Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 3.231.226.211

Forum Moderators: martinibuster

Message Too Old, No Replies

2Q 2006 earnings report and payout percentage

     
10:30 pm on Jul 20, 2006 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

joined:Oct 27, 2001
posts:10210
votes: 0


Google has announced its 2Q 2006 earnings at:

[investor.google.com...]

As in other recent quarters, the "traffic acquisition costs" payout to AdSense partner sites was just over 78-1/2 per cent (to be exact, 78.7362 percent), and it was $62 million higher than in the first quarter of 2006.

Caveat: No one is claiming that 78.7362 percent is the percentage paid to every individual publisher; your revenue share could be less (or, at least in theory, more), since Google doesn't reveal payout percentages by account.

hunderdown

4:07 pm on July 31, 2006 (gmt 0)

Inactive Member
Account Expired

 
 


danimal, even by your count, a significant number of people reported that they are doing better. Since people with problems are more likely to stand up and be counted (or do you not agree that is true, either?), it seems reasonable to conclude that recent AdSense changes have hurt some publishers, helped others, and no impact on a third group.

So far as that first group is concerned, the program is going downhill.

So far as that second group is concerned, the program is improving.

So far as the third group is concerned, the program is going along as usual.

Now, can we really draw conclusions about the relative SIZE of those groups on the basis of maybe 50 posts on WebmasterWorld? I don't think so. Maybe if all 50 had said things were worse, or if all 50 had said things were better, but that didn't happen (and even then I bet the people who know more about statistics than I do would object that's too small a sample size).

Conclusion: saying that AdSense is going downhill isn't supported by the evidence available.

4:34 pm on July 31, 2006 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

joined:Nov 29, 2003
posts:875
votes: 0


Conclusion: saying that AdSense is going downhill isn't supported by the evidence available.

One thing I've noticed about these discussions about google is that it's the same small number of people making anti-google comments, or showing a whole lot of wishful thinking because, in their views, google is "bad". It doesn't matter the topic -- whether it's adwords or search or adsense, it's the SAME people, making the same prognostications and often hijacking threads in the process.

Data, and proof and rational arguments don't really enter into it for these folks -- they don't trust google, and they probably don't trust a lot of other people either, hence it's also these people who make snide remarks about people that disagree.

It doesn't surprise me that, when google does something to clean up the serps, or adsense or adwords, these are the first to complain, the first to be hit, and the first to HOPE that google will fail.

It's unfortunate, because all this crystal ball gazing without real data really degrades the quality of the discussion and their usefulness.

NO amount of evidence or data, or logic can convince these rather bitter folks of anything. They "know" better.

5:10 pm on Aug 1, 2006 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

joined:May 5, 2005
posts:735
votes: 0


hd, i can see where you are coming from, but in light of that pesky content/search split issue, there is indeed a lot of evidence to the contrary.

speaking of posting "Data, and proof and rational arguments", rbacal, i had to school you that there is no site-targeting on the search network... and efv still believes that TAC is publisher payout :-) that's just the tip of the iceberg.

bottom line, you can't ignore the consequences of the content/search split, and the legions of forum posters who refuse to advertise on our publisher network.

5:35 pm on Aug 1, 2006 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

joined:Nov 29, 2003
posts:875
votes: 0


speaking of posting "Data, and proof and rational arguments", rbacal, i had to school you that there is no site-targeting on the search network... and efv still believes that TAC is publisher payout :-) that's just the tip of the iceberg.

And you apparently still believe that the search network includes google pages, which it doesn't

And I don't suppose you realize that site targeting means NON-CONTEXTUAL advertising.

Why would ANYONE want to "site target" search engine results pages, which is the equiv. of a run of network ad. In case you STILL don't get it, if you are advertising for widgets, if you "site target" google, your ad would display on every search page since site targeting is non-contextual. You want your ads for widgets to display when someone searches for ignoraramus?

So site-targeted ads (the way they work for the content net) for google don't make sense, and google doesn't want them since they are context irrelevant.

And I reiterate. When you advertise in adwords, and you choose your ads to appear on google search results, that IS choosing where your ads are to appear. You've targeted you ads to run on google WHEN context dictates.

Jesus wept, man. This is so basic, it's unreal that anyone could have it so wrong. Have you even SEEN the adwords system?

4:19 pm on Aug 2, 2006 (gmt 0)

Administrator

WebmasterWorld Administrator jatar_k is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member

joined:July 24, 2001
posts:15756
votes: 0


The following 28 messages were cut out to new thread by jatar_k.
9:18 am on Aug. 2, 2006
This 95 message thread spans 4 pages: 95