homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.204.79.235
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member
Visit PubCon.com
Home / Forums Index / Google / Google AdSense
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: incrediBILL & jatar k & martinibuster

Google AdSense Forum

This 218 message thread spans 8 pages: < < 218 ( 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 > >     
Jenstar reveals data about Adsense Smart Pricing
Clark




msg:1415152
 6:46 am on Oct 26, 2005 (gmt 0)

I just read Jenstar's blog about smart pricing. I want to be shocked, although I'm not. Let's just say disappointed.

How in the hell can Google be so stupid as to count Smart Pricing on an account basis rather than at worst domain basis. No wonder... That explains a lot.

It is really ridiculous.

 

yosaid




msg:1415332
 4:07 am on Nov 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

It is just a matter of time before Adsense world crumbles. They really have lost the plot. Very badly.

How could such a neat formula with such high hopes for so many webmasters go down the drain with stupid blunders like "smart pricing" and "lack of data".

"I will kill google" --- Microsoft exec.

dzcap




msg:1415333
 8:58 am on Nov 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

They're getting worse when their competition is getting better. They're going the wrong direction!

Swebbie




msg:1415334
 9:39 pm on Nov 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

They're getting worse when their competition is getting better.

That is EXACTLY what's going on, and it's very puzzling. Perhaps it's a case of having too many book smart folks making decisions, when the "in the trenches" people with more online street smarts are being ignored. We'll never know, but when it all settles out, I'll wager Yahoo comes out of this the big winner.

Google relies way too heavily on AW/AS for it's revenue. Yahoo is much more diversified and can deal with giving their publishers more of the pie (as they are now, for sure). Google will do fine, but they won't own this market much longer, imho.

europeforvisitors




msg:1415335
 9:46 pm on Nov 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

Google relies way too heavily on AW/AS for it's revenue. Yahoo is much more diversified and can deal with giving their publishers more of the pie (as they are now, for sure). Google will do fine, but they won't own this market much longer, imho.

Google has an enormous lead in both publishers and advertisers. And don't forget that the publishers most likely to leave are those who aren't performing well for Google--not the ones that Google needs most (and that Yahoo would be most eager to have).

As for Yahoo, we don't know what their payout is, but if is more generous than Google's already generous payout, it won't be that way indefinitely. (Yahoo isn't a charity, and it has to make a profit in the same way that Google does.)

Clark




msg:1415336
 9:51 pm on Nov 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

I've heard you say that before, but I respectfully disagree.

I don't need Google at all. Nor Yahoo. It's just a nice bonus. And I'm removing most of my AS units because I'm tired of the MFAs gaming the system. What you as an advertiser may find is that the quality sites leave and all you're left with is MFA sites in the content network.

activeco




msg:1415337
 11:59 pm on Nov 9, 2005 (gmt 0)

someone should start a petition to ban smart pricing

How about a checkbox which says something like: "Opt out of the advertisers YOU perform badly with"?

I don't have to know who they are to manually exclude them.
That would be the triple win: advertiser - publisher - Google.

This would also eliminate some advertisers using "accidental" errors in conversion tracking codes.

Swebbie




msg:1415338
 1:50 am on Nov 10, 2005 (gmt 0)

Google has an enormous lead in both publishers and advertisers. And don't forget that the publishers most likely to leave are those who aren't performing well for Google--not the ones that Google needs most (and that Yahoo would be most eager to have).

Yes, Google has a big lead. When you're the ONLY game in town for so long, that tends to happen. But I disagree completely with your 2nd comment. I've moved the majority of my pages to Yahoo, including the ones that were doing very well with AS ads on them. Why? EPC is much higher with Yahoo, and their targeting has gotten much better. That is resulting in better CTR (almost a match for AS now). It's a no-brainer for most of my sites, and I know I'm not alone. High quality AS publishers are leaving for YPN, and I suspect the stampede will build.

As for Yahoo, we don't know what their payout is, but if is more generous than Google's already generous payout, it won't be that way indefinitely.

That's a big assumption on your part. I *KNOW* that the same pages showing YPN ads are paying me about 7X what those pages paid when showing AS ads. I don't care what that translates to in terms of what Yahoo is keeping, as long as it keeps a-comin'. And how can you possibly know that the generous payouts won't keep coming? Google has nearly all of its revenue eggs in the AW/AS basket. Not so with Yahoo. They're much more diversified, which means it's perfectly logical to conclude they might just keep less and give publishers more of the YPN pie. It would make good sense as they try to attract publishers away from Google, while not charging Overture advertisers any more for their ads to be shown.

europeforvisitors




msg:1415339
 4:10 am on Nov 10, 2005 (gmt 0)

. High quality AS publishers are leaving for YPN, and I suspect the stampede will build.

If there's a stampede," we'll see evidence of it in Google's next quarterly earnings report. Until then, talk of a "stampede" is speculation or hype (or maybe both).

And how can you possibly know that the generous payouts won't keep coming? Google has nearly all of its revenue eggs in the AW/AS basket. Not so with Yahoo. They're much more diversified, which means it's perfectly logical to conclude they might just keep less and give publishers more of the YPN pie.

Google paid out 78.5% of AdSense revenues to publishers in 3Q 2005. It's hard to imagine Yahoo paying out a higher percentage than that for any length of time if it wants to operate YPN as a profitable business.

jomaxx




msg:1415340
 4:20 am on Nov 10, 2005 (gmt 0)

Yahoo merely appears to be generous because they're paying US publishers only, for US traffic only. That's why CPC is so high and it's probably why the CTR seems so low for most publishers. When you look at the bottom line only, some publishers seem to do better with YPN and some have switched back to AdSense.

Clark




msg:1415341
 4:57 am on Nov 10, 2005 (gmt 0)

78.5%

Very convincing number.

If you believe that number, then you have a point.

It is easy to refute it, but I won't say how. All I will say is that you underestimate accountants paid to make the books reflect what their clients want it to. The credibility of 78.5% is on the same level the Enron SEC filings were.

I'm not an accountant and I can come up with lots of ways to file a report issuing that number legally.

A real 78.5%? Not in a million years.

Juan_G




msg:1415342
 6:26 am on Nov 10, 2005 (gmt 0)

A real 78.5%? Not in a million years.

Sometimes people complain about small variations of 2% or so, but the percentages are around the mentioned by EFV.

This has been discussed before, for example on the following thread (where Activeco included a link to verify it):

[webmasterworld.com...]

dzcap




msg:1415343
 6:27 am on Nov 10, 2005 (gmt 0)

Fat chance! 78.5%? LOL!

jomaxx




msg:1415344
 6:34 am on Nov 10, 2005 (gmt 0)

Clark, Enron was engaging in outright fraud. If you are going to make such accusations against Google, you should have something, anything, evidence of some sort would be nice, to back it up.

Clark




msg:1415345
 6:45 am on Nov 10, 2005 (gmt 0)

That thread is hilarious. There are at least two other threads @ WW that discuss payout percentages in a realistic way and did some excellent analysis.

SEC Filings are a vaunted method to lie legally.

If you guys have so little imagination to doubt these numbers, I'll give you a simple hypothetical example. Imagine having hundreds of millions of dollars of motivation to be even more creative than my example and you'll come up with 80% and smart pricing and other ideas too.

OK. You are Google. You want to show a high percentage of return to publishers so people think you aren't evil. So you plan for it. You are doing big business with big companies. Like AOL and similar companies.

So you seek a company that needs to show income in certain categories (so it looks like growth in their books). So if AOL wants to be in play, they can offer space for Google Ads, officially take a huge share of the income. But Google negotiates saying they are delivering much more than that, and ask for something else in return that doesn't show up in the books. There are countless deals they can make. Boom, few hundred million goes to AOL officially and comes back to Google in other ways, showing up in their books later, or a different category. Revenue sharing figures go up. Lemmings on WW and beyond are convinced that Google is a "nice" company sharing the lions portion of the AS income with the small publisher.

That scenario came to me after 10 seconds of thought upon reading the Release of the data. Give me more time I'll give you 200 other ways.

Wow. I always thought WW conversation was on a much higher level with the best and brightest. I can't believe I'm even discussing this.

Clark




msg:1415346
 6:49 am on Nov 10, 2005 (gmt 0)

jomaxx,

We were typing at the same time. I'm not saying Google is Enron. They are way smarter than Enron. I don't think anything they did is illegal.

Cooking books legally is an age old tradition. Every single public corporation does it. If they didn't, they would not be living up to their responsibilities to the shareholders ;)

I didn't mean any of this as an allegation or insult. As Mario Puzo would put it. It's nothing personal. It's business.

dzcap




msg:1415347
 8:30 am on Nov 10, 2005 (gmt 0)

If that 78.5% were true (doubt it), it wouldn't surprise me if premium publishers get a much larger cut, maybe as much as 10x. Probably premium publishers are @#!3@ing and they decide to take it out on the little publishers.

BeeDeeDubbleU




msg:1415348
 10:28 am on Nov 10, 2005 (gmt 0)

Google will do fine, but they won't own this market much longer, imho.

Google will own this market for as long as they own the lion's share of search. Advertisers are always going to go where they get most exposure. If Yahoo or MSN started beating Google's volume of searches then and only then will there be a serious shift.

dzcap




msg:1415349
 11:06 am on Nov 10, 2005 (gmt 0)

And what will Google do when they start losing more and more publishers? Less publishers = less exposure = less sales. Where will the advertisers go? Maybe the new referral program is a result of that!

BeeDeeDubbleU




msg:1415350
 11:34 am on Nov 10, 2005 (gmt 0)

Are they losing publishers in any great numbers? If so I have heard nothing about this and it is not reflected in their stock price.

During the last three months the trend has been ever upwards ;)

dzcap




msg:1415351
 11:53 am on Nov 10, 2005 (gmt 0)

They lost publishers to competitors, that's a given. But how many? No one knows. Unfortunately, for many others here, we're heading downwards.

BeeDeeDubbleU




msg:1415352
 12:07 pm on Nov 10, 2005 (gmt 0)

I agree but they're a long way from being concerned about this so we either have to tolerate the vagaries of the Adsense system or go elsewhere. Personally I am in a small but very competitive, high value field and I hold most of the top positions in Google.

My site is an authority site, full of original content, clean and respected in the industry. If it is being damaged by smart pricing then I must accept that smart pricing does not work in my field. My site is probably worth more in direct advertising so I am going to look into this.

dzcap




msg:1415353
 12:10 pm on Nov 10, 2005 (gmt 0)

They're already concerned, there are serious competition out there, Chitika, YPN (where I am migrating to now), and MSN is coming up very soon. Why else would they introduce a referral program or calling back those who switched to YPN if they weren't concerned?

europeforvisitors




msg:1415354
 2:57 pm on Nov 10, 2005 (gmt 0)

All I will say is that you underestimate accountants paid to make the books reflect what their clients want it to. The credibility of 78.5% is on the same level the Enron SEC filings were.

Clark, if you think Google is on a par with Enron, why bother with AdSense at all?

Clark




msg:1415355
 6:24 pm on Nov 10, 2005 (gmt 0)

I probably should have phrased it differently.

I just meant to say that the figure of 78.5% is not credible.

As I said afterward, I think Google is much smarter than Enron and didn't do anything illegal with this move. Their public financial statements need to be viewed with the same skeptical eye as their advertisements. That's all.

dzcap




msg:1415356
 6:34 pm on Nov 10, 2005 (gmt 0)

Google could be the next Enron (probably not), but who knows? Wasn't Enron all praise before the crash?

Clark




msg:1415357
 6:59 pm on Nov 10, 2005 (gmt 0)

I wouldn't go that far. If you looked into Enron at all, they really pushed the enevelope beyond any reasonable level.

There are some other corporations doing similar stuff. Like credit card companies. But I wouldn't put Google in the same category and if that's how it came off then I apologize.

Swebbie




msg:1415358
 8:25 pm on Nov 10, 2005 (gmt 0)

Google paid out 78.5% of AdSense revenues to publishers in 3Q 2005. It's hard to imagine Yahoo paying out a higher percentage than that for any length of time if it wants to operate YPN as a profitable business.

I'll take that figure as fact (78.5%). So what? Your follow-on conclusion is illogical. As I mentioned earlier, the difference between Google and its top two competitors is that Yahoo and MS both have substantial diversification of revenue streams. Google does not. That means they can afford to snag publishers from Google by paying a significantly higher percentage long-term. It's not even close in my own case. I pull in 7 TIMES the EPC with YPN vs. AdSense. Even if they back that off substantially, I'm still coming out way ahead, especially now that CTR is beginning to rise to AdSense levels. I mean, c'mon, same number of clicks and even just 1.5X AdSense keeps me with YPN. Not even a tough call.

dzcap




msg:1415359
 8:40 pm on Nov 10, 2005 (gmt 0)

I am seeing 4x as high eCPM, I think I could get a new car in a month if I move all my sites to YPN. What does that say about Adsense?

jomaxx




msg:1415360
 9:15 pm on Nov 10, 2005 (gmt 0)

It says that some webmasters will keep running AdSense even if they feel they can earn far more elsewhere.

europeforvisitors




msg:1415361
 9:19 pm on Nov 10, 2005 (gmt 0)

If YPN is performing that well for you, then by all means use it. (In fact, why even bother complaining about AdSense? Why not simply head over to YPN and never look back?)

Different ad networks obviously have different strengths and weaknesses. For me, AdSense is appealing because it has international reach, it offers a huge and diverse advertiser base, and it pays me well. Your mileage or km/liter may vary. As they used to say on the Big John and Sparky radio show: "You go to your church and I'll go to mine, and we'll all walk along together."

dzcap




msg:1415362
 9:32 pm on Nov 10, 2005 (gmt 0)

I am still testing it, after I get next month's payment, I might put all inventory to YPN.

This 218 message thread spans 8 pages: < < 218 ( 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 > >
Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Google / Google AdSense
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