Forum Moderators: martinibuster
Anyway, usual disclaimers:-
Mileage may vary, get permission from whoever pays the bill before you use the phone, mobile networks may charge differently from landlines and so on.
In a nutshell, looking at the period of this month to date, with the last 9 complete days being cpm free, impressions are up 1%, clicks up 7% ands ctr up 2% over the previous part of the month with cpm ads.
Nothing stellar there, but the other metrics are quite interesting.
EPC up 35%
eCPM up 33%
Earnings up 34%
These figures are site wide, as the removal is sitewide. I would say that the improvement in some of the smaller channels has been better than the higher traffic pages, but no real pattern to it. I've seen the usual daily ups and downs, but in general I prefer to look at longer term trends. I will keep monitoring of course.
I've known you can remove cpm ads for a while but never bothered. Reason being that the stats show miniscule numbers of them being shown. So the obvious question is what other changes have happened.
Well, I've done NO work on the site the last week or so. I wanted to make no changes whatsoever so as to rule out the effect of changes I've made. There haven't been any "Upgrades" during the period of the test, and I've not seen an improvement in ad targeting. So it's difficult to see what has caused this particular rise in fortunes. However, the fact that dumping site targeted ads coincides with an immediate eCPM rise of 33% can't be dismissed as a coincidence either.
If that's the case, it certainly changes my opinion about the referral buttons from one of Google not quite getting the graphics/text right, but they're working on them to make them better, to one of poor design on purpose so as to maximize branding with minimum payout. Somehow I find that hard to believe coming from a company like Google but at the same time, referrals have been so disappointing on my sites inspite of the tens of thousands of impressions served over many months that I do wonder why.
[edited by: Play_Bach at 1:10 am (utc) on Nov. 4, 2006]
If that's the case, it certainly changes my opinion about the referral buttons
didn't you already see it in your non-existent earnings?
Well I never considered the poor designs as possibly intentional until today, that's for sure!
- visual branding in combination with unfavorable pay per lead instead of contextual cpc
- marginal call to action value due to deliberately less useful information provided in the ad text and poor design
- always identical ad from the same advertiser without variety instead of constant rotation
in other words: from a publisher perspective, you're being fooled.
from a publisher perspective, you're being fooled.
Good choice of words. Aren’t we always. You’d think that with all that money that is being spilt on online advertising, major new record$ are being broken with every new reporting season etc., publishers will get to earn a little extra.....BUT NO, most are being taken for a ride by the big networks instead. Using lame tactics and "smart" names to milk the publishers network as much as they possibly can.
[edited by: Web_speed at 9:39 am (utc) on Nov. 4, 2006]
Of the Firefox referral options, only the four text links look like something *maybe* to click:
Firefox with Google Toolbar
Get Firefox with Google Toolbar
Get Firefox with Google Toolbar for better browsing
Browse the web faster. Get Firefox with Google Toolbar
What's interesting to me is that none of them use words like "Download" and "Free" anywhere to help encourage people to check them out. Even tacking on a "here!" would be better. For example,
Browse the web faster. Get Firefox with Google Toolbar here!
Any other ideas about how the text for these could have been rewritten to make them more attractive?
[edited by: Play_Bach at 1:00 pm (utc) on Nov. 4, 2006]
You’d think that with all that money that is being spilt on online advertising, major new record$ are being broken with every new reporting season etc., publishers will get to earn a little extra.....BUT NO, most are being taken for a ride by the big networks instead.
1) Many Webmasters have an inflated opinion of their traffic's worth. In the offline world, does a self-published e-zine attract the same CPMs as THE NEW YORKER, CONDE NAST TRAVEL, CAR AND DRIVER, or FORBES? Of course not. Why should things be any different on the Web, where--according to Netcraft--there are now more than 100 million Web sites, and we can safely assume that many of those sites are produced by amateurs and/or were designed solely to earn a quick buck from AdSense? CPM advertisers are paying for audiences, and all audiences aren't of the same quality. That's something every advertiser major learns in Advertising 101.
2) If CPM ads were more profitable than CPC ads for Google AdSense (the topic of this forum), then why wouldn't Google run more CPM ads? Wouldn't it default to CPM ads and use CPC ads for backup, rather than the other way around?
speaking in general, if your content was appealing to adsense advertisers, the contextual ads would be worth more than the cpm ads, because contextual targeting is where the advertiser conversions are at... the entire adsense network is built around that concept.I never said I average $9 for site targeted and your other "truths" seem to be gathered in similar ways. Please don't read just one or two words and then decide I said something different from what my post says. That's how all these myths get started.
for you to be averaging a $9 cpm for site-targeted ads, the advertiser is probably paying google ~$18 per thou(?), which is a rate that only the most premium cpm publishers are getting these days... so you should put a bunch of "advertise here" icons all over your site.
Contextual ads are priced based on the bidding process and not what you decide the value of the site is. Your rate of $18 is also mythical and doesn't match what we do know. If that matters ;)
This got me thinking regarding the Firefox referrals and just how poorly they seem to be clicked on. As a group, the buttons have never struck me as particularly compelling and for that matter, look like no other buttons I've ever seen nor is the text particularly interesting. Could this be intentional? Are the referral buttons deliberately more designed for branding than clicking?I was always baffled by how badly they are done and I think this particular conspiracy theory may have merit. They are huge, badly done and very identifiable. I won't go near them.
There is however one poster who used to say most of his income came from those referrals. Maybe he was a spy? ;)
1) Many Webmasters have an inflated opinion of their traffic's worth.Aint that the truth! I also find that many think each new daily peak is their new average and every downslide is a vindictive action from G.
2) If CPM ads were more profitable than CPC ads for Google AdSense (the topic of this forum), then why wouldn't Google run more CPM ads? Wouldn't it default to CPM ads and use CPC ads for backup, rather than the other way around?I guess they could, and would if they could convince the market to buy their product with the greatest margin like car makers did with SUV's. But that would open a new can o' worms. One being they might not have an army of get rich quicksters so enthusiastically selling their product. Display on forums could kill the conversion rate and make the product as worthless as valueclick...
I'm not too up on the history but wasn't CPM around for years before CPC became fashionable? Is the shift from CPM to CPC central to G's rise to greatness?
Does anyone have some bigger numbers, like 2 or 3%?
I just don't see mathematically how such a tiny sample could increase the rest of the >99% by a third. That <1% of ads would have to increase their earnings by more than 30 times (or hundreds or thousands depending on how many you get).
The other theories that G punishes or smartprices us for allowing them to rip us off by showing these ads is a bit desperate IMHO.
For the purpose of learning can us good folks offer what kind of percentage of site targeted ads we're getting? I get <1%.Does anyone have some bigger numbers, like 2 or 3%?
I just don't see mathematically how such a tiny sample could increase the rest of the >99% by a third. That <1% of ads would have to increase their earnings by more than 30 times (or hundreds or thousands depending on how many you get).
The other theories that G punishes or smartprices us for allowing them to rip us off by showing these ads is a bit desperate IMHO.
I currently get about 10% of my impressions as site targetted. A few weeks ago it was more like 30-40%. I did notice an increase in earnings when it went up and a decrease in earnings when it went down. I can't say for sure that's the reason for my earnings to change (only google knows that!) but it does seem pretty likely.
Most days the eCPM for site targetted is a bit lower than contextual with the odd day where it's higher. In general though, the more site targetted ads I get, the higher the eCPM as a whole.
I guess it's different for everyone? I personally wouldn't drop site targetted ads for my account.
i stated "if you are seeing 'em in any significant quantity", and you immediately replied "So a $9 eCPM isn't good enough".
it really doesn't matter to me if people deliberately mis-represent what they are making, in order to start an argument... we've seen much worse behavior out here :-)
>>>Your rate of $18 is also mythical and doesn't match what we do know.<<<
don't confuse your lack of knowledge with what a google vip has publicly stated:
"As a rule, Google pays out 50 cents of every dollar to partners—and can range up to the full dollar, depending on the size of the relationship"
Marc Leibowitz, director of strategic partnerships at Google, [foliomag.com...]
since you told us that you were getting $9 cpm for site-targeted ads, and google has stated that they keep $.50 on every dollar, the advertiser was of course paying ~$18 per thou.
So a $9 eCPM isn't good enough and I should turn off AS on those pages?I don't really want to argue semantics on the net with some kid so lets just say G is out to get you, you can have your paranoia and I'll stick to math & English.
it really doesn't matter to me if people deliberately mis-represent... in order to start an argument.No kidding ;) You really need to use all the words in a sentence, they're there for a reason. If you keep just reading a few words you'll continue to have comprehension problems.
[edited by: Lagamorph at 11:18 am (utc) on Nov. 5, 2006]
I currently get about 10% of my impressions as site targetted. A few weeks ago it was more like 30-40%.Wow! I'm guessing your site isn't just another scraped together collection of previously released stuff.
Most days the eCPM for site targetted is a bit lower than contextual with the odd day where it's higher. In general though, the more site targetted ads I get, the higher the eCPM as a whole.That does suggest they pay a pretty decent rate. That's what I see too.
I guess the reason is MFAs, but how the heck can i finaly get rid of them?In a way MFA's are a way of saying you have too many ads for your content IMO. I've had some luck getting rid of them by limiting ad impressions. Everyone wants less MFA's but they also seem to think they should get high paying replacements. If we would accept no ad instead of MFA's we could end them.
And Google doesn't allow posting all those specifics and some think you can be traced back since your details are unique. You may want to erase that and just put a summary in it's place.
[edited by: Lagamorph at 11:35 am (utc) on Nov. 5, 2006]
You need a mod to do it.
I'm not too up on the history but wasn't CPM around for years before CPC became fashionable?
Yes
Is the shift from CPM to CPC central to G's rise to greatness?
To a certain degree, yes. However, many CPM ads were of the annoying popup or banner type, which turned users off. G combined CPC with text ads, which worked.
I currently get about 10% of my impressions as site targetted. A few weeks ago it was more like 30-40%.
Wow! I'm guessing your site isn't just another scraped together collection of previously released stuff.Most days the eCPM for site targetted is a bit lower than contextual with the odd day where it's higher. In general though, the more site targetted ads I get, the higher the eCPM as a whole.
That does suggest they pay a pretty decent rate. That's what I see too.
The main reason being currently one site running a targeted campaign conflicts with one of my affiliates. But that's not the only reason.
Also, targeted ads take up the whole google ad block, and even though the targeted ad shows a slightly higher CTR and eCPM it does not justify it when you crunch the numbers.
Consider this:
hypothetical numbers, but ratios are identical to what I am saying:
Thursday, November anydate, 2006 Contextual 58,500 710 1.20% $0.80 $46.50
Thursday, November anydate, 2006 Site 6600 140 2.20% $1.25 $8.20
Ok, since the "site" displayed 6600 ads, had they NOT been targeted it would have displayed about 6600 x 4 (4 ads instead of the one) = 26400 contextual ads. Since that is close to half of what the contextual ads would show, this would mean instead of earning 8.20 it would have earned in the neighborhood of 20.00
So those 6600 ads "really" would have been 26400 ads since the target would not be there to hog the whole display.
This is only hypothetical and the numbers might not *precisely* equal what I am saying on a calculator, but close.
The bottom line is what you take to the bank.
The bottom line in this case is increased by over 10.00 for the day in question. ALSO since I got rid of a direct competitor in the target ad that was competing and sucking clicks from one of my better affiliates... well you get it...
For me it's a no brainer.
Targeted ads my very well make more for some of you, if the difference in the numbers is great enough you can tell. Your mileage may vary.
I may be wrong totally on my assessment, I will post back after a month and let you know if turning it off helped.
reworded
[edited by: MThiessen at 3:08 am (utc) on Nov. 13, 2006]
Does anyone have some bigger numbers, like 2 or 3%?
Last week about 50% of my page impressions for one of my sites was site targeted.
I liked it, It was pretty much one advertiser running a one banner campaign. It was pretty much unrelated to the content on this site, but since it was pay per impression, I was still getting a decent ecpm for it.
It's not there today (I have no site targeted stats today), and kinda miss it.
How can you tell what advertisers are running site ads and which ones are not? Can you tell via the adsense preview tool?
In my case it was pretty easy... the same banner (replacing multiple ad units) on every page of my site. And the site targeting stats through the roof to confirm.
traffic up %30, impressions up 30%, clicks up 10%, page CTR down .50%, CPM almost cut in half...
It is almost like the increase popularity of my forums has crushed my earnings, or something else is at play.. any ideas?
20 days pre-dump
clicks: 3348
Average per click: $0.0625
20 days post dump
clicks: 2054
Average per click: $0.0781
That translates into a 24.98% increase in $/click, worthwhile in my book. Now, my traffic tailed off for about a week in the post-dump era (and I know why) and is recovering. Seems to have rendered a positive result, though it could have something to do with the season.
When I turned it back on it shot right back up. No more turning it off for me.
MThiessen;
Why not wait the full month to do your experiment? I thought your original 'number crunch' made sense, so I tried it out on my numbers - what a surprise. Here's our numbers for one of our sites that has a dropped eCPM this month (rough numbers, OK BigG):
Contextual:
35K impressions, CTR of 2.5%, eCPM around $5.50, average EPC around $0.26
Site Targeted:
100 impressions, CTR of 0%, eCPM around $5.25
So, if I replace targeted with contextual, (assuming these targeted ads are in my 300x250 block, not my 160x600 block) that's :
400 extra impressions x 2.5% CTR = 10 clicks x $0.26 EPC = $2.60 from 400 impressions.
Now, multiply that by 2.5 to get your 1000 impressions = $2.60 x 2.5 = $6.50 eCPM for that same adspace site targeting pays $5.25 for. Thats an increase of 23% in earnings from that same adspace.
Even if this formula is wrong, the simple eCPM from each tells the story. Contextual is higher. Period. When eCPM for site targeting can prove to exceed contextual, I'll turn it back on.
BigBrotherG can expect my email tomorrow. I'd rather let my CPA ads take up large real estate. Large site targeted text ads just look weird. Maybe that explains the low (or non-existent) CTR?
