Forum Moderators: martinibuster
Maybe G want lots of webmasters to boast about how much they earn with G to stop people switching to other adwords-like schemes? Am I being a bit too cynical maybe?
But for example, I have to tell the IRS how much I earn from Google. Until now, something against TOS?
Or I want a customer to persuade to buy ads on my web sites. He tells me so expensive, now I can tell him how much Google is paying me for my ad space and this makes the price.
Or I apply for a credit. The bank asks me how I want to pay back. Now I can tell the bank, that my AdSense earnings are something important to pay back the credit.
Since the first rule about AdSense has been the same as for Fight Club, I actually asked Google for permission to talk about AdSense.
The reply I got then very much reflects the new TOS rules about it. I could mention my gross earnings, but wasn't allowed to talk about CTR.
But for example, I have to tell the IRS how much I earn from Google. Until now, something against TOS?
I wonder - Google TOS vs. Inland Revenue (IRS). Who would win that argument? I don't think G would ever imply you couldn't disclose to the Revenooo. I seriously doubt if they could object to you disclosing to the bank either - after all, all they need to do is look at your payments in.
I wonder - Google TOS vs. Inland Revenue (IRS). Who would win that argument? I don't think G would ever imply you couldn't disclose to the Revenooo.
Google has no choice. They're required by law to provide that information to the IRS via the 1099's we received (in the US at least).
Maybe G want lots of webmasters to boast about how much they earn with G to stop people switching to other adwords-like schemes? Am I being a bit too cynical maybe
I think the change has more to do with expanding the publisher pool through word of mouth than with preventing defections.
When I read it I felt, poor guy, he's AdSense-banned bait for sure. But then I started thinking about it and the whole "do not disclose" thing seemed so counterproductive.
If a journalist is profiling a website and the webmaster comes back with "Well, I made $400 through affiliate programs at Commission Junction, another $200 at Amazon and an undisclosed sum through Google AdSense" the journalist would probably just snip that last part out.
I think Google will benefit from the wave of print stories showing how some folks are profiting from Google AdSense. That's why I think they went ahead and lifted that particular gag order. I don't recall ever seeing the "endorsements" section of the TOS but Google may very well be ready to market AdSense for small content publishers by profiling particular case studies, and that was more than likely to include actual sums made.
Now if only Google would put an even greater emphasis on attracting more advertisers we would ALL be happier!
If a journalist is profiling a website and the webmaster comes back with "Well, I made $400 through affiliate programs at Commission Junction, another $200 at Amazon and an undisclosed sum through Google AdSense" the journalist would probably just snip that last part out.I think Google will benefit from the wave of print stories showing how some folks are profiting from Google AdSense. That's why I think they went ahead and lifted that particular gag order. I don't recall ever seeing the "endorsements" section of the TOS but Google may very well be ready to market AdSense for small content publishers by profiling particular case studies, and that was more than likely to include actual sums made.
I agree, I think it will be a good thing that people can disclose earnings. And I'm sure that G have realised it was a counter productive condition.
Personally, it never really stopped me from giving enough information for people to work out a reasonable ball-park figure anyway. I have posted in the past in response to smaller webmasters to let them know it's worth sticking with as a long term plan, and working within the system.
