| 10:41 pm on May 18, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Associated Content claims over 600 million unique visitors per month. Most of that traffic likely arrives via Google, content syndication on other sites and deep links. Significantly, this will likely remove a large partner from Google's AdSense and DoubleClick program.
| 1:22 am on May 19, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Wired also reporting.
> remove a large partner from Google's AdSense and DoubleClick program.
Interesting. As mentioned in the reports - do Yahoo have the inventory to fill that gap?
| 8:48 am on May 19, 2010 (gmt 0)|
"600 million unique visitors per month."
20 mil a day? I doubt it
| 12:43 pm on May 19, 2010 (gmt 0)|
The press release actually states that AC receives "about 16 million unique visitors per month".
I sure hope Yahoo isn't falling for the oldest website-for-sale trick in the book and believing "hits" = visitors!
| 12:50 pm on May 19, 2010 (gmt 0)|
At a purchase price of 90 million, I would think 16 million/month is more realistic. 600 million a month would be worth quite a bit more... I think.
| 12:51 pm on May 19, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Yeah, but I'd take a hard look at "average time on page" at AC, too.
Still, this is a good idea for the web and someone needs to do it well. AC started very weak and a lot of people haven't given them another change. They have improved.
Perhaps Yahoo can take it to the next level. The idea has promise, but they've got to make it happen. I know some of the executives now at Yahoo I strongly suspect are involved in this project. (Not friends, but we've sat together at meetings and tried to do business before they moved to Yahoo. Very charming, very impressive people with good, kind hearts–they always return your phone calls and answer your emails.) They look like the right people to make this happen for Yahoo.
| 2:09 pm on May 19, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Had to share this icy post from E&P's blog. Sums it up well...
| 4:31 pm on May 19, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Is that monthly visitors (is that uniques or visits?).
$90m for 16m visitors that $5.62 per monthly visitor. Alexa says 2.4 page views per user, so that is $2.34 per page view per monthly page view.
Then you need to take into account the running costs. $1.50 per thousand views to writers, plus some up front payments, plus editorial staff salaries.
Both Alexa and Compete traffic graphs seem to show that Associated content is currently not growing.
Is it really worth this much?
I wish I could sell for $5 a visit per month....
| 7:23 pm on May 19, 2010 (gmt 0)|
it also shows google refers 44% of the traffic.
This buy knocks a revenue stream out for goog and yahoo gains traffic.
| 8:03 pm on May 19, 2010 (gmt 0)|
|This buy knocks a revenue stream out for goog and yahoo gains traffic. |
With fewer than 40m impressions a month? This is about 0.02% of the ad impressions served by Google Content Network, and Google Content Network serves far fewer ads than they serve on their own search results pages.
| 5:16 am on May 20, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Overall, combined, they will serve fewer people than they do separately, many existing users won't like the new package and will try new sources. If Yahoo can cut enough of the overhead by laying off redundant staff, parting ways with former top execs and consolidating in general it might pay off. Otherwise this will help boost any company that was competing against BOTH Yahoo and AC.
Yahoo is now a bigger competitor BUT the overall competition has decreased, other companies will benefit most.
| 6:13 am on May 20, 2010 (gmt 0)|
A little surprised by this aquisition... maybe Yahoo! has big plans that will succeed that I can't see right now. They (AC) show 80 million ad impressions/month according to their media kit (as of Dec. '09). $90 million, a high price to pay, especially if their #1 traffic source decides to cut them off one day. I haven't read a single article (maybe it's just what I search for and visit) that I've found helpful on AC. Also, AC appears to be using Quantcast measurements on their pages, and it looks like those stats are much closer(reliable?)to their media kit stats vs. Alexa or Compete stats. (On most days, I pay little attention to Alexa.)
| 8:55 am on May 20, 2010 (gmt 0)|
probably yahoo is planing on a PR increase with Yahoo links (I'm not kidding) and other synergies like advertising. $90 million to experiment isn't that much for Yahoo
| 6:44 pm on May 20, 2010 (gmt 0)|
@walkman, certainly, but they could do that with ANY content.
I suppose AC does provide cheap labour, but the quality is pretty low, so why is it a good buy.
The best take I have seen on this was a blog which described it as a threat to Google because sites like AC are stuffing the SERPS with poor quality results.
| 5:26 am on May 21, 2010 (gmt 0)|
At least it was payday for AC. All eyes on Yahoo!
| 6:10 am on May 21, 2010 (gmt 0)|
I know someone who used to work for Yahoo!, years ago and they clearly stated to me, months after having left the company, "working there taught me how not to run a company". Kudos to the AC owners, but that quote re-entered my mind right away when I read that this deal happened -- $90 million is a lot of money -- no matter what Yahoo!'s account balance says. All eyes on Yahoo!, indeed, Sgt_Kickaxe, including Google's eyes...
@walkman - "(I'm not kidding)" - Can we report Yahoo! for paid links now? ;)