I gave it an A/B test run for 3 weeks against Adsense, and had an average RPM of $0.06... roughly 3% of what I was getting from Adsense on the same page.
I know it can take time to build up, etc, but I couldn't afford to continue losing money for the test.
justpassing
7:42 am on Oct 9, 2018 (gmt 0)
Thank you for sharing your experience.
Did you try to contact them? I always heard they can tweak things if you "complain" things are not good :)
By curiosity, what kind of ads were you seeing? Only list of links? or display ads too?
Did the ads look good? and well targeted to the content of your pages?
csdude55
6:20 pm on Oct 9, 2018 (gmt 0)
I had tried them a few years ago with similar results. I'd tried talking to them, and their only advice was to give it more time. So I didn't try saying anything this time; I figured that any tweak might increase it a little, but there's no way they could tweak something to make it increase it by 3,000% to be even comparable to Adsense.
All that I ever saw was a list of text ads. It's possible that they showed image ads to others, but the text ads were all that I saw. They definitely weren't based on the content of the page, but they might have been targeted more to my browser history or something... but I honestly don't remember being entranced by any of them.
I specifically tried a 300x250 and a 728x90. The leaderboard had a slightly better RPM... $0.07 as compared to $0.04.
CommandDork
12:35 am on Oct 10, 2018 (gmt 0)
I've only ever seen link ad-type ads come from them after 2+ years using them. Didn't think they ran anything but that style really. And yes, results have been meager when compared to Adsense.
freitasm
5:03 am on Oct 16, 2018 (gmt 0)
Did you folks noticed it taking time to report any revenue? I have now media.net ads on about 10% of traffic on my site... Seeing some impressions (mid-five digits) but $0 revenue. Is this because it takes time to "learn" about the site or just really a bad alternative in this case?
keyplyr
5:29 am on Oct 16, 2018 (gmt 0)
If you use the Site Search, most every tale of media.net, even as an alternate, is negative.
justpassing
8:19 am on Oct 16, 2018 (gmt 0)
Is this because it takes time to "learn" about the site
Since media.net is not personalizing ads, you can see by yourself if ads showing are relevant or not to the content of your site. That's a good starting point. If the ads are off topic, contact media.net, they'll certainly check on this. If the ads look fine, click on one of them (media.net is double click network, so this is risk free to click your own ad links, as long as you not clicking on the ads showing on the next page). And see if the advertisers showing are appealing or not.
freitasm
10:28 pm on Oct 28, 2018 (gmt 0)
Two weeks running Media.net ads... Gave them 150,000 impressions and got paid $0.49 for that.
Nope...
justpassing
10:37 pm on Oct 28, 2018 (gmt 0)
media.net seems a mystery to me. It seems to be a powerful platform, bought for $900 millions, or something like that, claim to be the largest inventory, etc. etc... but performances seems more than terrible. So I am puzzled. Or may be, being an Indian / Chinese company, they perform much better on these markets ?
ember
5:04 am on Oct 30, 2018 (gmt 0)
They did fairly well for me until they were bought by the Chinese company a few years ago. Things slowly went downhill after that, and I removed all their ads about a year ago.
