Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.
Google blames social media for its failures
Article Link
In another article I read that Google agreed to pay almost one billion dollars for a three year advertising deal with MySpace. Didn't Myspace sell for around $500M? I guess Google should have bought it?
I see some serious suck times ahead for Google. Not only is their growth slowing (not just social media, a lot of bloggers, who are powerful in numbers, have been dropping AdSense because of Page Rank issues and "Smart Pricing") but Google also recently announced they were not going to let domain tasters use AdSense on their sites! This is good for the Internet as a whole but bad for Google's bottom line.
If you do not know what "Smart Pricing" is it is a system where Google pays the publisher less per click if their click-through ratio is below a certain percentage (some say 1%). I don't exactly understand this. A click is a click and I always thought having a high CTR meant you were likely to be guilty of click-fraud.
By "pays less" I'm talking you get paid pennies for a click when you used to get paid fifty cents or a dollar. I have not heard if Google charges the advertiser less or not. I have heard that bad advertisers (those with low conversion or click rates) are being forced to pay more to run their ads.
“We have found that social networks are not monetising as well as we were expecting,†said George Reyes, chief financial officer, as Google reported its earnings for the final quarter of last year.So, the fact that the majority of Diggers block ads could be the reason Google "let" Microsoft "win" the digg advertising contract?
Since Google has guaranteed to make minimum payments to a number of social networks that carry its advertising, principally MySpace, the slow growth of the business had left the company out of pocket and contributed to falling profit margins in the quarter, he added.
In another article I read that Google agreed to pay almost one billion dollars for a three year advertising deal with MySpace. Didn't Myspace sell for around $500M? I guess Google should have bought it?
I see some serious suck times ahead for Google. Not only is their growth slowing (not just social media, a lot of bloggers, who are powerful in numbers, have been dropping AdSense because of Page Rank issues and "Smart Pricing") but Google also recently announced they were not going to let domain tasters use AdSense on their sites! This is good for the Internet as a whole but bad for Google's bottom line.
If you do not know what "Smart Pricing" is it is a system where Google pays the publisher less per click if their click-through ratio is below a certain percentage (some say 1%). I don't exactly understand this. A click is a click and I always thought having a high CTR meant you were likely to be guilty of click-fraud.
By "pays less" I'm talking you get paid pennies for a click when you used to get paid fifty cents or a dollar. I have not heard if Google charges the advertiser less or not. I have heard that bad advertisers (those with low conversion or click rates) are being forced to pay more to run their ads.
Comments
As it is only 10% of my traffic is search engine related. Collectively I display about 2 million AdSense units per month. If I do this on all my sites I will be displaying 90% fewer AdSense ads and making 10 times the money!