I know I’ve asked this before but internet advertising revenues

I did ask this months back and the answer I got was $5 per 000. Or even £5 per 000.

That is, how much revenue should you expect to get from a certain amount of traffic being shown ads?

The answer back was that $5 per thousand, or even £5 per thousand, was about right.

This is obviously of importance to me as Cont Tel is intended to make a contribution to living costs. And at current pageview levels it would at that sort of rate. A contribution that is, not cover them entirely.

But the rate appears to be very much lower. More like 0.50 per 000.

So, what’s wrong here?

One option is that I’ve misunderstood. That it’s not per 000 pageviews, but per 000 visitors. We do tend to get multiple pageviews per visitor.

Another is that the readership tends to be an extension of you tech savvy people and thus we’re facing a higher than average incidence of ad blockers.

A third that we’re getting the advertising wrong – not sure how, as we’re using Google’s services just like everyone else.

A fourth is that ad rates rise as volumes do. It requiring, say, 2 or 3 million pageviews a month before reaching those giddy heights of $5 per 000?

So, anyone actually know here? Any readers who work with this sort of stuff?

13 comments on “I know I’ve asked this before but internet advertising revenues

  1. Sorry, I can’t answer your question directly, Tim, but this may be an opportunity for useful feedback. When I click to expand the article in CT, I get a new tab opening which sends my lap-top security nuts! Not exactly encouraging to readers!

    And commenting seems difficult- the comments of others are often interesting, but sadly lacking compared to this site.

    All the best for the New Year to you and my fellow readers! Keep up the good work!

  2. The $5/1000 views figure assumes that n% of your readers will click through some ads. But the ads on your website seem poorly adapted for your audience, so you’re not getting those clicks.

    “19 haircuts for older women”
    “The cost of dental implants might surprise you”
    “These are the five dating websites that actually work”
    “Experts have built an app that teaches you a language in only 15 mins a day”
    “How to transform your body after 50”

    None of those is ever going to entice me to click. I’d boast that advertising doesn’t work on me, but Facebook’s tailored ads are very effective at luring me in.

    Could there be a setting to ensure your audience is served tailored ads instead of generic ones?

    A separate issue is that I mostly visit your website on my mobile phone, where I believe as rates are lower.

    You could ask your audience to contribute a few bob once a year or so via PayPal – plenty of other bloggers do.

  3. @Andrew M. Tim already asks for/gets contributions at CT. I know he gets the equivalent of a bottle of plonk a month from me.

    Regarding rates. I believe the most relevant numbers are ‘unique visitors in a 24 hour period’. Ad views are key rather than Click Through Rates (CTR) although in some cases, advertisers pay only for Click Throughs. Depends on how you are set up.

  4. Every time you post an

    – Ask Agatha
    – The Metrosexuals, or
    – This Day in History

    it wipes 50,000 off your page views. The CIA/Illuminati camera picks up the viewer’s disgust and transfers it to the ad server which adjusts accordingly.

  5. Disgust on decent folks faces is very likely a big problem for you Southerner but don’t project onto everybody else. Your salvation is likely that the party-of-slavery circles you move in have no decent people in them anyway.

  6. ContiGraph is serving the wrong ads because there’s not yet enough feedback on what sort of ads the readers are interested in. At the beginning you’ll get loads of cruff as the ad servers don’t know who the readership is until the readership have started describing themselves by clicking through ads they respond to.

    Don’t know about the pricing tho.

  7. I see ads for VPNs so there is some targeting for location.

    I noticed James Dellingpole linked to CT from his Breitbart blog the other day so hopefully that got you a few extra hits.

  8. >I noticed James Dellingpole linked to CT from his Breitbart blog the other day so hopefully that got you a few extra hits.

    That was through me. Hope it helped. But $5 per 1000 visitors sounds way too high. That’s half a cent spent by an advertiser for every person who sees the ads, and I don’t think advertisers spend anything like that. That means it would cost an advertiser half a million bucks to put an ad on a big website that gets a million views per piece. What advertiser would spend that sort of money? Doesn’t add up.

  9. Traffics OK and getting better. It’s specifically the ad rate per unit of traffic I’m talking about here.

  10. “Another is that the readership tends to be an extension of you tech savvy people and thus we’re facing a higher than average incidence of ad blockers.”

    I use Brave but I leave shields down for Conts. On the PC I get mainly sponsored content rubbish and some generic stuff on finance and retirement. On the iPad I’ve started to be targeted by military charities, the ABF being a current favourite, but still lots of generic stuff.

    I presume part of the problem is that Google et al can’t see what I’m doing in my other tabs so that makes targeting more difficult.

    This site is dreadful for just sponsored content and on the iPad I have to put shields up otherwise it almost unreadable.

    I have shields up on the phone, nothing is readable otherwise.

  11. “Another is that the readership tends to be an extension of you tech savvy people and thus we’re facing a higher than average incidence of ad blockers.”

    Adblock – yes uBlock origin
    Tracker block – yes ghostery
    Javascipt block – yes noscript

    Article links reposted – yes

  12. Tim has got in touch to point out that I got my numbers confused, I should have said 500 000 cents per million views, not dollars, That’s only $5000. That’s much more realistic.

    Scaling it down, that’s $50 dollars per 10 000 views, which would be useful if it’s coming in regularly. But if that’s cut by a tenth then it’s pretty small.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.