Forum Moderators: martinibuster
Traffic Acquisition Costs, the portion of revenues shared with Google's partners, increased to $976 million in the fourth quarter of 2006. This compares to TAC of $825 million in the third quarter.
There are many ways to interpret that. They could've increased partnership by 600%, leaving less money for the partners, though the budget increased.
There's no need to speculate. Distribution partners got $60 million, and AdSense partners got $916 million. The numbers are in the press release:
[investor.google.com...]
Caveat: The numbers don't reveal what percentage is paid to any individual AdSense publisher. The specifics of who gets what are privileged information that Google isn't likely to share with the public (including its competitors).
What will it take for the AdSense whiners at webmasterworld to quit complaining about how Google is screwing them?
Somehow I feel the statement above is very funny...
Please, no offense to certain people.
What will it take for the AdSense whiners at webmasterworld to quit complaining about how Google is screwing them?
Well, probably a 100% revenue share. Of course, then in six months we'd hear complaints about Google discontinuing it's unprofitable AdSense program.
More money is placed into Internet Marketing every quarter (and for adwords).
So there's more money around, but also more adsense publishers trying to get that money.
And somehow I feel that the number of adsense publishers is growing faster than amount of money placed into Internet Marketing (relatively speaking).
The majority of that number is payments Google makes to AOL, Ask.com and now MySpace (News Corp)
[edited by: jatar_k at 6:50 pm (utc) on Feb. 1, 2007]
2) I don't think anyone here has ever suggested that all publishers get the same percentage of the gross. Indeed, some of us have repeatedly suggested the opposite, if only because Google would be stupid to let cherry-picking competitors replicate or improve on the AdSense compensation formula.
3) If you assume that your decline in earnings is the result of Google taking a larger share (as some WW members have alleged), then your own logic would suggest that Google is taking a smaller share from publishers who are seeing anincrease in earnings. And if that's the case, maybe you should be asking yourself why Google thinks you're less valuable to the network than those other publishers are.
maybe you should be asking yourself why Google thinks you're less valuable to the network than those other publishers are.
Where is it written that if Google pays less they think you're less valuable?
Wouldn't it make good bottom-line sense to pay less to the ones who are least likely to leave/have lowest ability to monetise elsewhere?
Wouldn't it make good bottom-line sense to pay less to the ones who are least likely to leave/have lowest ability to monetise elsewhere?
Maybe, but wouldn't that be a lot harder to quantify?
Google can look at the sites that give them a good ROI pretty easily. They also know which giant sites they have special deals with, and which make them the most total income. That stuff is all easy.
Trying to "calculate" who is most likely to leave or which fields are easy to monetize elsewhere takes a bit more work. Some fields might be easier than others, but in all it would be difficult to calculate across the board.
Trying to "calculate" who is most likely to leave or which fields are easy to monetize elsewhere takes a bit more work
Where is it written that if Google pays less they think you're less valuable?
Well, that certainly would make more sense than paying a higher publisher to publishers who deliver the least value to Google and its advertisers.
Mind you, I'm not one of the forum members who keeps stating (against all evidence) that Google has slashed its payout percentage across the board. I am saying that, when publishers think they've been singled out for a pay cut of 50% or whatever the imaginary figure du jour may be, they might want to ask themselves "Why me?"
when a bunch of forum members with yearly records of consistent earnings say that their epc has been slashed, it certainly is evidence that google is doing something.
it's arrogant to claim that their sites are "less valuable" to google... you don't know enough about their sites, or about google, to determine why their earnings got slashed.
for all you know, efv, google could have suddenly started doing it to random publishers on a cyclical basis, simply to pad the profit margin.
when a bunch of forum members with yearly records of consistent earnings say that their epc has been slashed, it certainly is evidence that google is doing something.
You've forgotten that other publishers have reported the opposite experience. So, if the victims think "Google is doing something" to them, they should be asking themselves "Why me?" instead of wasting their time on conspiracy theories.
it's arrogant to claim that their sites are "less valuable" to google... you don't know enough about their sites, or about google, to determine why their earnings got slashed.
I didn't claim that, but the fact is that their traffic has become less valuable to Google in terms of EPC, eCPM, or whatever figure is being discussed. ("Value" in this context obviously refers to dollars and cents.)
for all you know, efv, google could have suddenly started doing it to random publishers on a cyclical basis, simply to pad the profit margin.
Sure, or the Devil could be telling them to do it. Or God. Take your pick: One conspiracy scenario is as good as the next.
I didn't claim that, but the fact is that their traffic has become less valuable to Google in terms of EPC, eCPM, or whatever figure is being discussed.
they might want to ask themselves "Why me?"
I do not say I have proof that Google is intentionally screwing small publishers in a cynical and planned way... but they have the ability and they have the motive... to argue otherwise does come across as sycophantic.
efv, you have posted the fluctuating epc history of your own site on this forum, on several different occasions.
so tell us... when the epc was down for you, exactly why was your traffic "less valuable" to google?
when a bunch of forum members say _________, it certainly is evidence that _________
I can't think of anything to put in those blanks that would ever make that a true statement. ;)
when a bunch of forum members say _________, it certainly is evidence that _________I can't think of anything to put in those blanks that would ever make that a true statement. ;)
"they are idiots"
:)
[edited by: LifeinAsia at 9:18 pm (utc) on Feb. 1, 2007]
so tell us... when the epc was down for you, exactly why was your traffic "less valuable" to google?
Of course, because Google gets a percentage of the take, and when the ratio of supply to demand changes, there's less or more money for the publisher--and for Google. That's how an auction-based system works.
At the risk of bringing this thread back on topic, let's acknowledge what we've learned from Google's conference call and press release of January 31:
- Google paid $916 million to its AdSense partners in the fourth quarter of 2006. (That isn't counting the $60 million paid to "distribution partners.")
- "Google's partner sites generated revenues, through AdSense programs, of $1.20 billion" in the same quarter.
- Divide $916 million by $1.20 billion, and you get 76.3333%.
That's what we know. Everything else is idle speculation or venting.
The pie is spread more thinly than it used to be, therefore despite the apparent increase in spend, many will be worse off. Some will be better off by the same token based on loads of factors none of us have any control over. The best we can all do is look to our sites and do whatever we can to make them work better for advertisers, and Google, and don't forget to zap those MFA's!
Did I miss anything out?
lol! you guys...
>>>when the ratio of supply to demand changes<<<
per your own posts, efv, your low epc lasted for most of this entire last quarter, literally months on end... during which time both google and a lot of the internet ad industry had record gross income and/or record profits.
there is no "supply to demand" issue there, but it is very similar to how, once again, record profits were just posted by big oil this last quarter.
Now let's get back to the topic at hand: According to its own published figures, Google paid 76.3333% of AdSense revenues to AdSense partners last quarter. Like it or not, that's the bottom line.
in the face of record profits by google, i think that they should be a bit more forthcoming with the reasons why they cut publisher earnings... if there aren't enough ads, say so... if the traffic we send isn't good enough, tell us where it's weak.
in the face of record profits by google, i think that they should be a bit more forthcoming with the reasons why they cut publisher earnings...
Their payments to AdSense partners increased by $136 million in 4Q 2006. That hardly qualifies as a cut in publisher earnings.
Some publishers saw reduced earnings last quarter, just as some publishers saw increased earnings. But total payments to AdSense partners showed a "substantial increase from the previous quarter"--and no, those aren't my words; they're borrowed from the subtitle of this thread. :-)
but the number of adsense publishers doubled, which is why most publishers earned less.
and you can't prove any different.
