Forum Moderators: martinibuster
Let's start with the basic formula:
EARNINGS = IMPRESSIONS * CTR * CPC
Assume the following:
CTR = 1.5%
CPC = $.20
Meaning the average is about $300 earned for every 100,000 ad impressions. If this average holds, then people with about 300,000 impressions earn roughly $900-$1000/month, 600,000 impressions $1800-$2000/month and so on.
I know some of you skew this average in different market segments, but how many out there fit this average?
Just curious.
your average of $300 for every 100000 impressions is simply put $3 CPM.
Mine is lower. MUCH lower (under $2). It WAS up near the $3-$4 range but EPC has gone down the tubes in the last 4 months.
It stands to reason there is SOME average CTR and average CPC for AdSense, but I doubt very much there are any figures that will be meaningfully accurate for anything remotely close to 80% of publishers.
The Net is just too diverse, with too many subject areas and demographics and site designs and geographic regions. There are average numbers but there is no "average" site.
[edited by: jomaxx at 5:02 am (utc) on Mar. 26, 2005]
If I had 100,000 impressions I would be in the UPS club many times per month.
extreme CPM or over the top CTR
There isn't such a thing (though I'm sure you'll be capable of proposing what is an extreme CPM or top CTR based on your personal experience).
Discussions of average CPM, average CTR are a waste of time in the Adsense context and don't serve any useful purpose. Any survey you conduct will be skewed enough to be worthless... as people with higher CPMs are highly unlikely to post. Sure, you believe $50 CPM is "over the top". I'd remove Adsense from some of my sites if CPM dropped to $50. On other sites I'd be lucky if I ever get a $1.00 CPM.
though I'm sure you'll be capable of proposing what is an extreme CPM or top CTR based on your personal experience
Not really, my site is currently skewing these numbers a bunch.
I've managed to get info from some small sites to very large sites (10x+ my traffic) and I'm just trying to figure out a median number that makes sense for most AdSense web sites.
Just for the sake of conversion, if someone came to you saying:
"I get 100,000 visitors a month, how much could I earn?"
It would be nice to statistically state:
"You SHOULD be able to earn at least $300/month, your mileage may vary"
That's all I'm looking for.
You SHOULD be able to earn at least $300/month...
Not with a $1 CPM site, he won't. The only reasonably accurate answer would be: anything from a few dollars to a few hundred thousand dollars a month.
That's a range of over 100X, with sites spread all across the spectrum. IMO the only correct answer is to suggest the webmaster sign up and do some live testing to see how AdSense performs on that site.
Just looking at my site, which has three sections that could easily be three seperate sites, the numbers mentioned above could be
high
low
very low
Motivation for building the site, type of content, content mix, page layout, ad format, other links/ads on the page, reason for a visit, and other variables just make finding a meaningful average number hard.
And let's not forget traffic volume. Low CPM with a ton of traffic can out perform a high CPM with little traffic, but not always.
Sign up and try it is probably the best way to find out if it works for you.
"You SHOULD be able to earn at least $300/month, your mileage may vary"
That's about as useful as saying "You should be able to get 25 miles a gallon, but your mileage my vary" (depending on whether you're driving a Prius or a 40-passenger bus).
I think people are being unfair to incrediBILL here.
He has qualified his statement, with disclaimers, I think a lot of people are interested in these type of figures.
If people think its wrong to publish qualified guesstimates, then maybe they may like to publish, guess or estimates, they think are more revelant.
Its easy to have a go at some that is saying something, why don't you publish your stats and we will all have have go at them?
Not really starting an arguement :)
dregs33
It only fits that sites that meet the exact criteria, which is starting to appear to to be much less than I hoped. My attempts to make an "average" formula seem to be about as useful as using Alexa to monitor your web stats.
