Forum Moderators: martinibuster
It's actually the first time in several quarters that it has hit 80%, having fluctuated from 75% to 79% recently:
[fool.com...]
Yes, AdSense is now more dependent on the MySpace and AOL deals than in small and medium fry like us. The biggies skew the numbers higher. This still should silence those "Google is taking a bigger piece" threads, since it is probably more reflective of lower bid prices than Google digging deeper.
Thoughts?
since it is probably more reflective of lower bid prices
This still should silence those "Google is taking a bigger piece" threads, since it is probably more reflective of lower bid prices than Google digging deeper.
Actually, after I read the WHOLE editorial I believe the "Bigger piece" threads have some fuel for the fire or at least continued speculation. Ultimately, the big deals may receive a bigger cut, so GG needs money from somewhere and the medium to small publishers are an obvious target. This holds if GG wants to keep their effective or net revenue the same from the same revenue source. Moreover, GG does not have an infinite number of high paying ads, so why not feed the better ads to the big boys, girls and of course themselves. The editorial goes on to say that big GG is actually keeping more money (profit) for themselves the last reported quarter, Q2 GG kept 21% and Q3 they kept 23%.
Now, I am aware that the editorial is just that an "editorial". However, I would like to point out that GG accountants are smart people. I don't believe that the whole facts are or will be revealed any time soon. There are too many columns the nickels and dimes can fall into.
All I know is that I was receiving five figures monthly ($##,###.##) now I am only a healthy four.
The money I was receiving went somewhere…
[edited by: Edge at 1:40 am (utc) on Feb. 1, 2008]
I'm not a proponent of the "google is taking a bigger share" angle, but as far as I know, Google takes a lower percentage of profit from the "biggies" than from your average small-time publisher, in order to strike a deal with them, so the profit margin change may just benefit the biggies.
Or maybe not. We just don't know.
Don't forget, too, that deals can be structured in different ways. The percentage split is just one element. For example, when Google got CPC text-ad exclusivity from About.com, part of the deal involved Google's buying Sprinks (a CPC text-ad network that About.com had operated for some time). With megapartners, deals are more likely to be "made to measure" than is the case with mom-and-pop publishers.
Moreover, GG does not have an infinite number of high paying ads, so why not feed the better ads to the big boys, girls and of course themselves.
It isn't that simple with keyword-targeted ads. For example, a mom-and-pop site may have more traffic for some keywords and keyphrases than any of the "big boys and girls" do. And if the "big boys and girls" do have traffic on some of those topics, it may be here today and gone tomorrow, because many (most?) of the "big boys and girls" are news and portal sites rather than publishers of "evergreen" content.
As for Google's keeping the best ads for itself, that just doesn't make sense, because Google doesn't run ads from the content network.
The money I was receiving went somewhere…
That money could very well have stayed in the advertisers' pockets, thanks to smart pricing or a change in supply and demand. It could also have been divvied up into smaller pieces among the ever-growing number of publishers and Web pages. Or maybe the better-paying ads have been allocated to publishers who perform better for advertisers, have a higher TrustRank in Google Search, or match some other profile. There are any number of possibilities.
As for Google's keeping the best ads for itself, that just doesn't make sense, because Google doesn't run ads from the content network.
What? Makes perfect business sense, ensures or at least optimizes credibility and profit. Unfortunately and obviously there are issues on the publisher side. Where would you show the highest paying ads if you where Google? Arbitrage site #45546, content network or a high profile partner?
Google is a complex business machine making smart decisions and the idealist doctorial recipients are no longer running the details.
That money could very well have stayed in the advertisers' pockets, thanks to smart pricing or a change in supply and demand. It could also have been divvied up into smaller pieces among the ever-growing number of publishers and Web pages. Or maybe the better-paying ads have been allocated to publishers who perform better for advertisers, have a higher TrustRank in Google Search, or match some other profile. There are any number of possibilities.
I was wondering how long before you tossed pebbles and asserted the smart pricing thing.
Also, I'm well aware that there are other possibilies and I beleive I could add a few to your short list.
BTW I sticky mailed you my URL.
As for your assertion that Google could be keeping the best ads for itself, I think advertisers might be surprised if they bid on the content network and found their ads running on Google.com instead.
