After reading that the SDMB is switching back to free posting, I was wondering, how do websites make so much money from those ads? Who actually clicks on the things and why? Personally, I can count the number I’ve clicked on ever on two hands and the number I’ve clicked on purpose on one.
But apparently, as we can all see though the sucess of Google, someone must be clicking them, and at only 5-20 ¢ a click, it must be a fairly large number. Have there been any real reasearch studies on the subject? Do any of you personally click on banner or text ads often?
The number of pages viewed on the internet is extremely huge. All it takes is some measly tiny fraction of a percent of all those people looking at webpages to click an ad, and you’ve still got millions of ad clicks.
It’s the same with spam. All it takes is a tenth of a percent of recipients to respond to the v1@gra email, and all those billions of spam emails were worth it.
Unfortunately I don’t have any hard numbers right now, but that is the general idea.
I’ve wondered the same thing. People say, well the ads must work, otherwise people wouldn’t buy them. But… one scheme may keep replacing failed schemes. For example, you don’t see pop-ups for those lame ass hidden cameras anymore. I mean, pyramid schemes don’t work, but new pyramid schemes keep replacing failed ones.
And I’m skeptical of the cited v1@gra e-mails as well. One tenth of one percent is 1 in 1000. I’d be surprised if it’s 1 in 100,000. After all, Viagra isn’t all that hard to get from a doctor, is it? I think 1 dipshit wakes up and decides to run a Viagra scam, fails after a couple months, and is replaced by a brand new dipshit.
Of course, I don’t understand how Pepsi ads sell more Pepsi; you either like Pepsi or you like Coke, and you probably decided by the time you were 12. The Pepsi people have probably given it more thought than the fake Viagra people.
On edit: Look at the Google ads on this page. Nobody is giving those fools any money.
I admit, I clicked on a Google ad here once. :smack: It said it was some guaranteed proof of God’s existence, so I had to see what bullshit they had come up with. Indeed, it was bullshit, and I felt pretty dumb about it afterwards, but at least they didn’t try to sell me anything.
It was pretty much the only internet ad I can ever remember clicking on, outside of a few “free digital camera”-type banner ads when I first got on the internet in the 90s. But if I clicked on a few in my life (and I hate advertising with the bitterest, deepest flame of hatred I can muster in my soul), then I figure that the lowest denominator on the internet are probably clicking them like crazy to get paid for a survey or to win free ipods, or whatever.
Anyway, it has to work, right? I mean, banner and pop-up ads have been financially supporting the internet for a decade or so, and advertisements in general have been supporting television and radio for almost a century. I don’t know why advertisements work, but apparently they do.
There are a few websites I visit that have very well targeted ads, selling things I’m very much interested in. I don’t normally buy them straight away (in fact, I have to look for a local supplier, being way out here in the antipodes). But if I do buy what they advertise, they still get the money in a roundabout way.
I’d be a lot less against ads (and spam) if:
[ul]
[li]They targeted appropriately - stuff that someone visiting that kind of site would actually like.[/li][li]They weren’t intrusive in any way by interfering with my browsing (noises, blinking and flashing, obscuring the page, pushing columns of text into tiny slivers)[/li][li]They weren’t exaggerations or outright lies.[/li][/ul]
When they fulfil those not unreasonable expectations, I will click on them to see what they have to offer.
I’m not sure if the clicking earns the money for the site, or it needs a subsequent sale that can be connected to the click/cookie, but that shouldn’t be my concern.
But it’s a long way between clicking and getting out the credit card. To further my comparison to a pyramid scheme, Google, or the spammer, or the ad placement company is at the top of the pyramid, and make money, while the guy actually selling the spy cam or the Viagra is at the bottom. They don’t nesseccarly need to make money to keep the whole machine running; they need only be replaced by greater fools.
BTW, I’m talking about silly products and scams here; there are lots of legit ads. For example, if I’m on a Corvette message board, and I see an ad for a set of Corvette headers or something, well, that’s very different than click here to win an XBOX.
Cash Gifting Scam
This is ridiculous, how can it be so easy to make so much money
Clickbank Got Me Laid
I make so much money with Clickbank that I’m forced to pay for hookers.
That second one is so funny I’m almost (but not really) tempted to see what it says.
Anyway, back to the OP. I don’t know either. Is there any hard data on how many “ad clicks” result in a dollar being spent? Is it even possible for a site to know which ad (on which other site) brought in a buyer rather than a lookie-loo?
I don’t make much money with the AdSense ads on my site. It varies from day to day, and it’s a complete mystery as to the formula they used for payout. The ads get about 15,000 unique views a day, according to Google, but revenue can range from $2 to $15, even when the number of clicks are the same. It’s odd.
I’m eventually going to move away from Adsense, and start selling ads on my own. I run a site that caters to a niche profession, where I can justify a much higher CPM (cost per thousand views) than what Google offers. It’s more work, but a LOT more reward. I have to be careful, though, that ad sales or anything related to revenue generation on my site doesn’t conflict with my regular 8:00-to-4:30 gig.
I’m in the field, and I can assure you that they* work. The beauty of the internet is that all these things are measurable. Sometimes you can just measure clicks, sometimes you can follow it all the way to the cash register. The real wonder is that these same points aren’t being leveled at “normal” mass media advertising, which is extremely expensive and next to impossible to measure.
*“They” covers a lot of ground. Integrated placements, intrusive multi-media, pop-ups, standard banner ads, etc. Some work better than others on different sites in different contexts. All are different than email spam. Email spam is essentially free, most online advertising is paid by the impression.
The advertiser bids on those ads: the higher the offering per click, the higher the placement you get. So some clicks are worth very much more than other clicks.
I just read an article in one of the business magazines that said what should be obvious. A small percentage of internet viewers account for a very high percentage of all ad clicks.
I don’t think that study included Ads by Google, just banner-style ads, and the Google placed ads may reach a more targeted and motivated audience, like the one elmwood reaches.
Banner ads are losing their effectiveness as people become savvier about the internet, but the potential for targeted ads is probably high and will remain so.
I may be off on my own tangent here, but I thought that advertisers paid websites for the privilege of simply having their ads there, assuming that even without someone clicking on the ad to find out more about the product/service, they’re getting the benefit of advertising, per se. No?
You can arrange advertisements that way. My company’s standard practice is to work on a hybrid model with unique clicks. We also demand uptime on the ads and a rotation (depending on the business unit’s particularly needs).
That’s interesting, and yeah, it seems like it would be obvious. However, I wonder what will happen when more and more people become more internet-savvy and start finding other ways to look for things they want and block the ads.
I realize this is starting to get into IMHO teritory, but do you think it’s possible that the Google “bubble” will pop?
Also, are guests not allowed to have signatures or display their locations? I can’t seem to find any way to do it.
