homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.211.201.65
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member
Visit PubCon.com
Home / Forums Index / Advertising / Affiliates
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: eljefe3 & skibum

Affiliates Forum

    
Online Ad Sales Nearly $10 Billion, Up 27%
engine




msg:3470038
 3:05 pm on Oct 5, 2007 (gmt 0)

U.S. online advertising revenue surged to a new high of nearly $10 billion in the first half of the year, rising 27% from a year before, according to data released Thursday.

The top 50 sites accounted for more than 90% of the revenue from online advertising spending in the first half of the year, and the top 10 sites accounted for 70%, according to the study.

Search ads, led by Google, remained the most popular form of online marketing and at $4.1 billion were 41% of the money spent in the first half of 2007.

Online Ad Sales Nearly $10 Billion, Up 27% [latimes.com]

 

timster




msg:3470050
 3:28 pm on Oct 5, 2007 (gmt 0)

Can we get a link to a site that doesn't require registration?

ke1th




msg:3470056
 3:33 pm on Oct 5, 2007 (gmt 0)

[informationweek.com...]

apauto




msg:3470394
 9:31 pm on Oct 5, 2007 (gmt 0)

I wonder if conversions rose 27% along with that.

rehabguy




msg:3470403
 9:49 pm on Oct 5, 2007 (gmt 0)

the top 10 sites accounted for 70%, according to the study

Wait a minute... where's my LONG TAIL? 70/10 is really really close to 80/20!

Rats.

europeforvisitors




msg:3470412
 10:00 pm on Oct 5, 2007 (gmt 0)

It's worth noting that graphic display-ad sales grew 32% (more than the overall rate of growth, and more than search ads). That's in line with the numbers in several other studies and forecasts over the past year or so.

Display advertising is mainstream advertising (and vice versa), so it's fair to say that the search-ad market --large though it may be--is just the tip of an emerging iceberg.

mardomania




msg:3470477
 12:59 am on Oct 6, 2007 (gmt 0)

I don't know if this comment will be relevant to this thread..but with 90% of the PPC revenue being paid by the top 50 sites....i'm I the only one that thinks one day the PPC engines won't give a crap about the other 10% or am I just being paranoid?

callivert




msg:3470486
 1:30 am on Oct 6, 2007 (gmt 0)

with 90% of the PPC revenue being paid by the top 50 sites....i'm I the only one that thinks one day the PPC engines won't give a crap about the other 10% or am I just being paranoid?

That long tail 10% is currently worth 2 billion dollars a year, so I think we're safe for now.

followgreg




msg:3470663
 1:24 pm on Oct 6, 2007 (gmt 0)


Who are the top 50?
Is there a breakdown of their ad spendings somewhere?

Booster




msg:3470689
 2:46 pm on Oct 6, 2007 (gmt 0)

in one of the researches i was reviewing, it was mentioned that Google has about Million advertisers. i can't imagine that only 50 advertisers generate 90% of their search advertising revenues.
is it possible that the numbers relate to display advertising and not search? search is so targeted and segmented, that the spread of advertising spend must be more fragmented than that!?

farmboy




msg:3470703
 3:12 pm on Oct 6, 2007 (gmt 0)

I don't know if this comment will be relevant to this thread..but with 90% of the PPC revenue being paid by the top 50 sites....i'm I the only one that thinks one day the PPC engines won't give a crap about the other 10% or am I just being paranoid?

Is it saying the top 50 sites are paying 90% of the revenue or is it saying the top 50 sites are receiving 90% of the revenue?

FarmBoy

europeforvisitors




msg:3470716
 3:37 pm on Oct 6, 2007 (gmt 0)

The article stated: "For now, the majority of Internet spending is highly concentrated on the most popular sites." That statement was followed by the references to the top 50 and top 10 sites. So, in that context, it's pretty clear that the money is being spent on the top 50/10 sites, not by them.

BTW, in one vertical that I'm familiar with, display-advertising growth has been huge over the past year or two, and nearly all of the ads are coming from big-name corporate advertisers who are looking for prospects with a demonstrated interest in that vertical. I think there's a real opportunity for specialty ad networks and rep firms that know industries well and can offer one-stop shopping for advertisers who want cooking enthusiasts, car buffs, photo hobbyists, outdoor-sports participants, Bible readers, or whatever. (That's already happened in one important vertical and maybe in others as well.)

rohitj




msg:3470750
 5:00 pm on Oct 6, 2007 (gmt 0)

"i can't imagine that only 50 advertisers generate 90% of their search advertising revenues. " Try harder. Those brand advertisers can spend XX million a year each. Your mom and pops will spend maybe a few hundred bucks.

europeforvisitors




msg:3470752
 5:11 pm on Oct 6, 2007 (gmt 0)

"i can't imagine that only 50 advertisers generate 90% of their search advertising revenues. "

If it's any reassurance, that isn't what the article said.

jeffgroovy




msg:3470900
 10:48 pm on Oct 6, 2007 (gmt 0)

so it's fair to say that the search-ad market --large though it may be--is just the tip of an emerging iceberg.

Where are all the display advertising affiliate programs hiding? I want in. Once upon a long time ago I applied to doubleclick...I was promptly rejected.

Namaste




msg:3470905
 10:59 pm on Oct 6, 2007 (gmt 0)

don't forget the Dollar has depreciated more than 20% this year!

jeffgroovy




msg:3470973
 3:58 am on Oct 7, 2007 (gmt 0)

don't forget the Dollar has depreciated more than 20% this year!

Are you basing your 20% figure on how much the dollar has fallen against other currencies?

limitup




msg:3472057
 6:45 pm on Oct 8, 2007 (gmt 0)

Try harder. Those brand advertisers can spend XX million a year each. Your mom and pops will spend maybe a few hundred bucks.

That's silly. I'm a one-man show and I spend 5-10k a day on AdWords alone. And there are plenty others like me. In fact, I personally know more than 50 of them.

potentialgeek




msg:3473525
 6:11 am on Oct 10, 2007 (gmt 0)

I think there's a real opportunity for specialty ad networks and rep firms that know industries well and can offer one-stop shopping for advertisers who want cooking enthusiasts, car buffs, photo hobbyists, outdoor-sports participants, Bible readers, or whatever.

What's wrong with Adsense to do this with keyword-targeted advertising? It cuts out the need for a new network. You can be as specific and specialized as you want to be.

I'm following one new specialty network and it's hardly convincing it will last. It uses graphic ads almost exclusively which often have a lower CTR than text links. The ads aren't anything special.

I really don't see what it does better than AdWords and none of the companies using it so far are online storefronts that can measure conversion rates and do ad cost v. sale math to test value and see profit margins.

p/g

jeffgroovy




msg:3473543
 7:10 am on Oct 10, 2007 (gmt 0)

How fragmented and nightmarish from an advertiser perspective the idea of having to use different niche advertising networks depending on the subject matter of a site. The bigger the advertiser base, the better from a publisher point of view, more overall advertisers = more competitive CPC's. Conversely a smaller advertiser base from an advertiser perspective would mean lower CPC's, but at the sacrifice of a smaller, lower volume, publisher network.

However, if I were a single product category e commerce site owner, the value of a particular advertising network focusing on my niche could be apparent, and a valuable addition to the meat and potatoes of mainstream advertising networks.

From experience I can say that most smaller advertising networks, niche or otherwise have proven to deliver much lower quality traffic, but I said most, not all.

europeforvisitors




msg:3474036
 5:43 pm on Oct 10, 2007 (gmt 0)

What's wrong with Adsense to do this with keyword-targeted advertising? It cuts out the need for a new network. You can be as specific and specialized as you want to be.

Direct-response advertisements (such as AdSense contextual ads) fill a need, but they represent only a small percentage of overall advertising expenditures. They're like mail-order ads in the back of a camera or car magazine: Those mail-order ads are great for camera dealers and vendors of car accessories, but Nikon, Canon, Mercedes, Ford, and other name-brand, multimillion-dollar advertisers want to buy display ads in the main editorial section or on the inside and outside covers.

We aren't allowed to be specific here, but in one sector that I know well, the growth in display ads by name-brand advertisers has been huge over the last year or two. Such advertisers might find a contextual network like AdSense useful for short-term promotions, but they--and their Madison Avenue agencies--are mostly interested in display ads and in audience targeting (not keyword targeting).

jeffgroovy




msg:3474229
 9:32 pm on Oct 10, 2007 (gmt 0)

but they--and their Madison Avenue agencies--are mostly interested in display ads and in audience targeting (not keyword targeting).

So basically what you are saying, is they don't want to only show ads to people that are looking for their "brand name camera" they want to show their ads to anyone in the photography industry, and thereby expanding their brand, not just putting it in front of eyes that were already looking for their brand. Okay so that makes enough sense to me, but isn't that what AdWords broad match, or site targeting with image ads is all about, or are you actually talking about display advertising in paper magazines?

europeforvisitors




msg:3474363
 12:29 am on Oct 11, 2007 (gmt 0)

isn't that what AdWords broad match, or site targeting with image ads is all about, or are you actually talking about display advertising in paper magazines?

I'm talking about display advertising on Web sites. Display ads are where the fastest growth in Web advertising is said to be, and that makes sense, because most of the money that's being shifted from "old media" to the Web isn't currently being spent on direct-response advertising.

Some of that money will go to places like YouTube (click-to-see TV), but a lot of it will go to online editions of newspapers, enthusiast publications, etc. And some of it will go to moderately small and medium-sized sites that are having their impressions aggregated by vertical display-ad networks.

In fact, that's already happening. When National Doughnut Corp. can buy 10 million impressions a month on a dozen established, credible doughnut sites in one fell swoop (and with one phone call from a rep who knows the doughnut industry intimately), it's a win-win-win situation for National Doughnut Corp., the ad network or rep firm, and the dozen aggregated doughnut sites.

jeffgroovy




msg:3483731
 8:31 am on Oct 22, 2007 (gmt 0)

I'm wondering what planet I've been living on to have missed the move back to display networks, I thought was huge during the early days of the Internet but died down. I'm totally missing out the on the display ad parade. I need to get on ball and start applying to some display networks.

jeffgroovy




msg:3483750
 9:30 am on Oct 22, 2007 (gmt 0)

I've been hearing a lot about the rise of display networks lately. EFV, do you have any suggestions in terms of which display networks you use, or recommend? Should I be going for the big boys like Fastclick, or trying to find niche display networks?

Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Advertising / Affiliates
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Home ¦ Free Tools ¦ Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About ¦ Library ¦ Newsletter
WebmasterWorld is a Developer Shed Community owned by Jim Boykin.
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved