Forum Moderators: martinibuster
The second line = the AdSense Revenues (in thousands)
The third line = the costs paid to the partners (in thousands)
The fourth line = the payout percentage for each quarter.
Based on these data, the payout is estimatedly declining about 0.93% per quarter based on a linear regression for the last 9 quarters. The AdSense earnings are increasing an average rate of 37% per quarter.
Any comment?
<added: The AdSense earnings rate>
[edited by: FromRocky at 1:48 am (utc) on April 23, 2005]
Those numbers include figures other than the main AdSense program we participate in, so I don't think an analysis can produce such precise numbers anyway.
So it would stand to reason that the costs of traffic acquisition would have dropped over time as guarantees, upfront CPM deals, etc. gradually expired.
I agree. This may contribute to the drop.
You're starting from Q1 2003, which is well before AdSense even launched is it not? The biggest single drop was from Q1 to Q2 2003.
If the data for these two quarters were excluded, the decline increases from 0.93% to 0.97% per quarter. The Q3 2003 is where the main AdSense program started.
Those numbers include figures other than the main AdSense program we participate in, so I don't think an analysis can produce such precise numbers anyway.
Do we want to know "precise" or just "approximate" numbers?
At the very worst, Google is, overall, including premium partners, keeping a few more percent for themselves.
Or our own friends who just keep quiet, build more sites and get bigger cheques every month.
If the data for these two quarters were excluded, the decline increases from 0.93% to 0.97% per quarter.
Do we want to know "precise" or just "approximate" numbers?
If I'm right minimum price per click for
Adword clients still 5 cents.
I think google is taking more from me anyway. I guess that's how I should have answered...
If a single 1 cent click is not prove of a lower publishers share, what then else?If I'm right minimum price per click for
Adword clients still 5 cents.
The minimum bid is 5 cents, but that's for clicks on Google SERPs. Content clicks aren't billed at the full rate; advertisers get "smart pricing" discounts that vary according to the type of content (and possibly other factors that Google doesn't disclose).
In other words, an advertiser might be charged 5 cents for a click on a Google search-results page, but a click from the same ad on a forum or a photo gallery might go for 1 or 2 cents, depending on the "smart pricing" discount.
Let's have 65% for normal and 80% for premium partners as an assumption.
So with 100% premium partners 80%
So with 100% normal partners 65%
With 50% 50% 72.5%
No, your math is incorrect somewhere. 0.97% is for all intents and purposes 1%. That quarterly decline over 6 quarters would be about 6%. A decline of 82.25 to 79.06 is not close to 6%.
Did I state that the decline was based on the linear regression of the data range? That is where the ~ 1% is derived. I did not use the same method as yours, just using the first and the last for calculation.
I think it's simple. Premium partners could get a bigger share.
They could also get a smaller share. In fact, that strikes me as being a more likely scenario.
Consider: Some premium partners are paid on a CPM basis, presumably at CPMs that are negotiated up front. As time goes by and Google accumulates a body of data on their clickthrough and conversion rates, it's likely that the CPMs will be adjusted downward to reflect the true value of the clicks.
As I mentioned earlier, a Google financial statement once suggested that Google was Google was taking a loss on traffic from some of its partner sites. Such losses aren't sustainable indefinitely, so it's reasonable to assume that some premium partners are receiving lower EPCs or CPMs as their initial contracts expire.
