Breaking Google/Yahoo advertising stranglehold!
This thread is started as a purely theoretical possibility of how domainers could break the stranglehold of the advertising market presently held by a number of companies but most prominently by Google.
The present disproportionate relationship between what advertisers pay to place an advertisement on a website and what the website owner gets paid for hosting the advert is somewhat lopsided with the middleman (Google, Yahoo, etc.) taking the lions share of any revenue. This is best illustrated by a post about the Goggle-Sedo financial relationship that was exposed sometime ago on this forum. From memory of every dollar that an advertiser paid Google the division was as follows:
Google took the first 15 cents
Then the remaining 85 cents was split between Google and Sedo at 42.5 cents each.
Sedo for its part says it pays 50% of revenue to those who park their domains with it, which would mean out of every 1 dollar an advertiser pays the domain owner gets 21.25 cents (21.25%). Of course Sedo only pays the domainer for the 'first' click on a page, any subsequent clicks the whole payment for which Sedo pockets.
Now from this it can easily be surmised that Sedo gets paid a 'premium share' of advertisers payments due to the huge number of visitors and therefore click throughs that the Sedo network provide via their members domains.
Let us ignor the 'premium share' aspect as described above and suppose that all website owners were paid at the same percentage as Sedo are as described above. This would mean that putting Google Adsense on a site would earn the website owner only 42.5 cents out of every $1 cost to the advertiser, that is 42.5%. This results in a disproportionate amount, 57.5%, of advertising revenue going to the 'advertising broker' in my opinion.
How then can website owners defeat such a system and come out on top by earning more revenue from the advertisers purse without costing the advertisers more money (of which there is plenty to go around)?
The answer is relatively simple, perhaps so simple that few website owners even consider doing it, get in contact with those advertisers you see advertising on your websites and offer them the service directly!
Let us use for an example take the imaginary site www.1rv.co.cc (not registered at time of writing post). The statistics for this imaginary website are as follows:
Number of pages..................10
Number of visitors per month...........3,000
Number of pages viewed by visitor.........3
Number of advertisment blocks/page........4
Number of different advertisers per block per month ..............10
These figures indicate that in any given month a possible 120 advertisers will appear on the site. (I have not gone for text advertising in this example, although this is the cheaper option for advertisers and can increase the number of advertisements carried by up to 5 times per advertising block).
In such an instance as given in the above example sending out 120 emails to these advertisers may well result in selling directly to 4 advertisers the banner space available, indeed if more than 4 advertisers see the economic savings achievable for them as advertisers all the website owner would have to do is make an advertising block rotational between adverts/advertisers.
Now it is highly unlikely that the whole of an advertisers advertising budget would be spent via one site normally, so I am not saying that. What I would argue is that a website owner having examined their income from their site would be able to offer terms to an advertiser that are beneficial to both parties.
It should be noted here that this model would apply no matter how much the Google/Yahoo/etc. click through payment is.
Advantages to website owner
Advantages to advertiser
Disadvantages to website owner
Disadvantages to advertisers
Now if one single website owner does this the effect on Google/Yahoo/etc. will not even be recorded, however, considering the number of websites owned by members of this forum if a substantial percentage of members 'started' to follow this practise the effect would be noticable. Although such a strategy would not result in any change how these companies treat website owners or percentages paid out it would result in members getting a far higher ROI from their websites.
This is just a few rough ideas on the subject, I would dearly love others to comment and introduce/refine points.
The floor is open.
The present disproportionate relationship between what advertisers pay to place an advertisement on a website and what the website owner gets paid for hosting the advert is somewhat lopsided with the middleman (Google, Yahoo, etc.) taking the lions share of any revenue. This is best illustrated by a post about the Goggle-Sedo financial relationship that was exposed sometime ago on this forum. From memory of every dollar that an advertiser paid Google the division was as follows:
Google took the first 15 cents
Then the remaining 85 cents was split between Google and Sedo at 42.5 cents each.
Sedo for its part says it pays 50% of revenue to those who park their domains with it, which would mean out of every 1 dollar an advertiser pays the domain owner gets 21.25 cents (21.25%). Of course Sedo only pays the domainer for the 'first' click on a page, any subsequent clicks the whole payment for which Sedo pockets.
Now from this it can easily be surmised that Sedo gets paid a 'premium share' of advertisers payments due to the huge number of visitors and therefore click throughs that the Sedo network provide via their members domains.
Let us ignor the 'premium share' aspect as described above and suppose that all website owners were paid at the same percentage as Sedo are as described above. This would mean that putting Google Adsense on a site would earn the website owner only 42.5 cents out of every $1 cost to the advertiser, that is 42.5%. This results in a disproportionate amount, 57.5%, of advertising revenue going to the 'advertising broker' in my opinion.
How then can website owners defeat such a system and come out on top by earning more revenue from the advertisers purse without costing the advertisers more money (of which there is plenty to go around)?
The answer is relatively simple, perhaps so simple that few website owners even consider doing it, get in contact with those advertisers you see advertising on your websites and offer them the service directly!
Let us use for an example take the imaginary site www.1rv.co.cc (not registered at time of writing post). The statistics for this imaginary website are as follows:
Number of pages..................10
Number of visitors per month...........3,000
Number of pages viewed by visitor.........3
Number of advertisment blocks/page........4
Number of different advertisers per block per month ..............10
These figures indicate that in any given month a possible 120 advertisers will appear on the site. (I have not gone for text advertising in this example, although this is the cheaper option for advertisers and can increase the number of advertisements carried by up to 5 times per advertising block).
In such an instance as given in the above example sending out 120 emails to these advertisers may well result in selling directly to 4 advertisers the banner space available, indeed if more than 4 advertisers see the economic savings achievable for them as advertisers all the website owner would have to do is make an advertising block rotational between adverts/advertisers.
Now it is highly unlikely that the whole of an advertisers advertising budget would be spent via one site normally, so I am not saying that. What I would argue is that a website owner having examined their income from their site would be able to offer terms to an advertiser that are beneficial to both parties.
It should be noted here that this model would apply no matter how much the Google/Yahoo/etc. click through payment is.
Advantages to website owner
- Increased earnings from site
- Predictability in earnings from site
- Payment of earnings pre- and not post- event
- Control of whom advertises
Advantages to advertiser
- Cheaper advertising
- Control of sites advertised on
- Able to negotiate with site owner on cost
- No sudden increase required to continue advertising (not being outbid)
- Greater analysis of effectiveness of adverts per given niche market exposure
- No account depleting click fraud
Disadvantages to website owner
- Increased workload finding advertisers
- Increased workload uploading adverts
- Restriction in earnings (stop dreaming of a massive click through rate)
Disadvantages to advertisers
- Restricting advertising base
- Paying up-front for advertising
Now if one single website owner does this the effect on Google/Yahoo/etc. will not even be recorded, however, considering the number of websites owned by members of this forum if a substantial percentage of members 'started' to follow this practise the effect would be noticable. Although such a strategy would not result in any change how these companies treat website owners or percentages paid out it would result in members getting a far higher ROI from their websites.
This is just a few rough ideas on the subject, I would dearly love others to comment and introduce/refine points.
The floor is open.
Blogged with the Flock Browser
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar