Forum Moderators: martinibuster
Smart and large publishers would always like to diversify. That's good business.
Therefore let's see these two options.
1. You give part of your site to Adsnese, another part to YPN, and the third part to MSN (not to mention any smaller players.) Thus you want to diversify your revenues which is smart. You do this because the rules are that you cant have the ads of the competitor on the same page.
2. However, imagine if you could give one ad location on a particular page to Adsense and another location on the same page to Yahoo YPN. In the different category page you could give one location to Adsense and second to MSN Adcenter. WOULD THIS BE A SITUATION THAT EVERYONE WOULD BENEFIT?
I believe so.
The second option is more interesting and give peace of action to everyone as markets become more competetive.
Should we all advocate for the possibility of running other contextual ads on the same page?
I would just like to have a fresh view on this topic because the analysis showed that all would benefit from this.
WOULD THIS BE A SITUATION THAT EVERYONE WOULD BENEFIT?
Communism looks good "on paper" too...
In today's business either all benefit or none. So if we have a situtation that all will benefit why not?
I would like to see what ASA thinks about it.
The only way I see this situation will ever change is if Google suddenly loses their dominant market share and the odds are YPN won't want to share the page at that point.
AdSonar already allows competing networks on the same page.
If YPN and MSN follor AdSonar's lead instead of Google's, then publishers might well find it more profitable to have 2xYPN, 1xMSN and 1xAdsonar on a page than to have 3xAdsense on the same page.
If that happens, AdSense may well start losing market share fast.
Of course AdSonar does it, they are DESPARATE for business and I don't see YPN, MSN or AdSense playing that game anytime soon as they all scramble to dominate the advertising market as each brand name has enough clout to require exclusivity per page.
What typically happens when an industry becomes over saturated isn't what you're suggesting that everyone lowers their gaurd, that's when the acquisitions start and all the low end players get absorbed.
After the initial gold rush we're seeing now you'll see all the low hanging fruit shaken out of the tree when the lesser players discover they can't grow their company against the giants. Assuming any of them have any worthwhile patents to sell, that's what the bigger players will be purchasing is patents in the end to arm themselves against the other big players.
This happened to both the banner ad and the affiliate industry as all the brands started buying each other up and merging just to survive, so I don't expect anything less in the cost per click industry in about 3 years.
Wouldn't that be a solution?
