Forum Moderators: martinibuster
Some months, site 1 will account for the majority of my impressions, clicks and income because I sent out email newsletters, etc.
Some months, site 2 will be in the lead.
Etc.
Some clicks earn X. Some clicks earn 50X.
When I go back and look at completed months for my account as a whole, it's uncanny how consistent my overall/average EPC remains. It's at the point I would wager that I could predict my EPC for August, 2007 now and I could be correct +/- $0.10.
Is anyone else experiencing this consistency?
FarmBoy
But for what it's worth, for a while my total for each day (revenue from all sites combined) had been landing on the exact same dollar value, which is unusual. It's a high amount, so I'm not complaining, but I found it odd.
There are going to be many posters saying this is a conspiracy theory.. as this topic has come up before for discussion.. I have always maintained that I find G fixing the band of my earnings which is raised slowly..
When I go back and look at completed months for my account as a whole, it's uncanny how consistent my overall/average EPC remains. It's at the point I would wager that I could predict my EPC for August, 2007 now and I could be correct +/- $0.10.
And you think a variation of +/- $0.10 is "consistent"? IMHO, that's a huge range.
And you think a variation of +/- $0.10 is "consistent"? IMHO, that's a huge range.
I agree with EFV unless you mistyped what you actually meant. Anyone averagng 0.20 per click is happy when it goes to 0.30 however when it drops to 0.10 they'll be straight to this forum board.
Or do you mean 0.15~0.25 when using an average 0.20 EPC?
I never pay attention to EPC.
About time you did then since this is what you are getting paid, a higher EPC = a higher eCPM = higher overall earnings so long as clicks are consistent or increasing.
In the Netherlands +/- means approximately and not a range, so I am assuming FarmBoy meant approximately $0.10 EPC
In the U.S., it means plus or minus, but if Farmboy is from a Dutch farm, I'll acknowledge my error. :-)
FWIW, I just compared a couple of recent days and got an EPC variation of nearly 23% between the two--and that's on a site with tens of thousands of daily impressions.
There are going to be many posters saying this is a conspiracy theory.. as this topic has come up before for discussion.. I have always maintained that I find G fixing the band of my earnings which is raised slowly.
Do you think the earnings of each individual account are "managed," for lack of a better term?
On the other hand, given the wide range of EPC amounts from day to day, site to site, etc., I would expect the end-of-month average EPC would vary by a greater amount from month to month.
By the way, I'm speaking of actual amounts rather than percentages as a percentage figure is not very informative without additional information.
FarmBoy
On the other hand, given the wide range of EPC amounts from day to day, site to site, etc., I would expect the end-of-month average EPC would vary by a greater amount from month to month.
IMHO, that's just how statistical averages work. I see even more predictability in traffic on any given article for any particular Saturday, Monday, etc., and in referrals from search engines and other sites. And statistical averages aren't just predictable on the Web: They're used in pricing of airline seats, cruise fares, hotel rooms, etc. I know a guy with a small luggage shop who says he can predict any day's sales within a fairly narrow range, based on past experience.
If I get 500 clicks I make X
If I get 650 clicks I still make X (+/- )1 or 2%
If I get 750 clicks , I still make X (+/-)2%
If I get 400 Clicks , I make significantly less than X
Now don't tell me that the ad inventory and budgets run out over additional 200 clicks or so... ;-)
Now don't tell me that the ad inventory and budgets run out over additional 200 clicks or so... ;-)
No, but your allocated portion of budgeted clicks for Advertisers X, Y, and Z might run out. (I suspect that AdSense has measures in place to keep any one site from sucking up a disproportionate share of click inventory on any given day.)
In the Netherlands +/- means approximately and not a range, so I am assuming FarmBoy meant approximately $0.10 EPC
In the UK and USA the same, however:
Some clicks earn X. Some clicks earn 50X.
That is a range, an absolutely massive range! Presumably farmboy gets those same crappy 0.01 overnight clicks that I unfortunately do and cannot identify:-(
This is precisely why we should be allowed to set a minimum EPC, I don't want nor need those clicks, I would rather not have those ads.
This is precisely why we should be allowed to set a minimum EPC, I don't want nor need those clicks, I would rather not have those ads.
Trouble is, Google and its lower-paying advertisers need those clicks. Google also knows that many publishers are unrealistic in their expectations. Put those two facts together, and it looks pretty likely that Google won't be letting publishers set minimum EPCs any time soon.
First, I agree with Green_Grass and yes, indeed this has already come up as a topic. On the same subject, FarmBoy: I do feel (obviously, this is a subjective feeling) that earnings are "managed".
Second, on minimum CPM/EPC's:
EFV: It seems like nobody in this forum knows what I am talking about (and I certainly don't want to sound like I am pushing somebody's service), but there's a recently launched service called ContextWeb that promises to let you set a minimum CPM, at which they'll try to sell your ads, and the rest of your inventory can go through AdSense. Sounds great as an idea, but before trying something like that myself I'd be very interested in hearing from somebody a little more intrepid and fearless about how that's working out for them specifically in the context of integration with AdSense...
Also, ContextWeb's advertisers are described as "large brands and ad agencies," while Google AdSense advertisers are mostly direct marketers. And ContextWeb is still in beta, which means that it will be a while before its apples can be compared to Google AdSense's oranges.
I don't see any mention of whether ContextWeb will be international (it looks U.S.-centric or U.S.-only right now), but it's pretty obvious that it will have a long way to go before it can achieve Google's geographical reach and targeting, let alone Google's spectrum of advertisers.
ContextWeb may be worth considering as an alternative to Google for CPM "image ads" (just as other networks are now), but it seems to me that it's competing more with networks like Tribal Fusion than with AdSense.
Side note: I hope no member of this forum gets the mistaken idea that ContextWeb allows participating publishers to set minimum earnings per click. It doesn't, because ads are CPM ads (like Google's site-targeted CPM ads), which means advertisers are paying by the impression, not by the click.
ContextWeb has been around a long time and is aimed at larger publishers. The specific program mentioned here is called ADSDAQ (like NASDAQ, get it?) and is billed as being similar to the stock market -- prices fluctuate with demand. ContextWeb is located in downtown Manhattan near Ground Zero and is thus Wall Streetcentric.
You can indeed set a floor in ADSDAQ, but this may mean you won't get any ads. In other words, those unhappy with clicks that pay one cent should ask if they'd be happier knowing they could set their floor at five cents and, thereafter, get no ads at all.
Those who have been in and out of publishing for decades will, I'm sure, agree that no publisher is ever happy with his CPM or the percentage of his inventory that is sold in a given month. Nor is he ever happy with the rent, the payroll, the tax bill, etc. It beats washing cars, though.
I have been in the AdSense program since Day One and the click price is like Dewars -- never varies, at least not very much for very long.
I've been in the AdSense program since day one, too, and the click price has varied (and does vary) quite noticeably--which just goes to show that (as I've often said) no individual publisher's experience is universal.
