Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 184.108.40.206
I don't believe its right for google not to share its cut with us, I suspect that they are giving us less to compensate for their grossly overpriced acquisitions. This is not the google 'not evil' company i used to know.
My income rises and falls since 2003 adsense start (october.) It started at about 2.7k monthly, and ignoring all the minor fluctuations is now about 3.8k monthly.
Ecpm has always stayed almost the same averaged over all sites combined with a general slight rise.
EPC has risen. While click through has fallen - due I suppose to the mass of mfa, thin and dubious content and the users growing distrust of adsense ads. But nevertheless income still rises for me slightly.
What do I do differently to most people here?
1) real unique interesting and useful content that cannot be found in a book or on the net posted for fun years ago. Not everyone has the knowledge and experiences that I have to share though. Not every writer can be a best seller! Most fail. Adsense isnt a licence to print money!
2)I never buy traffic. Good content gets real links from all over the net that brings really accurately targeted interested users. So my clicks convert. No rot setting in over here!
3) Only have about 100 pages in total, old style html, with mistakes and bad layout. Its not important. Only the CONTENT matters. It brings the right sort of clickers that convert for the advertisers because they are interested people following links from big sites, forums, search engines etc. No googles serps are NOT it! Only a part.
Why have I not added "more sites" or "more pages" in the last few years to "earn more"? Simply because pages for the sake of pages have no value. I have nothing important to say. Pages that you just produce to put ads on are not the sort of thing people want. They dont get linked, they dont convert, you get paid less and less...
I would not gain anything from them. I gave all I had to give (knowledge wise) already for fun in the spirit of the internet before google existed!
Google search engine and especially adsense it seems are getting better at determining this type of quality. They reward it. They dont reward mfa style sites or pages of "me too" sites or thin pages of rubbish. You need to actually have something valuable to give that people want that cannot be found elsewhere. A site that you would build to share valuable information if adsense didnt exist.
Everything else you may do will be short lived. Of course its adsense we are talking about so I could be completely wrong.
Can it be a bigger cut of the revenue among a heck of a lot more websites.
More likely, the same share of the revenue among a heck of a lot more Web sites. Consider: Total AdSense revenues grew 9% last quarter. Does anyone here believe that the number of Web pages with AdSense ads on them didn't increase by more than 9%?
Maybe there will be a time of weeding out when people realise they can't make any money from google and move on.
And that's probably just fine with Google--especially if its least profitable publishers move to MSN or Yahoo.
Any clue why is this happening?, I thought that if a got a better CTR my income will grow not fall. Well hope you can help me with this.
Total AdSense revenues grew 9% last quarter. Does anyone here believe that the number of Web pages with AdSense ads on them didn't increase by more than 9%?
Look at the Alexa Rank for googlesyndication.com: The average daily reach went from ~1.2% to ~1.5%, an increase of adblock-delivery by about 25% (displaying one adblock results in one page impression on googlesyndication.com).
What better way for them to build loyalty than to reward
those that are toiling away in Cyberspace.
Lets face it competition can and will come some day. Whether
it be MSN + Yahoo, Wikia, Ask, or several other contenders
pounding out code right now. Google is not so great that
they cant be knocked off!
Recent history shows that the giants can come and go.
Look at IBM, Ford, GMC and many others who were one time
King of the Hill.
When your the only grocery store in town you can charge
whatever you want for your bananas.
But whenever competition comes to town you better hope you
have some loyal customers!
Lets face it competition can and will come some day. Whether it be MSN + Yahoo, Wikia, Ask, or several other contenders pounding out code right now.
People who beat the "AdSense needs more competition" drum forget that competition tends to lower, not raise, prices. And if prices drop, so do publishers' earnings.
Yes competition does normally decrease prices but improves
efficiency and drives volume. Increase volume can improve
bottom lines to publishers. It also increases innovations
that will help take market share from traditional main
stream media (TV, newspaper etc.)
As more SEs compete for publishers input, prices should stay relatively firm, that plus increase volume should be
good for all of us.That being said I guess we will have to see how it all plays out before we know for sure.
" When elephants fight, the grass gets trampled"
Let's say there are 20 advertisers in your category paying an average of $.50/click. Now let's say increased competiton increases publishers and decreases prices, so you have 40 advertisers paying $.40/click. As a publisher, you are now getting an average of $.40/click instead of $.50/click. That's bad! (On the other hand, more publishers *MAY* mean a larger variety of ads and cause users to click more ads. Which is good, if the overall increase in clicks makes up for the lower overall revenue/click.)
Increased volume (I assume you mean in ads) rests squarely on the publishers. Publishers need to bring in more traffic to have more page views. If the number of ads in the Google pool doubles, that had little affect on you if you are still showing the same number of ads.
I agree that more competition should overall be better. But it's a big question as to whether it will be a plus or minus for individual publishers.
All good points.
I am not sure I follow all your logic.
If 20 advertisers pay .50 a click you have $10.00.
If 40 advertisers pay .40 a click you have $16.00.
If the number of advertisers increase more rapidly than the
publishers (not a given) publisher share of the pie is bigger. If publishers increase more rapidly than advertisers(also not a given) the share of the pie is smaller.
My feeling is this advertising market will grow larger and
larger in the coming years.
I also believe publishers will winnowed down to the fewer
professional ones as web sites and marketing strategies
become more sophisticated and complicated. This will eliminate
a lot of marginal publishers who will give up and spend all
their time on the forums!
Competition is what drives evolution in the species. It also
applies to all the other venues of life, especially in
Of course Ive been wrong before. I think the last time was
June of 1998.
If 20 advertisers pay .50 a click you have $10.00.
If 40 advertisers pay .40 a click you have $16.00.
My feeling is this advertising market will grow larger and larger in the coming years.
The typical stats in the business news continue to indicate an upward trend in online advertising, but you can bet your bottom dollar at the same time more advertisers daily will find out how weak the Content Network is, and keep leaving. The money will go towards Search. Either it moves to Search, or they drop out altogether.
Complaints about revenue drops are probably the result of Google lowering pricing to keep people from leaving the Content Network.
Unless and until Google figures out it has to provide more guidance to publishers about how to make the ads convert properly, it's only recourse is to lower its prices. Google is totally incapable or adamantly refuses to help publishers beyond the most general and shortest advice possible. Their loss (and ours).
What was the best thing Google introduced to Publishers and how many years ago was that? All I can remember in the last year was zero advice and then automated useless advice.
So much for a $461.47/share stock company.
I also believe publishers will winnowed down to the fewer professional ones as web sites and marketing strategies become more sophisticated and complicated.
I don't know if publishers will be winnowed, but there's likely to be a bigger spread between the "haves" and the "have-nots." Already, we've seen Google introduce smart pricing and an unlimited domain filter for advertisers. Site-targeted CPM ads have been around for a while, and site-targeted contextual ads--which are coming soon--have the potential to make a big difference in how advertisers perceive and use the content network.
I am not not clear why, if you have more advertisers, you don't stand a chance of more clicks. Am I missing something here?
Keep the same numbers as before- 20 advertisers paying an average of $.50/click. Let's say you have a page that display 5 ads. From that page, you generate an average of 100 clicks/day. So you make $50/day.
Fast forward- now there are 40 advertisers paying an average of $.40/click. You still have 1 page that displays 5 ads. So chances are you are still going to generate 100 clicks/day. But now you are averaging $40/day.
Why? Because you're still showing 5 ads/page. Instead of 20 advertisers competing for those 5 ads, you have 40 advertisers competing for the same 5 ads. But still, only 5 ads are showing on that page. The number of ads doesn't change even if there are 50 advertisers, or 500, or 5,000.
As you can tell I am in affiliate advertising only
and have never done Adsense so I am not aware of all
the nuances. KF
Let's say there are 20 advertisers in your category paying an average of $.50/click. Now let's say increased competiton increases publishers and decreases prices, so you have 40 advertisers paying $.40/click
Your logic seems to be flawed, if there are more advertisers competing for the same ad space, the price should rise.
If the Advertiser numbers are stable and the publisher ranks increase, then the prices should drop.
A simple case of supply and demand:
More advertisers - Higher ad prices
More publishers - Lower ad prices
Or am I missing something here?