Forum Moderators: martinibuster
My CTR this week is higher than it's ever been before yet earnings (CPC/eCPM) dropped a bunch this week and the same CTR (a record for my site) last week would've been $100-$200 more than this week.
So much for the UPS club...
Not that I'm completely complaining, but it just seems very odd that nearly a thousand more clicks would make a lot less money all of a sudden.
I think I'll get the flash light, the can of crisco and sit in the corner and brace for impact.
The concept of smart pricing is to give advertisers a warm, fuzzy feeling.
You're correct...I mis-typed...
Is there any evidence to support the idea that Google is losing "many high-quality publishers" because of smart pricing?
Several that I know personally, but not a lot - yet. But the competition among the big 3 contextual ad suppliers hasn't really begun to heat up yet. If Google doesn't fix smart pricing by the time it does they'll lose out big time.
Several that I know personally, but not a lot - yet. But the competition among the big 3 contextual ad suppliers hasn't really begun to heat up yet. If Google doesn't fix smart pricing by the time it does they'll lose out big time.
So what is there to fix? I'm fairly confident that I destructed and explained the situation, but I'm so open to discussing this in a rational way.
So what is there to fix?
The flawed method of determining smart-pricing discounts. Have you read the entire thread?
the competition among the big 3 contextual ad suppliers hasn't really begun to heat up yet. If Google doesn't fix smart pricing by the time it does they'll lose out big time.
Won't Google's competitors also need to woo advertisers to their content networks with discounts that reflect the perceived value of clicks? (Advertisers won't want to pay full retail to Yahoo and MSN if they're getting discounts on AdSense ads.)
One possibility is to have separate bidding for search and content ads, but that's a poor solution because the difference in click value from one publisher to another is probably as great as the difference in value between "search clicks" and "content clicks" overall. I don't think many advertisers would want to bid a flat amount for content clicks (unless the amount were very low) when ads might appear on everything from targeted sites with desirable audiences to junk sites whose traffic isn't likely to convert.
Smart pricing may not be perfect, but to judge from Google's success with the content network, advertisers feel that it's a workable solution to a real problem.
Won't Google's competitors also need to woo advertisers to their content networks with discounts that reflect the perceived value of clicks?
IMO, no. Advertisers will quickly determine what a click is worth on their own.
my first 5,000 pageviews provided 94 clicks -
the following 5,000 have provided 10 clicks.
ASA: Please read and advise.
The flawed method of determining smart-pricing discounts. Have you read the entire thread?
A series of thoughtful and considerate replies (that happened to completely shatter your baseless theory) aren't enough to prove this?
Birdstuff, your sardonic remarks offer nothing to this discussion.
Fact: Quality publishers do and will continue to profit from Smart Pricing. Google does and will continue to profit from Smart Pricing. Advertisers do and will continue to profit from Smart Pricing. It's a program that works -- it isn't going anywhere.
fearlessrick, such statistical pseudo-anomalies are not uncommon, due to the nature of AdSense reporting. A day's statistics should only be considered on the next day.
IMO, no. Advertisers will quickly determine what a click is worth on their own.
Assuming that an advertiser is able to determine the individual value of clicks from sites A, B, and C, how is the advertiser supposed to control the price of buying clicks on each of those sites?
Besides, how many advertisers would want that level of "granularity" in their bidding? Why should an advertiser go to all that trouble when smart pricing does the drudge work?
A series of thoughtful and considerate replies (that happened to completely shatter your baseless theory) aren't enough to prove this?
I haven't seen anything in your posts to shatter any theories, mine or anyones elses. The fact is that smart pricing doesn't work - the results are seemingly random. Anyone who deals with more than a small handful of sites knows this.
You and others in this thread have explained how smart pricing works, and you all did a fine job. The only problem is that smart pricing doesn't work as it's supposed to. Why? A faulty algorithm based upon faulty assumptions using inadequate data. Your replies, while thoughtful, haven't proved or disproved a thing.
Besides, how many advertisers would want that level of "granularity" in their bidding? Why should an advertiser go to all that trouble when smart pricing does the drudge work?
Because a solution that doesn't work the way it was intended is worse than no solution at all when it drives away good publishers.
LOL, ncreegan, Jenstar must have deleted a whole bunch of your posts.
>> is worse than no solution at all when it drives away good publishers.
It's not just a matter of driving away publishers. It's about rewarding some publishers at the expense of others in an unfair manner. Some here may feel more emotional about it when they realise that under the current system it's possible that their sites could be unfairly losing out to scrapers not just in SERPs...that scrapers could be benefitting from Smartpricing while their own EPCs keep dropping.
I wonder how many publishers would support the other obvious choice, which would be to purge the network of all publishers whose clicks don't convert at search or near-search rates?
The current impression of a quality based reward system is more PR than good science.
A perect summation of this thread.
Your example:
First 1000 pageviews: 39 clicks
Next 1000 pageviews: 16 clicks
An example someone sent you:
5,000 pageviews: 94 clicks
Next 5,000: 10 clicks.
You think this is evidence of a scam. One alternative explanation occurs to me.
I've noticed that Google does not, in fact, update the stats in real time, even on days when there aren't lags. The "hourly" updates people look for don't seem to exist either. Instead, I see impressions updating several times per hour, while clicks come in batches.
I think Google deliberately introduces random lags and bunching into the click reporting to make it more difficult for anyone to figure out click values.
So I think that breaking down impressions by 1,000 impression blocks, or 5,000 impression blocks, is an arbitrary and potentially misleading exercise. After all, if you had chosen to look at 2,000 impressions, you would have had 55 clicks, and a different EPC. What would your correspondent have gotten if they had broken down their stats into 2,000 impression blocks? Or looked only at 10,000 impression blocks (which would have totalled 104 clicks for the example you gave).
Sure, there could be a scam, but the data you posted isn't evidence of it. It could easily be a product of the way Google posts the stats and the way you sliced and diced them....
The current impression of a quality based reward system is more PR than good science.
Smart pricing isn't a reward system, it's a pricing system, and it's obviously working to the satisfaction of Google and advertisers. According to Google's 2Q 2005 earnings report, revenues from AdSense were $630 million, or 46% of total revenues, which represented an 82% increase over the same quarter of last year.
As for the suggestion that smart pricing is driving away "good publishers," that doesn't appear to be borne out by Google's AdSense revenue figures.
>>it's obviously working to the satisfaction of Google and advertisers
Speculation
>> revenues from AdSense were $630 million, or 46% of total revenues, which represented an 82% increase over the same quarter
Statistics
With apologies to lies and damned lies :)
As for the suggestion that smart pricing is driving away "good publishers," that doesn't appear to be borne out by Google's AdSense revenue figures.
This statement is a bit of a stretch. There are new publishers signing up for AdSense all the time so Google's AdSense revenue is likely to be increasing due to them. A leaking bucket will continue to overflow as long as more new water comes in than pours out through the leaks. But make the hole bigger (ie. impending real competition for publishers from Yahoo and MSN) and the water level will start to fall. Smart pricing is going to cause a massive hole in Google's bucket in the future if things stay the way they are now.
Smart pricing is going to cause a massive hole in Google's bucket in the future if things stay the way they are now.
If that happens, you can be sure that Google will be aware of it long before we are. (So far, they don't seem to be reaching for the caulk or patching kit.)
The following quote is probally the best reason for the fall in some peoples earnings.
the change in adwords bidding at the end of last month
Before the change their was a 4c/4p min bid now the min bid is 1c/1p.
I update all my bids daily to lowest possible. I am paying a lot less for more clicks.
dregs33
I know I've been seeing far too many people leaving my site for < .03 - once it falls below .05 I no longer consider it worth losing a visitor over; and .05 is stretching it.
It seems like AdWords has optimized itself to better aid scrapers in their persuit of high ctr/low cpc keywords. Something's gotta give. I have halved my AdSense inventory as of today, and will be vigerously trying to replace the rest of it with direct advertisers. It's not as hard as I thought it would be, and I am happy that I tried it because one day of offering direct advertising on my site has already netted me a couple monthly subscribers.
I may consider getting back into AdSense more in the future - but for now I'm just going to focus on improving my site for when something better comes along; Something I should have started to do months ago when I first noticed that my EPC was going to crap.
Thank you to those of you who have provided information to help me make the most of AdSense while it was a good choice for me - I appreciate it immensely as it has opened my eyes to the greater world outside of AS.
Ann
Before the change their was a 4c/4p min bid now the min bid is 1c/1p.
A minimum bid is just that: a minimum. Lower minimums don't negate the law of supply and demand (as many publishers here can attest).
A few months back we removed ads on pages where the CPC was very low and replaced them with links to higher paying pages. But when we did the stats to compare, it showed our overall earnings dropped as a result (and by some way). When we reintroduced the low-paying ads, we saw our earnings increase (when assessing the impact over a 3 week period).
There may be other factors affecting this, but I wonder if high ctr/low cpc clicks encourage the cpc of other low ctr ads upwards. From a 'systems' perspective (ie looking at the overall site as a whole) low cpc ads may have a value worth much more than the click itself
