mobile Video Interstitials

    Google announced that it is bringing programmatic support native ads and mobile video interstitials to the DoubleClick Ad Exchange.

    The company announced native formats in DoubleClick for Publishers earlier this year, but now publishers can sell native ads programatically in the open auction and in private marketplaces on the exchange.

    It’s available immediately in apps and will roll out for cross-screen native ads over the coming months.

    “Along with native ads, we’re also introducing programmatic support for mobile video interstitials in apps on DoubleClick Ad Exchange,” says Jonathan Bellack, director of product management. “Video is key to driving brand impact in the moments that matter, no matter where they occur. With these new immersive, full-screen video ads available programmatically, again in both the open auction and in private marketplaces, publishers can offer their advertising partners a new way to bring engaging brand experiences to users seamlessly, driving advertiser performance and growing publisher revenue. During beta tests, publishers realized gains as high as 30% CPM in interstitial video compared to regular interstitial performance.”

    “Together, these innovations help address a strong demand from ad buyers for native and mobile video formats that can be bought programmatically,” he adds.

    Earlier this week, the company announced support for Payment IDs on the Ad Exchange as well as some new DoubleClick active view updates.

    Images via Google

  • Google Mobile-Friendly Algorithm Gets Update

    Google Mobile-Friendly Algorithm Gets Update

    Google had been hinting for months that app-install interstitials would become a negative ranking signal in search results, and about two months ago, they made it official.

    Google announced that it was updating the Mobile-Friendly algorithm and test, advising sites against showing app install interstitials “that hide a significant amount of content on the transition from the search result page”.

    As you probably know, Google introduced the mobile-friendly ranking signal earlier this year. It provided sites with a helpful mobile-friendly test tool so that they can make sure their pages were up to snuff. If a page passed the test, it would be good as far as that particular signal is concerned. The interstitials element adds a new factor to mobile-friendliness that will cause some that previously passed the test to now fail.

    Google announced this week that the new addition is now officially live in the algorithm.

    Google’s latest announcement was made at 2:24 (Eastern) on Monday. Have you seen any changes yet? Let us know in the comments.

    In a post on Google+, the company says:

    Starting today, pages with an app install interstitial that hide a significant amount of content on the transition from the search result page won’t be considered mobile-friendly.

    Instead of full page interstitials, we recommend that webmasters use more user-friendly formats such as app install banners. We hope that this change will make it easier for searchers to see the content of the pages they are looking for.

    For a little more background, Google had this to say about it in September:

    After November 1, mobile web pages that show an app install interstitial that hides a significant amount of content on the transition from the search result page will no longer be considered mobile-friendly. This does not affect other types of interstitials. As an alternative to app install interstitials, browsers provide ways to promote an app that are more user-friendly.>

    App install banners are supported by Safari (as Smart Banners) and Chrome (as Native App Install Banners). Banners provide a consistent user interface for promoting an app and provide the user with the ability to control their browsing experience. Webmasters can also use their own implementations of app install banners as long as they don’t block searchers from viewing the page’s content.

    Ahead of the announcement, Google shared results of some internal testing it did with its Google+ app showing that an app install interstitial negatively impacted the user experience. Yelp CEO Jeremy Stoppelman was very vocal about his opposition to Google’s position on the matter.

    After Google shared its study results, Stoppelman said on Twitter, “Google says stop pushing App downloads yet its own team push apps using same ‘bad’ designs. Is this about protecting consumers or protecting their search monopoly?”

    He later wrote a guest post for Search Engine Land asking the same question. In that, he said, “While many users find apps by browsing inside an app store, another critical way they discover new apps is through mobile search engines, like Google. In this way, mobile search indeed serves a critical function to users: offering a bridge from the less desirable world of mobile Web browsing to a new world inside apps.”

    He went on to discuss how apps threaten Google’s search business. After that, LinkedIn publicly questioned Google’s findings as well. They started off by saying that nobody wants Google+ for one thing.

    “Naturally, an interstitial that interrupts the user experience to promote something that most people don’t want is bound to backfire,” wrote Omar Restom, mobile product manager at LinkedIn. “Google shouldn’t extrapolate based on this one case. ”

    “Google admits that it was showing their interstitial even to users who already have the app – that’s bad mojo and fundamentally bad audience targeting,” he added. “Again, Google should only have shown this promo to people who actually want and need the app. The Google+ Team also violated Google’s own SEO policy by showing this interstitial on SEO Pages.”

    He went on to make the case that LinkedIn’s interstitials work better because of better targeting and better creatives. Restom also backed up his argument with some numbers, comparing clickthrough rate, bounce rate and incremental app downloads driven between Google+ and LinkedIn.

    Do you agree with Yelp and LinkedIn about Google’s findings? Do you think Google is doing the right thing with this ranking signal? Share your thoughts in the comments.

    Images via Google

  • Google Ranking Signal Comes With A New Caveat

    Google Ranking Signal Comes With A New Caveat

    Earlier this year, Google began taking into account a site’s mobile-friendliness for ranking search results on mobile devices. It provided sites with a helpful mobile-friendly test tool so that they can make sure their pages were up to snuff. If a page passed the test, it would be good as far as that particular signal is concerned. Now, there’s a new factor in that mobile-friendliness that will cause some that previously passed the test to now fail.

    Google has been hinting for a while that app-install interstitials would become a negative ranking signal in search results, and now it’s official. Or at least it will be soon.

    Do you use app-install interstitials on your mobile web pages? What do you think about Google’s latest ranking signal? Share your thoughts in the comments.

    The company announced on Tuesday that it is updating its Mobile-Friendly Test to advise sites against showing app install interstitials “that hide a significant amount of content on the transition from the search result page”.

    Google says its Mobile Usability report in Search Console will show webmasters the number of pages across their site that have the issue.

    While the mobile-friendly test tool has already been updated to take the new signal into account, Google will not actually start counting interstitials negatively until November 1, so that should give webmasters enough time to make the updates they need to to avoid being algorithmically penalized. Google says:

    After November 1, mobile web pages that show an app install interstitial that hides a significant amount of content on the transition from the search result page will no longer be considered mobile-friendly. This does not affect other types of interstitials. As an alternative to app install interstitials, browsers provide ways to promote an app that are more user-friendly.>

    App install banners are supported by Safari (as Smart Banners) and Chrome (as Native App Install Banners). Banners provide a consistent user interface for promoting an app and provide the user with the ability to control their browsing experience. Webmasters can also use their own implementations of app install banners as long as they don’t block searchers from viewing the page’s content.

    Keep an eye on the Webmaster Central forum for chatter about this as time progresses.

    Google recently shared results of some internal testing it did with its Google+ app showing that an app install interstitial negatively impacted the user experience. Yelp CEO Jeremy Stoppelman has been very vocal about his opposition to Google’s position on this matter.

    After Google shared its study results, Stoppelman said on Twitter, “Google says stop pushing App downloads yet its own team push apps using same ‘bad’ designs. Is this about protecting consumers or protecting their search monopoly?”

    He later wrote a guest post for Search Engine Land asking the same question. In that, he said, “While many users find apps by browsing inside an app store, another critical way they discover new apps is through mobile search engines, like Google. In this way, mobile search indeed serves a critical function to users: offering a bridge from the less desirable world of mobile Web browsing to a new world inside apps.”

    He went on to discuss how apps threaten Google’s search business. Since then, LinkedIn has been publicly questioning Google’s findings as well. They started off by saying that nobody wants Google+ for one thing.

    “Naturally, an interstitial that interrupts the user experience to promote something that most people don’t want is bound to backfire,” wrote Omar Restom, mobile product manager at LinkedIn. “Google shouldn’t extrapolate based on this one case. ”

    “Google admits that it was showing their interstitial even to users who already have the app – that’s bad mojo and fundamentally bad audience targeting,” he added. “Again, Google should only have shown this promo to people who actually want and need the app. The Google+ Team also violated Google’s own SEO policy by showing this interstitial on SEO Pages.”

    He went on to make the case that LinkedIn’s interstitials work better because of better targeting and better creatives. Restom also backed up his argument with some numbers, comparing clickthrough rate, bounce rate and incremental app downloads driven between Google+ and LinkedIn.

    Stoppelman has since tweeted about LinkedIn’s post a couple times and various other articles on the subject.

    VC Bill Gurley tweeted:

    Stoppelman added:

    He also retweeted this:

    And tweeted this:

    Some are questioning why Google is specifically targeting these types of interstitials specifically as opposed to all interstitials (desktop included) that block content.

    What do you think? Is this about user experience or Google’s self-interest? Share your thoughts in the comments.

    Image via Google

  • Google Redesigns In-App Interstitial Ads

    Google announced a new look for the interstitial in-app ad format (full screen ads) that run on apps in the AdMob network and DoubleClick Ad Exchange.

    The ads include a cover photo, a round install button, matching color schemes, the app’s rating, and a screenshot gallery under “more images”.

    Here’s the before and after:

    BeforeAfter (4)

    “Our app install formats have driven more than a billion downloads across Android and iOS,” says product manager Pasha Nahass. “You can use these new designs automatically when you run a mobile app install campaign on the AdMob network in AdWords. That’s right, no extra work required!”

    The company has also redesigned in-app text adds making them easier to read with larger headlines and a round call-to-action button. Here’s the before and after on those:

    Screen Shot 2015-08-27 at 2.44.41 PM

    “As with other ad format innovations, our ads UI team test multiple designs – ten in this case over the course of a year – to find final versions that increase clicks and conversions for advertisers, and a positive experience for users,” says Nahass. “Both app install and text ad formats appear within the app and can be closed easily, so users can return to what they were doing with a single tap.”

    Google reiterates something it said at Google I/O in that the volume of interstitial impressions has more than doubled across AdMob since July.

    The company recently shared results of an experiment it ran with app install interstitials, which it found to present a negative experience. This is separate from the in-app interstitials discussed here.

    Images via Google

  • Is Yelp’s CEO Right About Google And Interstitials?

    Is Yelp’s CEO Right About Google And Interstitials?

    Last month, Google shared findings of an internal study on interstitials, which it had previously implied could start negatively impacting people’s search rankings.

    Do you consider interstitials to be negative to the user experience? Are there ways in which they can make the user experience better? Share your thoughts in the comments.

    They looked at behavior related to their own use of interstitials, specifically with the Google+ mobile site, which utilized one encouraging users to install the app. 9% of visits to the interstitial page resulted in a “Get App” button being pressed. 69% of visits abandoned the page. They neither went to the app store nor continued to the mobile website. Presumably they were so annoyed they just didn’t feel like going any further.

    “While 9% sounds like a great CTR for any campaign, we were much more focused on the number of users who had abandoned our product due to the friction in their experience,” Google said. “With this data in hand, in July 2014, we decided to run an experiment and see how removing the interstitial would affect actual product usage. We added a Smart App Banner to continue promoting the native app in a less intrusive way, as recommended in the Avoid common mistake section of our Mobile SEO Guide. The results were surprising.”

    1-day active users on the mobile site increased by 17% and Google+ iOS native app installs were mostly unaffected (-2%). They didn’t report the Android numbers because most Android devices come with the app pre-installed.

    “Based on these results, we decided to permanently retire the interstitial,” Google said. “We believe that the increase in users on our product makes this a net positive change, and we are sharing this with the hope that you will reconsider the use of promotional interstitials. Let’s remove friction and make the mobile web more useful and usable!”

    When Google published its findings, Yelp CEO and frequent Google critic Jeremy Stoppelman blasted the company on Twitter:

    Now, he’s elaborating on this in a new blog post. This wouldn’t be much of a surprise if he were to do so on the Yelp blog, but interestingly his post comes in the form of a guest article on Search Engine Land, one of the most widely-read blogs in the search industry.

    He begins by talking about something Steve Jobs said five years ago (which would have been five iPhone generations ago) about how people prefer apps to mobile browsers. Stoppelman goes on:

    A point Jobs left unsaid — perhaps because it is so obvious — was that in order for consumers to enjoy the advantageous experience apps provide them, they need to know the app exists. In other words, those apps must be somehow discoverable.

    While many users find apps by browsing inside an app store, another critical way they discover new apps is through mobile search engines, like Google. In this way, mobile search indeed serves a critical function to users: offering a bridge from the less desirable world of mobile Web browsing to a new world inside apps.

    Note that a mobile Google search for Yelp brings up an install button for Yelp’s app at the very top of the page.

    yelp

    Stoppelman says that after people “cross the bridge” from mobile web to apps, they “likely don’t go back,” which he says Google sees as a threat to its core business of search and that apps eliminate the need for the middleman, which would be Google.

    He criticizes the Google study and says that what it really is is “Google foreshadowing a search ranking penalty designed to slow users’ natural migration away from Web search towards apps, a major consumer trend that Steve Jobs accurately predicted.”

    Google has actually been talking about interstitials as a negative signal since before this study came out. Google also introduced two very clear positive ranking signals this year in mobile-friendliness and app indexing. One encourages the use of apps and makes them easier for people to use. This way, if you come across a Yelp result in Google, you can go right to the content in that app. Google is also utilizing this app indexing for something called Google Now on Tap, which brings users app functionality while they’re already using other apps.

    As Google explained this earlier this year, “If you’re chatting with a friend about where to get dinner, Google can bring you quick info about the place your friend recommends. You’ll also see other apps on your phone, like OpenTable or Yelp, so you can easily make a reservation, read reviews or check out the menu.”

    Search Engine Land notes that some opinions in Stoppelman’s article may be those of the guest author.

    Readers, which again, are primarily industry folks, had a lot of criticisms for Stoppelman’s article in the comments. Some maintained that interstitials make for bad experiences. Others criticized his approach such as not backing up his stance with data of his own. One went so far as to slam Yelp’s interstitial specifically.

    What do you think? Does Stoppelman make a good point or is he off base on this one? Share your thoughts in the comments.

    Image via Jeremy Stoppelman (Twitter)

  • Google Urges You To Reconsider Using These

    Google Urges You To Reconsider Using These

    Google shared some results of some testing it conducted with interstitials. This is of particular interest since the company has indicated using them will likely start impacting your search rankings in a negative way.

    Have you used interstitials on mobile content? Have you noticed any impact on your search visibility that appears to be related? Discuss.

    Google looked at behavior related to its own use of interstitials, specifically with the Google+ mobile site, which utilized one encouraging users to install the app. 9% of visits to its interstitial page resulted in the “Get App” button being pressed. It did note that “some percentage” of users already have the app installed, so they don’t see it in the first place. 69% of visits abandoned the page, it said. They neither went to the app store nor continued to the mobile website. Presumably they were so annoyed they just didn’t feel like going any further.

    “While 9% sounds like a great CTR for any campaign, we were much more focused on the number of users who had abandoned our product due to the friction in their experience,” Google said. “With this data in hand ,in July 2014, we decided to run an experiment and see how removing the interstitial would affect actual product usage. We added a Smart App Banner to continue promoting the native app in a less intrusive way, as recommended in the Avoid common mistake section of our Mobile SEO Guide. The results were surprising.”

    1-day active users on the mobile site increased by 17% and Google+ iOS native app installs were mostly unaffected (-2%). They didn’t report the Android numbers because most Android devices come with the app pre-installed.

    “Based on these results, we decided to permanently retire the interstitial,” Google said. “We believe that the increase in users on our product makes this a net positive change, and we are sharing this with the hope that you will reconsider the use of promotional interstitials. Let’s remove friction and make the mobile web more useful and usable!”

    Yelp CEO and frequent Google critic Jeremy Stoppelman, had this to say about Google’s post:

    Yelp recently put out its own study showing how Google allegedly manipulates search results in its own favor. It claimed Google is “reducing social welfare” with “lower quality results”.

    Interstitials might actually start hurting your Google rankings if they’re not already. Ahead of Google’s mobile-friendly update in in April, there was talk around the SEO industry that interstitials could be looked upon as hurting the mobile user experience, and therefore hurt webmasters in in rankings as Google started to take into account the mobile experience.

    Last month, Eric Enge at Stone Temple Consulting posted an interview with Google Webmaster Trends Analyst Mariya Moeva. He asked if implementing an interstitial to drive people to sign up for an app would negatively impact mobile rankings, and if that’s something people should stay away from.

    Moeva responded, “Speaking as a user myself, I have yet to see an interstitial that brought me some useful info and was more important than what I was originally trying to do. They’re disruptive and can be frustrating, especially if you show them right on the first page the user ever sees from your site. Apparently, I’m not the only one who thinks so…We see app install interstitials bother users, so we’re looking into ways of addressing that; stay tuned for more news.”

    As Enge pointed out, Google’s Maile Ohye talked a little about this at the recent SMX Advanced search conference. Jennifer Slegg blogged about her comments:

    We have known for a couple of months that Google was planning to add interstitials as a negative ranking factor in an upcoming mobile friendly algo, but it appears that the same will be coming to the regular search results too.

    Maile Ohye from Google warned webmasters at SMX Advanced that they will also be bringing up the issue of interstitials and how pages that use them will be affected. “Interstitials are bad for users, so be aware this is something we are thinking about,” she said.

    She then continued on to say that content hidden behind interstitials would be devalued.

    As Google itself noted in regard to the new test, the company actually says in its Mobile SEO Guide, which it directed webmasters to ahead of the mobile-friendly update, that they should “avoid interstitials.”

    “Many websites show interstitials or overlays that partially or completely cover the contents of the page the user is visiting,” it says. “These interstitials, commonly seen on mobile devices promoting a website’s native app, mailing list sign-up forms, or advertisements, make for a bad user experience. In extreme cases, the interstitial is designed to make it very difficult for the user to dismiss it and view the real content of the page. Since screen real-estate on mobile devices is limited, any interstitial negatively impacts the user’s experience.

    Interestingly enough, Google itself touts “interactive interstitial ads” on its Think with Google Site, saying they can “make your brand stand out”. It says they engage more users than basic text or image ads and offer mobile advertisers “great interactivity at eye-catching placements”.

    As I wrote in a previous article on all of this, interstitials can help the viewability problem in advertising, and a lot of sites use them to get sign ups. They’re also often directly linked to monetizing content.

    Should Google penalize sites that use interstitials? Should it depend on the content of that interstitial itself? What do you think? Tell us in the comments.

  • Interstitials May Start Hurting Your Search Rankings

    Interstitials May Start Hurting Your Search Rankings

    Ahead of Google’s mobile-friendly update in in April, there was talk around the SEO industry that interstitials (content that appears over top of a page, which impedes the process of getting to the desired page) could be looked upon as hurting the mobile user experience, and therefore hurt webmasters in in rankings as Google started to take into account the mobile experience.

    Do you think sites should be penalized in search results for interstitials? Let us know what you think.

    Eric Enge at Stone Temple Consulting posted a new interview with Google Webmaster Trends Analyst Mariya Moeva. They talk about a number of topics related to mobile apps and Google’s treatment of them. At one point, Enge asks if implementing an interstitial to drive people to sign up for your app will negatively impact mobile rankings, and if that’s something people should stay away from. Here’s Moeva’s response:

    Speaking as a user myself, I have yet to see an interstitial that brought me some useful info and was more important than what I was originally trying to do. They’re disruptive and can be frustrating, especially if you show them right on the first page the user ever sees from your site. Apparently, I’m not the only one who thinks so (:

    We see app install interstitials bother users, so we’re looking into ways of addressing that; stay tuned for more news.

    As Enge points out in an editor’s note, Google’s Maile Ohye talked a little about this at the recent SMX Advanced search conference. Here’s an excerpt from a blog post by Jennifer Slegg about Ohye’s comments:

    We have known for a couple of months that Google was planning to add interstitials as a negative ranking factor in an upcoming mobile friendly algo, but it appears that the same will be coming to the regular search results too.

    Maile Ohye from Google warned webmasters at SMX Advanced that they will also be bringing up the issue of interstitials and how pages that use them will be affected. “Interstitials are bad for users, so be aware this is something we are thinking about,” she said.

    She then continued on to say that content hidden behind interstitials would be devalued.

    In its mobile SEO guide, Google explicitly says to “avoid interstitials.”

    “Many websites show interstitials or overlays that partially or completely cover the contents of the page the user is visiting,” it says. “These interstitials, commonly seen on mobile devices promoting a website’s native app, mailing list sign-up forms, or advertisements, make for a bad user experience. In extreme cases, the interstitial is designed to make it very difficult for the user to dismiss it and view the real content of the page. Since screen real-estate on mobile devices is limited, any interstitial negatively impacts the user’s experience.

    It is strange then that on its Think With Google Site, the company touts “Interactive Interstitial Ads,” which it says can “Make your brand stand out” as the ad “appears inside apps and gives users a full screen experience.”

    Screen shot 2015-06-30 at 4.31.52 PM

    That page tells you that you’d use interstitials for two reasons:

    – Rich media ads engage more uers than basic text or image ads

    – Google’s app interstitials offer mobile advertisers great interactivity in eye-catching placements.

    Another mixed message from Google.

    Either way, interstitials are employed by many websites and apps. They can help the viewability problem in advertising and are a key component in getting sign-ups. If businesses have to worry about losing their search visibility as a result of using them, it could be a major blow to those who have seen significant results from them in the past.

    Interstitials are often directly linked to monetizing content – particularly higher quality content as it’s more expensive to produce. Sometimes they actually go so far as to provide the entry to that content by way of logging in for sites that require subscriptions. Sites like this, at least when it comes to media publications, tend to have high quality content, because if they didn’t, users would have no reason to subscribe. Google is supposed to be all about the high quality content, right?

    Do you think interstitials should lead to content being devalued in Google? Let us know what you think.