| This 37 message thread spans 2 pages: 37 (  2 ) > > || |
|Revenue Share for Adsense Partners is Actually Increasing!|
compiled data from publicly filed reports
| 6:26 pm on Apr 20, 2007 (gmt 0)|
the percentage of revenues that google is sharing with adsense partners has actually increased, and is currently at its highest point ever!
qtr.....adsense rev..adsense payouts..revenue share
of course, any individual publisher may be getting more or less (google doesnt disclose this), but in aggregate, google is keeping a smaller percentage for themselves.
| 7:31 pm on Apr 20, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Even though I haven't seen the documentation or know where these numbers came from, I wouldn't doubt the trend.
One reason I never participate in the "Google is taking more share of the revenue" threads, is because I don't believe it happens that way.
I'm more inclined to believe that too many factors determine why one publisher's EPC goes up and another publisher's EPC goes down.
| 5:07 am on Apr 21, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Interesting, but I'm a skeptic when people claim it's going down and I guess I am when people claim it's going up as well. I don't think we know enough about the specifics of all the premium partner deals to draw any reliable conclusions.
| 7:35 am on Apr 21, 2007 (gmt 0)|
yea, but i see revenue per click dropping anyway so cash in hand keeps reducing!
| 7:58 am on Apr 21, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Aggregate figures and statistics of these kinds are quite useless and can easily lead to wrong conclusions. We are talking of Billion Dollars + here. At the publisher level, these kind of figures have very little corellation to reality. We can get no idea of shifts taking place within such aggregate fgures. If we knew who gets what, there would be an uproar.
| 8:35 am on Apr 21, 2007 (gmt 0)|
If the aggregate figures are up, as the stats imply, then the average earnings will be up. But where do these figures come from? Without knowing the source they are worthless.
| 10:15 am on Apr 21, 2007 (gmt 0)|
vOMG, not again! Once a quarter this topic is brought up, and once a quarter this figure is brought forward to support claims of "Google taking less/more/same as last quarter".
The overall payout to publishers (as "traffic acquisition cost") is quite meaningless for individual publishers as we do not know how this cumulated data has been calculated. To be honest, we really do not know anything about this. E.g., are there publishers getting a >100% revenue share? Youtube? How many sites are getting a 100% revenue share? How many publishers share the pie? And so on and so on. The number of possible combinations is endless, and the cumulated numbers allow no conclusion at all. It's just a small table fireworks to impress the market.
A good comparision may be the figures for annual income "per capita": e.g.
Namibia = USD 3,022
U.S.A. = USD 42,000
Luxemburg = USD 80,288
Does that mean EVERYONE in Namibia is earning USD 3,022 per year? Nope. You still see large BMWs driving around in Namibia, and you see the poorest of the poor dreamuing of a donkey cart. You still see beautiful villas in Namibia. Stuff you certainly can not afford from USD 3,022 per year.
Or the U.S.A. - does everyone earn USD 42,000 per year? Nope. You still have homeless people. You still have people who might dream of earning USD 21,000 annually.
You see. A cumulated average does say very little about the real distribution. Without knowing more facts, we should refrain from pulling this figure up trying to prove this or that. It's meaningless.
| 4:21 pm on Apr 21, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|we should refrain from pulling this figure up trying to prove this or that. It's meaningless. |
its surprising to see some statistics cause so much emotion. statistics are statistics, take them for what they are. they might be meaningless to you, or for what you want to draw from them, but they are interesting nonetheless.
i pulled the data from the quarterly reports that google is required to file by the SEC:
| 4:46 pm on Apr 21, 2007 (gmt 0)|
it's nothing personal, you know, it's just -as you say- statistics. Some of us use it to prove something that probably (better: very likely) is not there.
| 6:25 pm on Apr 21, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|Aggregate figures and statistics of these kinds are quite useless and can easily lead to wrong conclusions. |
It isn't the fault of statistics if some people are stupid and draw wrong conclusions.
And it's a LOT more accurate to say, for example:
"Google's overall AdSense payout last quarter was 77% [or whatever]"
...as opposed to the contstant refrains of:
"My earnings have declined by XX%, so Google has obviously cut the payout to publishers to satisfy its stockholders and every mom-and-pop publisher is getting screwed."
| 12:55 am on Apr 22, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Aggregate figures and average figures are not supposed to move in lockstep. Obviously there are more AdSense publishers every passing quarter. You also have some recent beefy additions in AdSense (like MySpace) which may skew the percentages higher.
And, of course, if your ecpm is going down it doesn't mean that Google is paying a smaller percentage so much as the probably the amount that the advertiser is paying.
| 7:21 am on Apr 22, 2007 (gmt 0)|
It's true, any stats can mean anything, but the nearer you get to 100% the less room there is for misunderstanding. What would be preferred, Google paying out a larger amount of it's revenue or a smaller amount? I vote for the larger amount every day of the week. And if a larger proportion is going to Namibians rather than me, then I'll just have to get my finger out and work on my sites harder and smarter.
| 7:32 am on Apr 22, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Whats the old saying!?
" Figures can lie,
and liars can figure"
| 2:39 pm on Apr 23, 2007 (gmt 0)|
I think it is awesome that publishers are now generating 1 billion in revenue per quarter... if the numbers are accurate... ;-)
| 2:42 pm on Apr 23, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|I think it is awesome that publishers are now generating 1 billion in revenue per quarter... if the numbers are accurate... ;-) |
The numbers come from Google's official 1Q 2007 earnings report to investors and the SEC, which are available in the "Financial Releases" section of Google's Investor Relations site:
| 3:00 pm on Apr 23, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Who can report higher adsense earnings in Q1 2007 compared to Q1 in 2006?
| 3:07 pm on Apr 23, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Well my page impressions were down in Q1 2007, but my eCPM rose by 7% compared to Q1 2006
| 3:40 pm on Apr 23, 2007 (gmt 0)|
I concur with Mr. Zanzig, aggregate numbers only tell a partial story. Why can't google just tell how much revenue it actually shares w/ individuals? Transparency is supposed to be the google way.
| 3:53 pm on Apr 23, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|I concur with Mr. Zanzig, aggregate numbers only tell a partial story. Why can't google just tell how much revenue it actually shares w/ individuals? |
Because, among other things, that would help competitors steal AdSense publishers by offering bigger percentages--at least until the publishers discovered that a bigger percentage doesn't necessarily translate into bigger revenues.
Also, nearly four years of AdSense history have shown that most publishers are more interested in bottom-line earnings than in percentage splits. (Ultimately, the numbers that count for a publisher are eCPM and total revenues.)
| 4:01 pm on Apr 23, 2007 (gmt 0)|
elsewhen, I disagree with your numbers. I think the correct percentage is 77.8%.
From the links above:
|Google’s partner sites generated revenues, through AdSense programs, of $1.35 billion |
TAC - Traffic Acquisition Costs, the portion of revenues shared with Google’s partners, increased to $1.13 billion in the first quarter of 2007.
The majority of TAC expense is related to amounts ultimately paid to our AdSense partners, which totaled $1.05 billion in the first quarter of 2007.
So, I agree with 1.35 billion. I disagree with your choice of the 1.13 billion number and so the final percentage would be wrong.
I would use:
1.05/1.35 = 77.8%
It still might be the highest ever, since I suspect your calculations in previous quarters are too high as well.
| 4:12 pm on Apr 23, 2007 (gmt 0)|
You can argue what's behind the numbers but it appears that the OP's statement is accurate:
|Rev Share for Adsense Partners is Actually Increasing! |
Now who is getting this money is debatable, but hopefully (although I doubt it) this puts all of these "Google is greedy" posts to bed.
| 6:58 pm on Apr 23, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|" Figures can lie, |
and liars can figure"
Or perhaps: "Lies, damn lies, and statistics"
The key thing here is premium publishers like Ask who are probably negotiating their share harder than ever. There are a variety of contextual partners they can choose, or build their own.
They may be taking a larger share of a larger cake while we suck on the crumbs.
| 7:24 pm on Apr 23, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|They may be taking a larger share of a larger cake while we suck on the crumbs. |
Or maybe not. That's idle speculation--unlike the original post in this thread.
| 8:48 pm on Apr 23, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|Who can report higher adsense earnings in Q1 2007 compared to Q1 in 2006? |
Earnings are up 102%, eCPM is up 60% on 26% more impressions. I give most of the credit to the WW Adsense forum.
| 8:54 pm on Apr 23, 2007 (gmt 0)|
where did you get this information from.
| 9:53 pm on Apr 23, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|That's idle speculation--unlike the original post in this thread. |
You're right, and that's way I said "may be".
My knowledge of premium publishers is backed up with a little more first hand data however.
| 11:21 pm on Apr 23, 2007 (gmt 0)|
I would like to see another column which includes adwords revenue to get a full picture
| 11:36 pm on Apr 23, 2007 (gmt 0)|
I think it would be extremely naive to believe that garden variety mom and pop website developers are getting an 83.7% revenue share. Mega sized publishers cut very favorable deals with Google. This number has to be skewed by that factor.
| 12:19 am on Apr 24, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Gosh, can't we editorialize a little bit?
| 1:14 am on Apr 24, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|I would like to see another column which includes adwords revenue to get a full picture |
Why not go directly to the source? The numbers are on Google's Investor Relations Web site.
| This 37 message thread spans 2 pages: 37 (  2 ) > > |