| 6:01 pm on Nov 16, 2009 (gmt 0)|
Great. they earn so much .........
| 6:02 pm on Nov 16, 2009 (gmt 0)|
Isn't that irrelevant as they'd loose all their holier-than-you workforce that scrape content and rewrite it (sometimes at least).
| 6:29 pm on Nov 16, 2009 (gmt 0)|
|Isn't that irrelevant as they'd loose all their holier-than-you workforce that scrape content and rewrite it (sometimes at least). |
Until Jimmy Wales says: 'Hey, we've got enough scraped and rewritten content (sometimes at least) now, let's start serious monetization of it!' ;)
I know, will never happen...
| 6:39 pm on Nov 16, 2009 (gmt 0)|
But more serious: I think Wikipedia's visitors are more in research mood than in buying mood.
So their earnings could be less than we would think/estimate.
| 6:08 am on Nov 17, 2009 (gmt 0)|
|But more serious: I think Wikipedia's visitors are more in research mood than in buying mood. |
So their earnings could be less than we would think/estimate.
So my estimation is based on the Alexa data from wikipedia and my site and 1% of my eCPM.
Only 1% because only 1 AdLink and visitors not in purchasing mode.
| 6:42 am on Nov 17, 2009 (gmt 0)|
|But more serious: I think Wikipedia's visitors are more in research mood than in buying mood |
However, they would have to be poor performers at a CTR of less than 1% and an average EPC of 30c which leads me to an eCPM of $3.00
Quantcast are literally in the dark without directly measured traffic and speculate Wikipedia has a rank of 7 with US traffic of an estimated 74.3M a month.
This would give me an estimation of around $223,000 a month. Conservatively less than an earlier estimate.
If we can speculate the ratio of world traffic to US traffic, extrapolating from my real world experience, and ramping up CTR a bit and more than likely realistic EPC, I'd venture:
Around $1,000,000 a month would be easy.
Of course there could be mass desertions.
Can someone remind me why we are yet once again wasting time with idle speculation?
I know we are an easily distracted bunch...
| 8:36 am on Nov 17, 2009 (gmt 0)|
I've slept since then, and getting a bit long in the tooth, but isn't Wikipedia non-profit? Rolling over, going back to sleep.
| 9:19 am on Nov 17, 2009 (gmt 0)|
|but isn't Wikipedia non-profit |
A non-profit org has only to invest all the earned money.
No proplem with AdSense.
| 1:56 pm on Nov 17, 2009 (gmt 0)|
They can always use their 'editorial privilege' to barter for influence which can be monetized outside the visitor's view. It seems to be what large newspapers are having to do these days.
| 9:30 pm on Nov 22, 2009 (gmt 0)|
I've often thought if Wiki ever found out some way to incorporate the social networking sites and blogs there wouldn't be a reason to have a "World Wide Web" at all -- just fire up your browser and Wiki will be the only address possible because it contains every topic under the sun (wouldn't Google just love that).
| 11:22 pm on Nov 22, 2009 (gmt 0)|
|wouldn't Google just love that |
Not sure if that's sarcastic or not: but there would be no need for a search engine if you only had one website left.
The other thing is that there also would be no content left to scrape for the wikipedia fanboys either: they'd be done.
| 8:15 am on Nov 23, 2009 (gmt 0)|
I think Google will give some special consideration to Wiki, and it will place some special targeted ads on it IF Wiki allows Google Adsense.
I think earning would be much more than you guys are estimating. If you say that Wiki is just for the research people then I think you are underestimating it.
For a little example if we are prescribed for a medicine we go to Wiki to see the chemical composition and side effects and just imagine how that particular page can be targeted to different kind of businesses.
It's vast man..real vast.
| 11:52 am on Nov 23, 2009 (gmt 0)|
let them be ad-less and let us earn peacefully :P
| 7:30 am on Nov 24, 2009 (gmt 0)|
Wikipedia gets around 6 billion page views per month for the English language version, and nearly as many for all other languages combined (the figures are on their site).
Based on a similar site where the users are doing stuff and not really interested in ads (and with a similar global mix of users). a 0.25% CTR and $0.25 CPM could be expected.
So that's 1.5 million US dollars a month for the English-language version, and I'd guess 10% of that for the rest of the languages combined.
As they're a non-profit, that could be used to send copies of Wikipedia on handheld devices to schools in third world countries. Could even be used to pay the contributors.
| 8:01 am on Nov 24, 2009 (gmt 0)|
I seriously don't understand.. that they can put such a HUGE banner for the donation on each page while they can not put one slot of ad? and once the need is done.. remove the ad.. what a big deal?
Putting a donation "ad" banner doesn't consider as advertisement?
Do all the NON Profit Organizations require to beg like this? and they can not make money using advertisement?
| 10:58 am on Nov 24, 2009 (gmt 0)|
|Wikipedia gets around 6 billion page views per month for the English language version, and nearly as many for all other languages combined (the figures are on their site). |
I did not know this.
My estimation was based on my sites Alexa data compared to Wikipedia.org's Alexa data.
Based on this, my estimated pageviews for Alexa had been in the range 5 to 7 billion page views a month.
I calculated a very low CTR for a single AdLink, that's why I estimated $300.000 a month.
When I go Salzburg's zoo, I see at each ecnlosure a shield
"This animal is sponsored by company"
Why do the beg, when they could earn much more money?
BTW, on my site is also a link for donations.
Brings about $80 a year, when I would make a big banner like Wikipedia, I am sure I would get more donations per visitor than Wikipedia.
But this is nothing compared to the $36000 per year from Google AdSense.
| 4:02 am on Nov 25, 2009 (gmt 0)|
I think Wikipedia could generate worthwhile clicks. Yes people go there to research but you can use the site to research a purchase as well. For example, go to Wikipedia and enter the make and model of your digital camera, then see what comes up. You can get some pretty good technical info, and it lacks the bias you'll find on the manufacturer's site. One of those Wiki pages would be a really effective place for camera ads.
I agree it wouldn't be much different than soliciting donations. As long as the revenue figures are public and are justified by the cost of running the site, then why not? If the $300K figure is even in the ballpark, then it seems like they wouldn't need to run very many ads.
| 5:40 am on Nov 27, 2009 (gmt 0)|
|But this is nothing compared to the $36000 per year from Google AdSense. |
Then why ask for donations?
| 7:47 pm on Nov 28, 2009 (gmt 0)|
Have to agree. They have the potential to earn for advertising - if they want to they can donate that to worthy causes. I think all the advertising haters would still be willing to use wikipedia if they knew where the money was going