Re: slightly OT: advertising schemes
This WebDNA talk-list message is from 2004
It keeps the original formatting.
numero = 56677
interpreted = N
texte = Replies to loads of post in a single message - sorry about that. Terry Wilson wrote: .... > At least this confirmed what I already suspected; that > these style ads are the least intrusive, and still effective. Non-intrusive ads are always *more* effective than those loud graphics too many companies still use. The reason is that most websurfers have a well-developed "banner blindness" by now. Terry Wilson also wrote: > Oh geez! I just realized that for my local site, I can use AdSense to > fill in the unclaimed spots on the pages. This is going to be great. Yes you can. You're also lucky enough to have what is probably the perfect tool for on-site ads management. Just think of what WebDNA can do in that field! Alex McCombie wrote: > > Ok, some research shows that it is damn near impossible to get comparative % > or payouts from fellow developers for fear that it is against adsense rules. It *is* against AdSense rules. That is clearly stated in their publisher agreement. > > Any of you long timers want to even put me in the ballpark for expectations? You can certainly expect to make enough for it to be worth the effort. You can probably expect to make enough for your wallet/bank account to actually notice the difference (depending on how full they already are of course ;-) You can not expect to make enough to quit your regular job and live off that site alone. Beyond that it's impossible to tell, partly because Google doesn't allow exchanging AdSense stats, but mostly because there are so many factors that differ from site to site. Like, how popular are the relevant keywords among advertisers? How are you going to display the ads? How "click-happy" are your visitors? Could be anything from a hundred to a few thousand bucks a month really. I think it's just as important to consider how much time and effort it takes: *Signing up with AdSense 5 min. *Copying the code and upload it as - say adsense.txt 2 min. *Add [INCLUDE file=adsense.txt] to all pages 5 min. ??? *Mainteneance 0 min. Sum 12 min. Plus: *Reading AdSense stats \ *Optimising ) As much (or *Testing > little) time *Particpating in forums } as you like) *Learning Jim's site by heart / > > I would really like to have some benchmark before I decide to put outside > advertising on my sites Don't forget you can always remove the ads at any time if you change your mind ;-) But yes, you really should consider wether or not you want external ads at all on your site. But if you do, start with AdSense. devaulw@onebox.com wrote: .... > > I think the major criticisms are that there is very weak reporting from google (you can't tell what pages or even domains do well or poorly) Yes, that *is* AdSense's major disadvantage. > and they still pay by check. That said, it's certainly worth a try (there's no sign up fee, although, why would there be?) and google does pay in a fairly timely manner. Yes, very reliable. You should be aware that their slow to pay though. Payment for one month is sent at the end of the *next* month. Frank Nordberg http://www.musicaviva.com http://www.tablatvre.com http://www.mandolin-player.com http://www.blues-harmonica.com http://www.irish-banjo.com http://www.blues-banjo.com http://www.website-helper.com ------------------------------------------------------------- This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing list
. To unsubscribe, E-mail to: To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to Web Archive of this list is at: http://webdna.smithmicro.com/
Associated Messages, from the most recent to the oldest:
Replies to loads of post in a single message - sorry about that. Terry Wilson wrote: .... > At least this confirmed what I already suspected; that > these style ads are the least intrusive, and still effective. Non-intrusive ads are always *more* effective than those loud graphics too many companies still use. The reason is that most websurfers have a well-developed "banner blindness" by now. Terry Wilson also wrote: > Oh geez! I just realized that for my local site, I can use AdSense to > fill in the unclaimed spots on the pages. This is going to be great. Yes you can. You're also lucky enough to have what is probably the perfect tool for on-site ads management. Just think of what WebDNA can do in that field! Alex McCombie wrote: > > Ok, some research shows that it is damn near impossible to get comparative % > or payouts from fellow developers for fear that it is against adsense rules. It *is* against AdSense rules. That is clearly stated in their publisher agreement. > > Any of you long timers want to even put me in the ballpark for expectations? You can certainly expect to make enough for it to be worth the effort. You can probably expect to make enough for your wallet/bank account to actually notice the difference (depending on how full they already are of course ;-) You can not expect to make enough to quit your regular job and live off that site alone. Beyond that it's impossible to tell, partly because Google doesn't allow exchanging AdSense stats, but mostly because there are so many factors that differ from site to site. Like, how popular are the relevant keywords among advertisers? How are you going to display the ads? How "click-happy" are your visitors? Could be anything from a hundred to a few thousand bucks a month really. I think it's just as important to consider how much time and effort it takes: *Signing up with AdSense 5 min. *Copying the code and upload it as - say adsense.txt 2 min. *Add [INCLUDE file=adsense.txt] to all pages 5 min. ??? *Mainteneance 0 min. Sum 12 min. Plus: *Reading AdSense stats \ *Optimising ) As much (or *Testing > little) time *Particpating in forums } as you like) *Learning Jim's site by heart / > > I would really like to have some benchmark before I decide to put outside > advertising on my sites Don't forget you can always remove the ads at any time if you change your mind ;-) But yes, you really should consider wether or not you want external ads at all on your site. But if you do, start with AdSense. devaulw@onebox.com wrote: .... > > I think the major criticisms are that there is very weak reporting from google (you can't tell what pages or even domains do well or poorly) Yes, that *is* AdSense's major disadvantage. > and they still pay by check. That said, it's certainly worth a try (there's no sign up fee, although, why would there be?) and google does pay in a fairly timely manner. Yes, very reliable. You should be aware that their slow to pay though. Payment for one month is sent at the end of the *next* month. Frank Nordberg http://www.musicaviva.com http://www.tablatvre.com http://www.mandolin-player.com http://www.blues-harmonica.com http://www.irish-banjo.com http://www.blues-banjo.com http://www.website-helper.com ------------------------------------------------------------- This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing list . To unsubscribe, E-mail to: To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to Web Archive of this list is at: http://webdna.smithmicro.com/
Frank Nordberg
DOWNLOAD WEBDNA NOW!
Top Articles:
Talk List
The WebDNA community talk-list is the best place to get some help: several hundred extremely proficient programmers with an excellent knowledge of WebDNA and an excellent spirit will deliver all the tips and tricks you can imagine...
Related Readings:
many-to-one problem (1998)
PGP encrypted email (1998)
Snake Bites (1997)
Re2: frames & carts (1997)
THANKS (1997)
No spaces allowed in text variable names ... ? (2002)
Progress !! WAS: Trouble with formula.db (1997)
Nested tags count question (1997)
RE: Contexts and Ampersands (1997)
MATH (1998)
Thanks and Big News!!! (1997)
For those of you not on the WebCatalog Beta... (1997)
Free Utility (2003)
Email Line Breaks (2003)
WebMerchant? (1998)
SiteGuard Use Question (1997)
db creator (2000)
Need help with emailer- 2 issues (1997)
HTTP 404 / Error Mapping (2001)
FEA REQ: One .hdr, multiple .db's (2003)