For those promoting Clickbank offers with Youtube video ads (direct response marketing), you may have noticed that some/all of your wonderfully converting Instream traffic gave way to ugly, non-Instream traffic.
My problems with this Instream issue started in early October 2021, with mandatory Responsive Ads.
After a lot of trial and error, I'm now able to avoid the problem MOST TIMES.
It still pops up sometimes, and I've got some clues related to this.
But there's still much to learn about this Instream issue, as there is with the G Ads AI/algo in general (future discussion).
This is especially true with all the recent, on-going changes to the Youtube Ads platform (mandatory Responsive Ads primarily).
The Big G is CONSTANTLY changing things on the ad platform and its algo.
Just to mention briefly, after testing dozens of ads for this Instream issue, I would say the #1 factor affecting Instream traffic is Targeting.
Actually, after consulting with another marketer, the video is just as important. And the ad account history also plays a significant role it appears.
More on that later.
So back to the central question: HOW TO GET AROUND THIS ISSUE OF LOSING ALL YOUR INSTREAM TRAFFIC and instead getting the garbage traffic of Mobile Apps and GDN (Google Display Network)?
Firstly, get rid of all Mobile Apps traffic.
It's very simple. Just add the following text (without the quotes) as a Placement Exclusion: "mobileappcategory::69500"
Secondly, get rid of Google Display Network (GDN) traffic, aka Display Ads.
Not so easy.
I haven't found an easy workaround to get rid of GDN like you can with Mobile Apps, despite keeping my eyes and ears wide open online.
But GDN exposure can be reduced.
From my testing, the Instream issue seems to be a pretty complex one because of the number of variables it seems to involve:
- Type of targeting (Topics, Kws, Broad etc)
- Type of bidding (tCPA, Max Con, etc)
- Bid amount
- Daily budget
- The video
Also Your ad account, Conversion Actions and Niche may play a role (per my preliminary results).
The way I first overcame my "Instream-ban" was simply to run my ads in a different account - Google Ads account #2, which I hadn't used in months.
I have 2 G Ads accounts which are totally separate - not subaccounts.
Both accounts use my same name and address, but the credit card is different. G Ad account #1 is 8 years old, and G Ad account #2 is 2 years old.
So after this initial success in beating the Instream-ban, I thought it was problem solved.
Nope, not quite.
Just yesterday as a matter of fact I had a new campaign in account #2 get the Instream-ban.
It marked the 1st time ad account #2 got slapped with the Instream-ban, after running a couple dozen campaigns or so.
It was campaign XX21 that got the Instream-ban, surprisingly using a video that always received Instream traffic in the past (~10 ads). But all of a sudden, this video got slapped with all crap GDN traffic.
What caused this seasoned video to all of a sudden go rogue and run on nasty GDN?
Hard to pinpoint, but I ran the exact same campaign earlier in G Ads account #1 (another difference was I used 2 Conversion Actions instead of 1).
That test in account #1 yielded all Instream traffic. So could the pixel setup make a difference? Something to test.
That's what makes this article so lengthy (yet way too short) - there are many, many variable combinations to test.
This is just the 1st step to try and understand the Instream-ban problem - which began in early October 2021.
Google makes changes (too much) all the time.
Updates will be added here as algo updates, and otherwise, take place.
One of the main variables affecting Instream-ban is Targeting.
I have my own test results but first I'd like to cite some valuable information from expert Kyle Sulerud - www.youtube.com/c/KyleSulerudChannel
Kyle did a webinar in October 2021 which discussed this very issue of Targeting with Responsive Ads and the traffic it generated (Instream, Display, or Discovery).
He said his tests show that the broader you go with your Targeting, coupled with varying bidding, it will significantly impact your Instream traffic.
Kyle's webinar was 3 months ago, so maybe things have changed already.
But I'd bet Kyle's breakdown still holds true today.
He said certain combinations of Targeting and bidding were more likely to cause what I call Instream-ban - which means you get hardly any (if any) Instream traffic. And instead you get pretty much all GDN Display traffic.
In other words, crap traffic.
It don't convert and screws up all the stats.
Like 70% View Rate, or 2% view rate, or clicks that are real cheap, real expensive or none at all.
So here are some key points Kyle's testing uncovered:
- Placement targeting shows up ONLY on the Placements you select, as you'd expect.
- Target CPA with a high bid gives the greatest chance of Instream-ban, as opposed to Target CPA with a low bid or Max Conversions. The best chance of getting Instream traffic in that scenario is with Target CPA and a low bid. Kyle's team theorized that if you signal to G that you're willing to pay a lot for your conversion, then G will think serving you on GDN - where they know conversions are more expensive - is fine because you've got all this cash to spend.
- You want to use Exclusions to get rid of Mobile Apps traffic and put a dent in GDN Display traffic. I believe Kyle mentioned he will be creating a GDN site exclusion list that will be made available to subscribers of his Vid Hoarder app.
- You want to train the pixel properly; prepare it for each broader step you take in your targeting and testing. First target Content. Lastly, use your warmed up pixel & go broad with Audience targeting. So to start, target Placements. After some conversions built up on your pixel, next target Topics and Keywords. Like Audience Targeting, Topic Targeting and Keyword Targeting have the potential to take your ad off of Youtube videos and into the world of crappier traffic. After a bunch more conversions on your pixel with Topics and Keywords, scale with Audiences. Kyle didn't mention anything about going full-tilt Broad. But following this sort of scheme will get you the best traffic.
I have received the Instream-ban on Topic campaigns, Keyword campaigns, Audience campaigns and Broad campaigns. But some more than others.
As a side note, all my campaigns are: 1 campaign = 1 ad group = 1 ad. This keeps my testing the cleanest and most distinct in my view.
Like Kyle, I run a lot of ads cheaply to start out, and try to test some of the thousands of combinations you can come up with considering all the different variables.
The video for the ad being the most important variable.
You can test different video hooks, main content, and call-to-actions, AI voice or human voice, different voice accents, music or no music, captions or no captions, video geared for males, video geared for females, video geared for either. Then there are all the targeting options. Campaign setup options, Pixel combinations. Landers. And on and on. You can easily get to thousands of combinations very quickly.
Getting back to what causes Instream-ban, it seems the more broad you go up the ladder, the better chance of Instream-ban. Going in order from most restrictive to most broad, it's: Placements/Video Lineups, Topics, Keywords, Audiences, Broad.
I haven't run Placements in a long time because they're not made to scale, so I don't have test results. But one fellow on the forums noted that he's making big numbers using Placements, so I might have to revisit it, especially if the Instream-ban becomes a problem again.
Since Placements target specific videos, there should be no excuse for Google to put your ad on GDN when targeting individual video Placements and channel Placements.
That's the logical view. Google's may be different. Test test test.
An example of how Targeting can affect Instream-ban is my video #3.
Video #3 has been used in 13 campaigns of various setups, across both of my ad accounts.
Of the 13 campaigns, only twice did video #3 receive the Instream-ban: once when it was Broad targeting and once when it was targeting a Custom Audience of G search keywords.
This was the only time I tested video #3 with Custom Audience of G search keywords.
However, a test of video #3 with a different type of Custom Audience - Interest and Purchase Intent keywords - yielded all Instream traffic.
Video #3 with Broad targeting was tested one other time, and that was in the other ad account.
That test gave all Instream traffic.
The only other difference between the 2 Broad tests was the Conversion Actions.
- The test which gave GDN traffic had two Conversion Actions in its Custom Goal: a Primary Conversion Action for a purchase, and a Secondary Conversion Action for view of the Clickbank order form page (a lead).
- The test which gave Instream traffic had only 1 Conversion Action (Primary) in its Custom Goal: purchase.
Content-type targeting (Placements, Video Lineups, Topics, Keywords) by its nature should reduce GDN exposure since it specifically targets videos.
Certainly that should be true for Placements and Video Lineups.
However Topics and Keywords are more wide open; less restrictive. It would seem reasonable that in addition to videos, GDN sites could also be grouped by Topic or Keyword.
So this more wide-open targeting results in targeting outside of Youtube videos.
That means it's time for Exclusions.
Off-Instream traffic means you need Exclusions - lots of them - because keeping the junk out is just as important as getting lots-of-good-stuff in.
Some main Exclusions related to Instream traffic are:
- Mobile App traffic exclusion (Enter mobileappcategory::69500 as a Placement Exclusion)
- Site Placement Exclusion list (Build a list of GDN sites from your Where Ads Showed, also there are GDN exclusion lists available online)
There are other types of Exclusions useful for campaign optimization, but aren't related to Instream-ban.
Setting up a campaign without a goal allows you, under Networks, to de-select Video Partner Network (GDN).
At least this was the case last time I checked.
No goal means you lose that big control dial in the G Ads cockpit, namely Target CPA bidding.
I made lots of money a year ago with CPV bidding campaigns. But with the ever-smarter always-changing algo, it seems you're better off directing your energy toward optimizing bids for conversions, not for views.
Moving on to more causes of Instream-ban...
I have one video that always gets the Instream-ban.
I've run that video to 5 campaigns of varying setups, yet it NEVER gets Instream traffic.
However other videos with the same campaign setups receive ALL Instream traffic.
A test I'd like to run is to chop off 1 or 2 seconds at the end of the video, re-upload it, and redo a campaign.
That would maybe help determine whether the video content is an issue, or maybe just some crazy algo thing where it hates a video for no good reason.
This weirdness in the algo is definitely something to consider.
For example, I've had dozens of campaigns in the dental niche get Disapproved for Adult Content. However the video contains no such content whatsoever, and the video was approved many times before.
Also, every time I got the Disapproval, I appealed the decision. And every time, except once I believe, the disapproval was reversed.
This is a video that was approved dozens of times, then one day out of the blue started getting Disapproved for Adult Content all the time. So probably some algo update was made and ever since it acts weird like this. Other folks online have also complained about this false-positive Adult Content disapproval-thing hitting them.
So there's definitely a wackiness factor in the algo.
I've seen Daily Budget changes affect Instream traffic.
Last week, I launched campaign XX12.
It started out nicely with Instream traffic for a few days.
Then when I started fiddling too much with its Daily Budget, BOOM. Instream-ban.
Here are the campaign details:
Setup: Video #1 (used in 6 campaigns previously, all got Instream traffic), Maximize Conversions, Topic targeting, Custom Goal/purchase Conversion Action. $20 Daily Budget to start, budget raises always done at start of the day.
Day 1 - no sales
Day 2 - 1 sale
Day 3 - raised budget to $60, 3 sales
Day 4 - raised budget to $80, 1 sale
Day 5 - raised budget to $100, Instream-ban
Day 6 - lowered budget to $80, still Instream-ban
Day 7 - still Instream-ban, paused campaign
Some gurus have claimed that disabling Video Embedding of your video ad - a setting available when uploading the video to Youtube - gets rid of GDN traffic.
The thinking is that since all video ads on GDN are embedded on the site, disabling embedding would keep the video ad off the site.
However my tests have shown that even with embedding disabled, the video ad still makes its way to GDN sites no problem.
Does disabled embedding at lease reduce GDN exposure?
Not sure, but disabling embedding is easy enough to do, so it's now my default for every video when uploading.
There's one more area related to embedding.
When setting up a campaign in G Ads, there's an Embedded Youtube Videos setting under Excluded Types And Labels.
Select this option to (in theory) keep your ad off of embedded videos, which is what GDN is all about.
Not been mentioned yet, but there's one more type of traffic Responsive Ads bring to the table: Discovery Ads traffic.
Discovery Ads appear as image ads next to Suggested Videos on Youtube. They also appear on the Youtube homepage, and I believe Youtube search ads are now considered a Discovery type ad.
Google changes things so often that sometimes it seems they make changes just for the sake of making changes. Some sort of deliberate confusion scheme, it seems.
Anyway, from what I've seen so far, Discovery Ads traffic has been minuscule for me.
When you look at Where Ads Showed for Sites, there's a listing that often appears as "youtube.com."
According to a couple gurus, you can't exclude "youtube.com" as a site exclusion.
But the last time I heard them say that was a couple months ago, so I'm not sure if anything has changed since then.
Haven't dug too deeply into the Discovery Ads rabbit hole. Will update here with any further findings.
Just to reiterate, Discovery Ads have been a very small piece in the traffic pie Google has served me.
GDN site exclusion lists were mentioned briefly earlier.
Gurus have claimed that using GDN site exclusion lists helps reduce GDN exposure.
It's difficult to say how much a site exclusion list actually helps.
Why?
Because with over 1 Million sites on the GDN at any given moment, and old sites leaving/new sites coming onboard every day, it's impractical to try and eliminate all of them.
But some gurus swear by it. Like one who says you should take all your Where Ads Showed sites and add them to your Site Exclusion List, on a weekly basis.
Maybe some of the sites get a ton of traffic and you can eliminate a bunch of it this way?
Perhaps. Verdict is still out on this one, at least in my pea-sized brain.
One guru has said that if you don't target mobile traffic, then you will eliminate a lot of off-Instream traffic.
I haven't tried this (I always lazily target mobile/desktop/tablet in 1 ad group) and I forget all the details about this off the top of my head. But I will add more info here regarding this issue once I go thru all my notes.
Man, it would suck big time to have to get rid of mobile traffic. Kinda lot of traffic there.
Christina Szekeres is THE IM Queen www.marketingPOLAND.PL/IMqueen-vid
Her info on a 2020 webinar regarding Facebook special, secretive ad accounts blew my mind right out of my head!
Did you ever see ads on Facebook making quite strong claims, that would get YOU or me shut down as soon as we click the button to create the ad campaign?
Christina, through her connections/connectivity skills, uncovered a coveted type of ad account that is treated so extra-specially, normal advertising policies DO NOT apply.
These "special" accounts (which most FB employees never even heard of) each have a personal, HIGH-LEVEL FB rep that tells you IMMEDIATELY whether your ad will fly or die. He'll tell you SPECIFICALLY which marketing-hype is allowed, which isn't. Weight loss, health - no problem.
But it ain't for everybody... special pre-fund payment account only, big bucks to get in, pay % of spend as fee, entry fee, etc.
The point of this tangent is Christina is REALLY good, and she says Facebook uses a color-coded Compliance Level system to rank "regular" Business Manager accounts - the ones for us peasants.
Facebook uses GREEN (you're trusted, bot only checks your ad text), YELLOW (mediocre standing, FB will check extra elements of your funnel), RED (FB doesn't trust you, every little thing gets flagged).
Depending on your color, you're scrutinized differently, especially come Ad Review time.
Could Google also have some sort of internal 'compliance system' to rank ad accounts?
One that applies sanctions, such as more ad Disapprovals? More Instream-bans?
As I recall on the IM Queen webinar, there MAY have been some murmurings (not 100% certain) that Google does indeed have some kind of similar ranking system for ad accounts.
I'd have to review the webinar - which I thankfully recorded - to jog the memory.
However it certainly does not seem unreasonable to think that Google would have such a ratings system for ad accounts.
'Account rank' potentially adds one more, rather large variable to the Instream-ban mix.
When creating ads, there's a setting called Optimized Targeting.
De-select this.
Expert Kyle Sulerud once said that enabled Optimized Targeting does nothing but waste money for him.
Of course, the setting is ENABLED by default. 'Enabled' means Google will try targeting things you have no intention of targeting (like GDN maybe?).
When it comes to wasting your money, Google is keen on it.
GOOGLE HIDES THE GOOD STUFF
The very-changeable UI (user interface) in Google Ads currently highlights money-wasting settings, while 'hiding' money-saver settings.
For instance, Content targeting options are hidden in a dropdown link that's easy to miss.
Content targeting is a much more precise type of targeting (unlike others) which is very useful to have, especially when warming up pixels.
Content Targeting (Placements, Video Lineups, Topics, Keywords) is currently hidden under an Advanced Options link.
There are 2 Advanced Options links in my current UI version.
VIDEO LINEUPS
By the way, Video Lineups is a newer type targeting option that holds some promise.
Video Lineups are groupings of videos. It's like targeting Topics except there should be no Instream-ban, since the target is videos, and only videos.
It's like Google using Tube Sift or Vid Hoarder to make a nice video Placement list for you. And you don't have to go in there and spend time weeding out irrelevant videos!
So if you want to do a quick test involving real pin-point placed traffic, it's something to consider.
Problem is not all niches are covered. But more Lineups are being added and added.
I want to really get to the bottom of the Instream-ban problem, to have all the details on what triggers it.
So if anyone has relevant content to contribute to this growing article, any clues from your experiences, that can help all of us get to the bottom of this problem sooner, please reach out to me at: info@marketingPOLAND.PL