|
it's worth noting, on this thread, that many affiliate programmes in the uk (and no doubt usa) have an average payout to their publishers of $4 to $6 per click and that the minority of websites in the uk and usa affiliate world DO in fact pay out as much as $20 per click on average - i am working with one such company right now, and it is the highest click in their field. the next one down from that is about $6.
these are my experiences. perhaps others have different experiences - but as yet it looks like google $20 clicks are not a particularly existent thing
But of course google don't even give $3 very often - whereas the ones I mention - these guys have an AVERAGE payout at that price - which means that as well as a lot of people getting less, they even have people getting more than that per click! more than $20.
it happens regularly, therefore, but not on google. that's enough google slating for one day. no wait, there's one last part:
the affil networks are much more transparent about all the figures. the only thing you miss out on is business conducted over the phone as a result of your click... which can be a big loss. but the networks make up for it with generous packages and overpay for what you do get them. repeat business, after cookies expire, is factored in to the high payments for the initial business. meanwhile google... has no longterm security - they are at the mercy of bidders - bidders, not google, set the prices, and they change all the time... affiliate networks hold prices down at a consistent rate which lasts a long time. google's prices can, without their being able to do anything about it, one day drop by even 90% and totally crash, killing them as a company.
affiliate networks vs google? google are hippies, affil networks are cruel b'stards... who do you trust to make a profit? eh?
too many big names are opposing the google dream now - the ethos of these people will just get stronger... how many people in the world actually don't respect bill gates' opinion about I.T.? He says google will be superceded by something technologically more worthwhile, and that despite the best efforts of google's management they have failed to bring it up to date with what is possible nowadays.
My personal view is that google had to choose between making google better but less profitable, or leaving it as it is and letting its profit and ad-value just rise. They chose the shallow way out, because they weren't sharks to begin with. Sharks can afford the short-term value-reduction, knowing the monopolistic supremacy, 10 years later, of an improved google.
google's failure will probably result in the next solution (that becomes the world's first port of call for info) being many times more financially powerful than google, thus creating just about the largest thing in the world
google have had a decade, and all they have done is built a dwarf that bites microsoft's *** (microsoft is still 3 times bigger, in profit per year, than goog)
i think microsoft SHOULD buy yahoo and rename it Moohoo. Maybe with a cow as the logo. A cash cow.
Last edited by witnesstheday; 08-07-2008 at 10:27 AM..
|
