| 4:12 pm on Feb 15, 2014 (gmt 0)|
Sounds like you're giving Adsense 3 times the impressions of Media.net unless I'm not reading you right. Not a true split test but if you're getting 52% of what Adsense made (which had 75% of the traffic) with only 25% of the traffic given to media.net, you can still draw some conclusions.
| 12:41 am on Feb 16, 2014 (gmt 0)|
Thanks for the info. It sounds like they would be a fairly viable option for someone unable/not wanting to use AdSense. I've tried many, many different ad programs over the years and AdSense always comes out on top in terms of ad selection, payments on time, etc. Only once did I have a program that gave me a pretty high fixed CPM, that was back in the good ol' days.
How are the ads? Relevant? And what size of ads did you test with media.net? Were the ads above the fold?
If it's still up, do you mind sending me the URL by "sticky mail" so I can see?
After reading your message I did a search here to see some other opinions, thought I'd share two:
|I am new to them as well but if you tell them what category of ads you think would best perform they will pass it on to the Media.net developers and after 2 weeks you will start to see those ads appearing. I am only running them on certain sections. I might check the visitorís country to determine AdSense ad or Media.net ad. Not sure yet but now the ads they are displaying now are definitely relevant. I might just give them the whole site for 2 weeks and see how they compare to AdSense. |
|I've been using media.net for over a year. It took some time for the ads to target well, but once they did, they started to perform well. RPMs overall equal adsense. It seems to do best when it is not the only advertising block on the page. |
They're both from this thread (Dec/13): [webmasterworld.com...]
| 1:30 am on Feb 16, 2014 (gmt 0)|
if you're getting 52% of what Adsense made (which had 75% of the traffic) with only 25% of the traffic given to media.net, you can still draw some conclusions.
He said RPM.
| 1:36 am on Feb 16, 2014 (gmt 0)|
I can't even get approved by media.net so I don't care. Their requirements are too high, plus they're far worse than Adsense.
You can have 'em.
| 3:14 pm on Feb 17, 2014 (gmt 0)|
Good point! Good catch! My dyslexia appears to extend to acronyms as well as numbers.
| 3:33 pm on Feb 17, 2014 (gmt 0)|
webcentric, you say it is not a true split test. Surely a split test does not have to be 50/50. I was not willing to give media.net 50% as I knew that would lose me money. So gave them a smaller % but aas long it is for the whole day, this should be a representative sample.
| 4:42 pm on Feb 17, 2014 (gmt 0)|
I agree that your sample is representative and useable. And insightful. Volume could easily be a factor though. Also, your statements suggests you've been using Adsense a lot longer than Media.net. Just that fact can skew the results. To be scientific about it, the best way to test would be to use two new accounts or two accounts that had a similar history of sending traffic. Takes a while for the bots to figure a site out so that variable is not equal for the two networks in your test. An obvious reason Media.net suggested a longer run. Then you have to ask how the volume of page views to a program effect the ad serving in general. You're giving G a larger volume of page views and my point would be that this "could" skew the results in some way. Who's to say that with more page views, Media.net might not do better (or worse). Still, I think your tests are telling and the fact that you're looking at RPM seems to make the test a good source for some general conclusions. I personally found Media.net to be a poor substitute for Adsense. I think you're experiment is backing up that conclusion. At least for me.
| 6:35 am on Feb 18, 2014 (gmt 0)|
Denisl I'm in agreement with webcentric. As an example, if the majority of your clicks come from india, but your 25% split excludes 75% india, of course you will notice poor performance from media.net. Even if Media.net had a better overall RPM, you'd never notice because your (somewhat sloppy) testing excluded india, or worse, media.net does better with XYZ demographic and you excluded that demographic altogether. It's entirely possible that 10% of your users may respond far better to media.net and as result you receive MUCH higher revenue than the other 90% of (adsense) users.
That being said, media.net rejected me, told me to f*** off, and not to reapply since they will be proactively monitoring my website and will invite me to reapply (how are you guys going to do that? I get no traffic from bing or any property that microsoft owns or is partnered with)...not a fan of media.net.
| 9:29 am on Feb 22, 2014 (gmt 0)|
3 weeks in now and looking at the 3 weeks together the results are:
Site 1 - Media.net RPM is 70% that of Adsense
Site 2 - Media.net RPM is 87% that of Adsense
| 9:58 am on Feb 22, 2014 (gmt 0)|
OOPS - thought that was too good to be true - forgot Media.net figurs are in $
The correctd figures are:
Site 1 - Media.net RPM is 49% that of Adsense
Site 2 - Media.net RPM is 64% that of Adsense
| 3:33 pm on Feb 22, 2014 (gmt 0)|
Media.net is a good advertiser to have in your Plan B (For when/if you ever get banned from Google). I keep them active on a few pages just in case I'd ever need to switch to them.
| 12:58 am on Feb 24, 2014 (gmt 0)|
|That being said, media.net ...told me to f*** off |
I doubt that.
|Media.net is a good advertiser to have in your Plan B (For when/if you ever get banned from Google). I keep them active on a few pages just in case I'd ever need to switch to them. |
| 11:17 am on Feb 24, 2014 (gmt 0)|
seems like the figures for MN improved in week three, interesting to see what happens in week 4.