Forum Moderators: martinibuster
January, I moved to page #1 for the most competitive key phrase in my category. Traffic up again and eCPM fell to $x.xx the next month.
Once may be a co-incidence. Twice, I'm convinced Google has decided I am to earn $$$.xx per month for this site and nothing more.
Just my personal observation. Care to add your view to my stew?
I really respect all you guys here even if you don't subsribe to the glass ceiling theory... but to me... my glass ceiling is REAL.
It makes perfect sense that there is a glass ceiling, or earnings cap. AdWords budgets are frequently meted out over a month, or a set period, with even distribution of ads - ie, the same amount of ads are served per day, for the same amount of money. If for some reason, a site spikes in traffic, above it's average daily traffic, it wouldn't necessarily be in Google's or the advertiser's interest just to pump extra ad traffic at it, as it would mess up daily adwords budgets etc... Didn't explain that very well, but hopefully you get the idea.
If I was designing the system, I'd probably make it run off an average figure, with breakout levels based on certain number of standard deviations away from the normal traffic distribution. Bit like share trading signals... That's what it feels like anyway, so I guess the trick is to consistently raise traffic levels, and hopefully, "POP!".
It makes perfect sense that there is a glass ceiling, or earnings cap. AdWords budgets are frequently meted out over a month, or a set period, with even distribution of ads - ie, the same amount of ads are served per day, for the same amount of money. If for some reason, a site spikes in traffic, above it's average daily traffic, it wouldn't necessarily be in Google's or the advertiser's interest just to pump extra ad traffic at it, as it would mess up daily adwords budgets etc... Didn't explain that very well, but hopefully you get the idea.
Some of us have often suggested that Google may have limits on how many times a given ad can be displayed on a given site. If that's what you're talking about, we wouldn't disagree with you; it stands to reason that Google wouldn't let a site act as a black hole for the money spent on any given ad. AdSense is a network, not a rep firm, so why would Google not want to spread the wealth and--more important--protect advertisers from sudden increases in poorly converting traffic and/or fraud?
However, if such a protective measure is in place, it shouldn't be described as an "earnings cap," because it's a symptom, not the cause.
Also, even if there isn't the kind of protective measure that you and I have just discussed, the fact remains that advertisers' budgets are finite, and an increase in overall impressions is likely to change the mix of good-paying, okay-paying, and badly-paying ads. Common sense suggests that more impressions = more clicks that don't pay as well = lower overall EPC and eCPM.
For those of you that do believe in a cap, do you believe it is by site (however you define "site") or by account?
However, if such a protective measure is in place, it shouldn't be described as an "earnings cap," because it's a symptom, not the cause.
Perhaps you're right EFV... I'll be totally honest and admit that you "ol' hands" have a much better, deeper and more insightful grasp of Adsense than I do. I'm a simple guy running a home catering biz. I like things simple (like frying chicken everyday). I paste code into my webpages, people click the ads, I get money. But it seems that Adsense is a much harder chicken to deep fry...
Maybe I've been calling it an "earnings cap" because I don't know what else to call it!
BigDave:
The only way I would buy an "earnings cap" is if you are talking capacitor, and not a lid.
No not a permanent lid. If it were, I would still be making $1 a day just like when I first started. It seems like the "earnings cap" does move upward... but dependent on too many things I cannot even begin to comprehend.
Dang! I wish Adsense were as simple as fried chicken... I wonder why I'm hungry all of a sudden!
