| This 97 message thread spans 4 pages: < < 97 ( 1 2 3  ) || |
|Smart Pricing Crashed my Google Adsense Revenue|
| 10:07 am on Jul 2, 2006 (gmt 0)|
it's real... and it is account based, the end of google adsense (this sucks). 4-5x less income down from 500-600$ day to 100$ day... I've got no hope for Adsense anymore.
| 3:55 am on Jul 12, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|Google, at least, has a history of steady AdSense earnings growth (for Google and for publishers) from quarter to quarter to quarter. |
Here's the problem about drawing conclusions based on these numbers. It's the things you do NOT know that make the difference.
Do you know exactly the breakdown of income amongst different types and sizes of "publishers"?
(ie. we do not know where in the publisher community the money is going to).
Do we know the breakdown of income revenue coming in in terms of sources and types and sectors?
...and dozens of other issues. You simply can't justifiably say much about, let's say, how regular folks like you and I are doing based on these numbers, or even say much about advertising trends, because the numbers are two general.
As an example from the non-virtual world, if you're looking at general sales numbers, and you run a wheel chair company, and you see that sales are up this quarter, you can't draw many conclusions about the health of the industry unless you have more information about the demographics, and other factors that help you understand what's really going on.
Bottom line: The numbers you quote have to do with "A" bottom line, but they have almost no implications for any one of us as you present them. Both on the pub side and the adv. side.
| 5:12 am on Jul 12, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|Do you know exactly the breakdown of income amongst different types and sizes of "publishers"? |
We don't need to. Danimal was speaking in general terms.
As I've said many, many times, some people are up and some are down at any given point in time--and it's always a mistake to assume that your own experience is universal.
| 6:16 am on Jul 12, 2006 (gmt 0)|
A couple of observations:-
1. As said earlier, it's been with us for a couple of years, and it isn't going to go away. Yes, make lots of noise here about it, but I don't think Google are listening.
2. Although it makes sense to use it to entice advertisers into the content area, I'm not sure that it does. As an advertiser, like Skippy earlier in the thread I've never seen a discount in content. My personal take is that Google might give a discount if you are a big enough account to shout and scream a bit, but for most small advertisers forget it. My personal take is that Google use it to maximise their revenue - pure and simple. The discount they give advertisers is chicken feed compared to the amount they smart price pubishers. Google keep the rest. I know they say they don't, but who believes that? As and advertiser and publisher my account says otherwise.
3. I'm not sure that content offers poor conversion. IMHO it has the ability to offer better results for advertisers. I block MFA's - have done for a year now. Do a search on my keyword and Google shows mostly MFA's on it's pages. My site is currently at number 2 in SERPS for the same keyword. Becuase of "Agressive filtering" the ads that show are from real advertisers and relevant. I would suggest that my site is likely to offer a better conversion rate to advertisers than search. Partly because I haven't bumped real advertisers off in favour of MFA's. IE their ads actually get seen!
| 6:28 am on Jul 12, 2006 (gmt 0)|
As an advertiser I can definitely say that smart pricing offers clicks at a lower rate in content network than they do for search network. As an Adsense publisher I can also say I hate smart pricing. :)
Bottom line - Google thinks that they can fix any problem with an algo and it's not possible. Some sites/publishers get hurt by smart pricing when they shouldn't and some don't get hurt when they should.
Adsense is not dying a horrible death. Some publishers are having issues while others are doing better than ever. I have been on both sides of the coin. I don't think Adsense is as "good of a deal" as it once was but I don't think Google is trying to get rid of all publishers either. That would be a bad business decision for them.
| 7:41 pm on Jul 12, 2006 (gmt 0)|
we don't have a clue how many new advertisers and publishers google acquires each quarter, so it's impossible to use the google earnings report to predict publisher epc... i think that *most* of us can see that :-)
>>>Do you know exactly the breakdown of income amongst different types and sizes of "publishers"?<<<
awhile back i posted a number of links to reputable news sources who detailed how some premium partners get to keep 100% of their adsense revenue... so it's all over the map.
wallybob, thanks for adding your two cents to the chorus about content ads being priced lower than search ads... because of that, there is no denying that adsense publishers in general have been getting a lower epc since google made the split between content and search... google makes more, publishers make less.
things happen in this business... ypn cut their payouts to the bone a couple of months ago, and this new affiliate thing i'm trying out isn't working too well yet... but today i got a month-long run of some rich media that's paying a $12 cpm rate.
diversification is the key, you don't want to be caught with your pants down when the google gravy train leaves you at the station.
| 8:29 pm on Jul 12, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|wallybob, thanks for adding your two cents to the chorus about content ads being priced lower than search ads... because of that, there is no denying that adsense publishers in general have been getting a lower epc since google made the split between content and search... google makes more, publishers make less. |
While I would agree that because of smart pricing publishers have made less I don't think you can make the leap that Google is making more because of it. With smart pricing I make less on a particular click but the advertiser pays less for that click. I haven't seen a case made yet that Google charges the advertiser the same and simply pays publishers less.
Additionally, if it weren't for smart pricing some publishers would be making less than they are now given that many advertisers are only willing to advertise on the content network if they get a price break. (Individual markets vary of course)
While I don't like smart pricing in some ways I can't chalk it up to a conspiricy for Google to keep an extra percentage of the profits.
| 8:15 pm on Jul 13, 2006 (gmt 0)|
"smart pricing" is the title of this thread, but it's not what i'm talking about... i'm referring to the content product being inferior to the search product for advertisers.
i would agree with your inference that google is possibly taking the same percentage for both search ads and content ads, but publisher epc still has to follow those lower content ad prices... it's not like google is going to take a smaller cut to make up for their lack of motivation to fix things like mfa's and click fraud.
some of you have probably read that eric schmidt of google has apparently stated that click fraud is a "self correcting" problem.
dave morgan, the ceo of tacoda, deciphered it this way: "Essentially, Schmidt is saying that Google knows that some of its distributors of ads (Web sites) are falsifying clicks so that they can get paid more than they deserve..."
notice how he didn't link the click fraud issue to google's search? he's calling it a problem on the content side of the fence only... so it's the publisher paycheck that gets "self corrected", in the form of lower epc.
| This 97 message thread spans 4 pages: < < 97 ( 1 2 3  ) |