europeforvisitors - 4:39 pm on Mar 21, 2007 (gmt 0)

1)My content sites don't generate sales. Visitors are there for the content. They are not ready to buy, they are not even thinking of buying. There is nothing in PPA for me on those sites.

Depends on the type of content. On an information/content site where users are researching how to spend their money (a travel-planning site, for example) affiliate commissions can generate far higher earnings for publishers--and far more revenue for advertisers--than AdSense CPC ads do.

2)My affiliate sites have been nerfed by Google for years. Can they continue to sandbox aff sites when the aff networks are their direct competitors? How does Goog justify that?

I remember GoogleGuy saying a few times that it's all about the "value add." Also, do you remember when a Dutch SEO blogger leaked a Google "Spam Recognition Guide for Raters" a year or two ago? That document referred to "thin affiliate doorways" that provided "little or no value-added content or service to the user." The document went on to say that a site had the right to try to earn income, and that Google was simply trying to identify sites that did "nothing but act as commission-earning middlemen."

On the Google Search side, the message should be clear: Affiliate links are fine, but affiliate sites are regarded with skepticism.

An AdSense CPA program is likely to result in a flood of "AdSense thin affiliate sites," just as the AdSense CPC program led to a flood of worthless keyword-driven made-for-AdSense sites. This could limit the program's appeal for advertisers who aren't in the e-commerce business, since advertisers who are paying for leads (as opposed to trackable online sales) may encounter the same traffic-quality issues that they do with CPC ads.