Forum Moderators: martinibuster
Is anybody else in this situation?
As for saturation, I was watching a YouTube video the other day and AdSense showed up there. When the same ads are all over the web, the effectiveness is going to diminish. As publishers, we have to adapt. I'm looking into other options, but not ready to count out AdSense.
This may be the time for web publishers to think more about diversification.
Also, it isn't unreasonable to guess that the pool of publishers and total AdSense impressions is growing faster than the pool of available advertising clicks. If that's the case, a lot of publishers are going to see the effects of dilution and increased competition.
Best of luck.
When the same ads are all over the web, the effectiveness is going to diminish.
youtube, myspace etc. they show exactly the same ads as on my websites. i wonder how i still get epc > 5c at all under that circumstances. but man, these networks must push down the click price big time.
it is said, that adsense is essential for small publishers who couldn't earn money from their website otherwise. but look, in this times you see even the biggest players returning to nothing other than good old adsense ads. i find it hard to believe that there seems no better (=custom-made) solution for myspace and youtube. google monopoly really starts to get unpleasant..
Also, it isn't unreasonable to guess that the pool of publishers and total AdSense impressions is growing faster than the pool of available advertising clicks. If that's the case, a lot of publishers are going to see the effects of dilution and increased competition.
I also feel it's something along those lines, perhaps not as simple as what you described, but close. When you hear almost everybody reporting increases in traffic levels, you have to wonder just how much attention capital there really is to go around...
Also, I blame aggregators of every sort and stripe. All that web 2.0 crap combined with snipping, indexing, re-hashing is generating a huge portion of impressions that are rightfully ours.
I am quietly hoping for a day when the public at large finally gets sick of rehashed content, "write your own review" sites, massively scraped sites, WikiPedia clones, etc etc and we can get back to creating quality stuff, building a loyal audience and making a living at that...
Or, if its advertisers that are decreasing their exposure through Adsense, we would not see a sudden and substantial drop in earnings either.
Furthermore, Adsense reps continuously refer to the entire system as being reflective of the market. Last I checked the market doesn't fluctuate as radically as our Adsense earnings have in the last while which makes me question the validity of that explanation.
[edited by: CentennialEmpire at 5:50 am (utc) on Jan. 11, 2008]
What's happened in the last few months is far too distributed among a variety of publishers to be a coincidence (i.e. a "perfect storm").
[edited by: CentennialEmpire at 6:34 am (utc) on Jan. 11, 2008]
What's happened in the last few months is far too distributed among a variety of publishers to be a coincidence (i.e. a "perfect storm").
What's happened in the last few months is far too distributed among a variety of publishers to be a coincidence (i.e. a "perfect storm").
Oh really? What does this variety of publishers comprise of? Just how far is it distributed? Do tell? I am aching to know the details.
So, in the absence of details and hard facts, if you can't measure directly, you do the best you can, which is to measure by proxy. "Many" long-time members of this Forum get a sense of what is going on from the ebb and flow of posts, explicitly detailed or not. Relatively more Forum members sense a rising tide of complaints about recent Adsense trends that "evidently" affect relatively more publishers. Relative to what? Relative to past trends. Again, one gets a sense of things.
Is any of this provable? Where is the "evidence"? Can anyone provide hard facts? No, because that's not the way things work around here.
Not to mention that's the way Google wants it, too: secrecy, and hush hush. Talk up details and they boot you from the Adsense program. (It's in the TOS.)
Yes, losers are more likely to complain than winners (a standard disclaimer, <yawn>). Winners may even be the silent majority. But I sense that the majority, if indeed it is a majority, is a declining one.
One can't help but notice that, compared to the past, the complaints--including complaints from long-time, respected members of this Forum--began to increase around October of last year. Do I have hard facts to prove this? No, in part because of the aforementioned Forum rules, also because it is too difficult to gather the needed details (i.e., by sifting through Forum archives). And what would it prove, what would I gain from my attempts to "prove" it anyway? There will always be easy rationalizations to dismiss any "proof". There will always be the winners to knock down the losers and belittle their opinions.
Ah, yes, opinions. When my cat rolls over, I rub her tummy, and she begins to purr, in my opinion she's enjoying it. Can I prove that? No. Can I get inside her head or ask her how she feels? No. Can I even prove that animals have "feelings"? No, I can't.
Some things you can prove, other things you can't prove, but you just "know" them to be true.
If activity in this Forum is declining, maybe here's one reason why: The losers are sick and tired of being naysayed by the winners, and always in the same knee-jerk, formulaic, and dismissive ways (for example: "give me some details"). And with declining Adsense performance, with little they can do about it--Google is as inscrutable and tight-lipped as ever, and meaningful (and respectful?) discussion is next to impossible here--the losers are thinking "why bother?" and are just up and leaving.
Across all of those channels our per click has dropped 50%. Happened overnight, CTR more or less the same as ads were obvious.
Reps and Adense have so far refused to comment and ignored emails.
So in short the answer to the question is yes, but only if we can find a suitable replacement. Quigo looks promising to me but they are delaying new sites until they complete their merger with AOL or someone...but we have already instigated joining them. So I hope to try that soon.
In our case we need a text replacement as we already run graphic ads in other spots. So narrows it down, else would just switch with some CPM stuff. BUt if it goes much below eCPM $2 (used to be 4-6) for long then will just switch to something like Adbrite and sell direct. If Adsense revenue gets low enough then I will take a hit to establish another text ad source. Last week I thought well not cut nose to spite face but maybe worth a gamble for a month or two.
I should say our German language site on another Adsense account (different businesses)is steady at eCPM $4+ and has not missed a beat.
[edited by: FattyB at 1:57 pm (utc) on Jan. 11, 2008]
If activity in this Forum is declining, maybe here's one reason why: The losers are sick and tired of being naysayed by the winners
You've just proven what I've said previously: Misery loves and even demands company. If the evidence doesn't fit the hypothesis, then the "losers" (your term, not mine) don't want to hear it.
Fact is, the "October surprise" or "October glitch," if there was one, didn't affect everyone. So the usual unsupported claims that Google has "cut the payout" or made other across-the-board changes that have hurt all publishers are demonstrably false.
As for the idea that a "perfect storm" or a "trifecta" would be limited to a specific niche, no one has suggested that, and the notion doesn't make a lot of sense. It's far more likely that a combination of circumstances would affect publishers who fit certain profiles in terms of traffic, clickthrough rates, the number of ad units per page, various Google Search scoring factors, or...? We just don't know. What we do know (as always) is that the experiences of neither the losers, the winners, nor the in-betweens are universal.
Getting back to the nominal topic of this thread ("Time to leave AdSense may be approaching"), I'll simply add that it is reasonable to ditch any revenue source that isn't working for you--whether it's AdSense, a display-ad network, paid subscriptions, or the WidgetSales.com affiliate program. Still, it might not hurt to keep a limited number of AdSense ads on your site for monitoring purposes, since what's down today might go back up next week, next month, or next year.
If you're not affected, that's fine, best of luck to you and here's hoping for the future, but for those that are please do not belittle us and deny us the right to converse on why we think our particular sites have had declining revenue. Google is obviously too large an entity to chuck earnings into the trash for all publishers but it has obviously done that to some.
For what it's worth, your guess is as good as mine about Adsense so please do everyone a favour and stop taking the high road whenever an individual cites issues with their earnings. We're here to learn from from one another and not be told to sit down and shut up because we've been hit by a "perfect storm" or our "misery" loves company. That's downright insulting and if conversations in this forum are declining there's a good hint why.
God help us if most individuals in this world are now more inclined to just set aside their concerns because they believe in "perfect storms" and lack a desire to investigate the world around them. And I must say the welcome in this forum was not what I was expecting care of several individuals who believe they have the answers in a system of unknowns while denying other individuals the right to come to some sort of understanding through shared observations.
[edited by: CentennialEmpire at 5:58 pm (utc) on Jan. 11, 2008]
If you're not affected, that's fine, best of luck to you and here's hoping for the future, but for those that are please do not belittle us and deny us the right to converse on why we think our particular sites have had declining revenue.
Nobody is belittling you or denying you the right to converse on why you think your particular sites have had declining revenue. At the same time, it would be nice if those who are affected would stop demanding silence from anyone whose experience doesn't support their guesses or conspiracy theories.
Maybe some publishers (or types of publishers) are being targeted by Google. If so, why? Given the fact that most members are anonymous and have exercised their right not to include URLs in their profiles, any speculation on why some publishers have seen dramatic drops in their revenues is just guesswork.
BTW, why get angry over the notion of a "perfect storm"? That's as reasonable a guess as any, and it isn't an insult to anyone. Sometimes, #*$! just happens.
No one told you to sit down and shut up, and no one has denied that you or anyone else is having issues.
All EFV was commenting on was a *possible* problem with the hypothesis and other possible reasons. That seems like discussing the problem to me. He may have a different point of view, but that doesn't mean he should sit down and shut up either.
What he does have a problem with, and I agree with him is when people generalize their own problems to the majority of others. Several times in the past, when there have been changes in AdSense with lots of complaints on this board, someone started a survey thread to see who was not harmed and was in fact doing better. There was always a huge response from the "silent majority".
So have your discussion. Don't sit down and shut up. Let others have a different opinion, and don't tell them to sit down and shut up. Argue with their position of you want, and they will argue with your's. It's called discussion. You might actually learn something.
There's a tone, whether you realize it or not, that downplays the concerns of those experiencing problems. I welcome hearing from individuals who are not affected because I want to learn what they may be doing that I'm not! That's the entire point of this exercise, to learn where I may have gone wrong and receive feedback on what I could do to improve the situation. Instead, those who are not affected try to intervene and immediately disregard the complaints taking place by suggesting perfect storms or what have you. That leads to no solutions to those facing problems, none whatsoever, and makes the publishers experiencing declines feel like they are indeed whining or complaining because they dared to ask a question that is immediately downplayed as a plea for shared misery. The entire conversation then degrades to a high school-esque debate club meeting.
Whether or not the silent majority is experiencing continued success shouldn't be an obstacle to what I feel is worthwhile discussion behind the reasons leading to a decline in revenues for some publishers. But on this forum that's precisely what's happening and is a gauge on the level of respect and maturity practiced herein.
Teach us something and don't take on a patriarchal position of father knows best. I repeat, we're here to learn something and not get generic feedback. Google's ad reps are already well-versed in that.
[edited by: CentennialEmpire at 6:47 pm (utc) on Jan. 11, 2008]
If activity in this Forum is declining, maybe here's one reason why: The losers are sick and tired of being naysayed by the winners
You've just proven what I've said previously: Misery loves and even demands company. If the evidence doesn't fit the hypothesis, then the "losers" (your term, not mine) don't want to hear it.Fact is, the "October surprise" or "October glitch," if there was one, didn't affect everyone. So the usual unsupported claims that Google has "cut the payout" or made other across-the-board changes that have hurt all publishers are demonstrably false.
Still, you in particular are prone to set up straw men, then knock them down as you please.
Someone in effect says, "Boy, is it ever cold outside today!" And you cheerfully but reflexively reply: "Well, it's quite warm in my neck of the woods!"
Or somebody else writes, "This is the coldest winter in my living memory." And you <irony>ever so helpfully</irony> retort: "That's funny, I'm sitting here on a beach, basking in the warm sun, sipping my tequila. And, by the way, haven't you heard? Scientists have proven that Global Warming exists without a doubt."
Some in effect write that they are sick and maybe dying of cancer. And (pursuing this analogy) you in your inimitably panglossian way cite actuarial statistics about how people in general are living longer and, my, isn't modern medicine just marvelous!
Okay, enough with the analogies.
I write that there are both winners and losers. I even admit that maybe the winners are still in the majority (if possibly declining).
And you write:
Fact is, the "October surprise" or "October glitch," if there was one, didn't affect everyone [my emphasis].
I have never written things like "Google has cut the payout," and I don't subscribe to many of the conspiracy theories often floated around here.
And you write:
So the usual [my emphasis] unsupported claims that Google has "cut the payout" or made other across-the-board changes that have hurt all publishers are demonstrably false.
I write something, then, quoting me, you lump me with other people.
I am hardly the first to experience this treatment.
In fact, I think that Google really is well meaning, and truly does intend to "Do No Evil." But the love of money is the root of evil, and monopoly is one of evil's branches. (Yeah, yeah, Google is not a monopoly in the classic sense. There are alternatives. <irony>Just like Apple has no effective monopoly power at all and doesn't price gouge its customer base or treat them with arrogant high-handedness</irony>. [berto ducks for cover, because now he's ticked off the Apple fanboys, too.])
Google is tending toward the Dark Side, without their knowing it. But, hey, as a techie, I do have to admit that their technology is Way Cool. Go, Google! rah rah rah...
You write:
You've just proven what I've said previously: Misery loves and even demands company. If the evidence doesn't fit the hypothesis, then the "losers" (your term, not mine) don't want to hear it.
Fact is, if I am "demanding" anything, it is to be treated as a person, not as a stereotype. As an individual, not as a faked up straw man, to be easily knocked down with all-purpose, knee-jerk, dismissive rejoinders that border on fanboyism.
Again, EFV, I really do respect you. I'd like to share a bottle of tequila with you on that Elbonian beach of yours sometime. But despite your usual wisdom, too often you come across like that straight-A, apple polishing prig of a kid in grade school who's always boasting what a fine student he is and how irresponsible or misguided or even stupid the rest of his classmates are.
But despite your occasional insufferability, you're still generally a nice and decent fellow all the same. You at least have many redeeming qualities. When I see you do "your thing," I usually roll my eyes and think, "Oh, that EFV. There he goes again." (It's okay. I forgive you.)
It's the others around here who build up their own pet strawmen, then knock them down, even set them aflame--they are the ones who truly drive many people away.
No, misery doesn't love and even demand company. But a little more tea and sympathy and empathy every now and then wouldn't hurt.
[edited by: berto at 7:08 pm (utc) on Jan. 11, 2008]
...a sudden drop in income by (in our case) 60% to 70%? That's not competition, that's a deliberate and, what appears to be, a secretive tactical change.
Let's assume that you're right, and that some publishers are the victim of a "secretive tactical change" (or a change in smart pricing, or how ads are allocated, or something else). What do you think that change might be? And why?
Can you tell us anything about your site, without violating the Webmaster World TOS, so that we might gain understanding from your experience?
Google reps, generic contact...none reply. Happy enough to do so when all was well...fair weather friends it seems so far.
If I am doing hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of business with a company each year, no matter what little that is to them, I would expect someone to be talking to me when I ask some questions.
