50% Clickthrough Rate on Adsense?

I would like to have your opinions on this statement that Jon just made on his blog.

Quote:

---

Just a simple example of some sites and how they compare with the 1.0 to 2.0 tactics.. The lazy ones with the portals on their pages, and no real content would get 1000 uniques, and maybe get about 50 clicks on their ads, whereas a 2.0 would get that same 1000 uniques, but generate a sweet 400-600 clicks. I promise if you try it out and position your ads from more of an out of the box approach you will see what I’m talking about.

---

Is that really realistic? alot of you guys use adsense and know a ****load about optimization. My sites average about 2% or less

http://www.aojon.com/the-next-big-thing-in-web-20/

I read that thing too, and I don't really think contextual ad optimization is Web 2.0.

In anycase, assuming you're running a content site and not just an ad/scraper site then I would agree, 50% CTR is unrealistic. If you filled your site with nothing but ads disguised to look like content you could get that high, but you'd also be violating the networks TOS and will eventually be shut down.

Additionally PPC Arbitrage is actually I think passed it's prime. Google's new quality score for landing pages is just one effort made at combating it. Sure, search engines like Searchfeed aren't as likely as Google to do something so complex, but then again the available traffic from Searchfeed isn't nearly as much as from Google or the other big networks. The prime time to do it would have been before it was so well known, which would be 6+ months ago.

As far as CTRs go. With good placement, using the maximum number of units per page, without breaking any rules, I've gotten a little over 10%, but that is the upper limit. This is with a fairly decent sample size of course, I have at times woken up and seen a specific channel performing at as high as 100%, but it levels out throughout the day.

Ok I read the post;

From what I make out Jon is sugesting disguising the ads via web 2.0 technoplogy, against adsense TOS, but likely to result in higher click throughs, particularly as/if people get more and more used to phasng out adsense text ads

I don't know enough about web 2.0 - is it possible to take google code and re-write it so that the ads by google etc dissapear, and so google wont detect it?

I just wanted to be sure I was not doing something terribly wrong since my click through rate on my content site is nowhere near 50%.

Web 2.0 is BS marketing hype, that's all. People are trying to repackage the old stuff under a new banner to sound cool, that's it. Its a term that needs to die a painful death.

Now in regards to re-writing/disguising AdSense code, this is so against the AdSense TOS that it would get a site banned on the spot. As far as Google not detecting it goes, don't worry, your competitors are more than happy to snitch if they think they can eliminate a little competition. Screwing around with AdSense ads is foolhearty and a great way to kill the "golden goose" so to speak.

yeah no worries i dont try and conceal my adsense at all. KLB you wouldnt by chance be willing to give me some feedback on my adsense usaeg on one of my sites? I would be interested in seeing how you would do it differently.

Jon is not saying changing the ad code, just blending it in to the content better -- something Google actively endorses in its case studies. I've talked to them about this before and he has reps look over what he is doing to make sure he's not breaking the TOS.

Here is the thing about clickthrough rates. If your site is built in a way to lead visitors around your site your average pageviews per visit and overall pageviews are going to go up while your clickthrough rate will drop.

As a hypothetical example lets say you got 1,649 visitors to your site one day. Each visitor averaged around 6.9 pageviews a visit running you up to 11,378 pageviews. Your actually "Page CTR" is 6.15%.. a very far cry from 50%.

BUT, you recieved a total of 699 clicks off of 1,649 giving you an effective clickthrough rate of 42%. This is very, very achievable. You don't even need to use images near ads or any "grey" stuff to do this.

This is all about site design and how you build your site. If you have lots of outgoing links and only slapped a skyscraper on the right sidebar, your earnings are going to stink.

I am still close to publishing my adsense article.

The thing is, I can only test one thing at a time, and since earnings can fluctuate day to day and week to week because of the advertisers, not my placement, I like to get a large enough sample size (say half a million impressions or more) with each placement I test. I am on my last one though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cutter

Jon is not saying changing the ad code, just blending it in to the content better -- something Google actively endorses in its case studies. I've talked to them about this before and he has reps look over what he is doing to make sure he's not breaking the TOS.

Here is the thing about clickthrough rates. If your site is built in a way to lead visitors around your site your average pageviews per visit and overall pageviews are going to go up while your clickthrough rate will drop.

As a hypothetical example lets say you got 1,649 visitors to your site one day. Each visitor averaged around 6.9 pageviews a visit running you up to 11,378 pageviews. Your actually "Page CTR" is 6.15%.. a very far cry from 50%.

BUT, you recieved a total of 699 clicks off of 1,649 giving you an effective clickthrough rate of 42%. This is very, very achievable. You don't even need to use images near ads or any "grey" stuff to do this.

This is all about site design and how you build your site. If you have lots of outgoing links and only slapped a skyscraper on the right sidebar, your earnings are going to stink.

---

So your'e saying obfusicate your own site navigation, or leaving it entirely off your PPC arbitrage landing pages, to entice people to click on the ads (seeing as how other than browser navigation, the ads are the only way to leave the site)?

I could still see that being against Google's TOS, not for the same reason as hiding the "Ads by google" but because of their quality guidelines.

Plus, that isn't really something you'd want to do with any real content sites, a site like that isn't going to get natural repeat visitors or incoming links and so doesn't have much staying power. It'd only hurt established site you did that with. A new site though made for no other reason, that is what you'd want to use.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cutter

Jon is not saying changing the ad code, just blending it in to the content better -- something Google actively endorses in its case studies. I've talked to them about this before and he has reps look over what he is doing to make sure he's not breaking the TOS.

Here is the thing about clickthrough rates. If your site is built in a way to lead visitors around your site your average pageviews per visit and overall pageviews are going to go up while your clickthrough rate will drop.

As a hypothetical example lets say you got 1,649 visitors to your site one day. Each visitor averaged around 6.9 pageviews a visit running you up to 11,378 pageviews. Your actually "Page CTR" is 6.15%.. a very far cry from 50%.

BUT, you recieved a total of 699 clicks off of 1,649 giving you an effective clickthrough rate of 42%. This is very, very achievable. You don't even need to use images near ads or any "grey" stuff to do this.

This is all about site design and how you build your site. If you have lots of outgoing links and only slapped a skyscraper on the right sidebar, your earnings are going to stink.

---

Just so nobody reads the intent of my post the wrong way I am not trying to say Jon is breaking any TOS or anything like that.

I was just curious if 50% was something anyone here has attained since I consider the people here to be the cream of the crop in WebPub. Great post, all be it it did confuse the hell out of my simple mind :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Emancipator

yeah no worries i dont try and conceal my adsense at all. KLB you wouldnt by chance be willing to give me some feedback on my adsense usaeg on one of my sites? I would be interested in seeing how you would do it differently.

---

What URL do you want me to check out?

got msn messenger? And thanks for taking the time. real newb to webpub :)

I was wondering about this 50% clickthrough rate as well, it seems a little clearer now though. Thanks for the explanation, Andrew :)

glad im not the only one lol.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chris

So your'e saying obfusicate your own site navigation, or leaving it entirely off your PPC arbitrage landing pages, to entice people to click on the ads (seeing as how other than browser navigation, the ads are the only way to leave the site)?

I could still see that being against Google's TOS, not for the same reason as hiding the "Ads by google" but because of their quality guidelines.

Plus, that isn't really something you'd want to do with any real content sites, a site like that isn't going to get natural repeat visitors or incoming links and so doesn't have much staying power. It'd only hurt established site you did that with. A new site though made for no other reason, that is what you'd want to use.

---

You don't need to obfusicate your site navigation. In the example I gave above (which was pretty close to one of my sites) users are still averaging 6 pageviews a sessions despite the ads being blended in to the content. I wouldn't even consider placement on that site aggressive.

When placing the ads on your site the number one thing to think of is to put them where visitors will *see* them. By just giving them the oppurtunity to read the ads, your are increasing possibilities for clickthroughs. You don't have to slap little icons next to them like those photoshop tutorial sites do or other grey stuff.

There is a big problem with over placement, and I've expiremented with it myself. By over placement I mean skyscraper on the left above the actual navigation (basically pushing the navigation below the fold), vertical ad links above the logo, and 250x250 boxes below the first paragraph.. if you do this you'll have a pretty strong clickthrough. However, your risk of being hand trashed out of the listings by "quality control" goes sky high. I did this to a site a few months ago, doubled its revenue, about a month and a half later I lost much of my rankings. If you are doing PPC arbitrage this might be a good choice, if its natural traffic, I'd avoid over placement above the fold.

So.. this is a fine balance to play. The sites I build for long term users I do not over place ads. Some niches are pretty much one shot, visitors just will have no interest in coming back anyway. One example would be "air purifiers." Are people going to join a community and subscribe to a monthly newsletter when they are just looking for reviews before they head to Walmart. I doubt it. As for this site, your literature site, etc, "overplacement" may not be very beneficial.

This really boils down to your own beliefs and feelings. Corporations too must decide if they are going to focus assets on short term oppurtunities or long term ones. Typically you can't do both, and while the long term oppurtunities offer far greater rewards, changing markets mean you might have just built a something no one wants anymore.

Shoemoney said on his blog months ago that he calculates revenue per unique. Since then I try to do the same. Getting obsessed over clickthrough rates obscures the real numbers which you should be focusing on. I would suggest everyone reading this thread takes a look at their uniques/pageviews/clickthrough rates/and average revenue per click.

I'd like to share some CTR data with my site www.surviveoutdoors.com, but I just re-read Google's terms and they specifically say:

""Google Confidential Information" includes without limitation: (a) all Google software, technology, programming, specifications, materials, guidelines and documentation relating to the Program; (b) click-through rates or other statistics relating to Site performance in the Program provided to You by Google;

good post cutter and you have certainly opened my eyes on a true click through rate.

Quote:

---

You don't need to obfusicate your site navigation. In the example I gave above (which was pretty close to one of my sites) users are still averaging 6 pageviews a sessions despite the ads being blended in to the content. I wouldn't even consider placement on that site aggressive.

When placing the ads on your site the number one thing to think of is to put them where visitors will *see* them. By just giving them the oppurtunity to read the ads, your are increasing possibilities for clickthroughs. You don't have to slap little icons next to them like those photoshop tutorial sites do or other grey stuff.

---

That isn't going to get you 50% CTR though, not by the traditional definition.

I think perhaps this is a semantic issue.

You're saying 50% of total uniques will eventually click on an ad.

I'm talking CTR per page view, the normal CTR definition. The type of CTR listed in the reports of every ad network. I think if you're talking per unique you should preface it and make it UCTR or CTR/U.

does anyone actually put ctr/u in their reports? Cause your right Chris. Has anyone checked to see their ctr/u? anyone near 50%?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by icebane

I'd like to share some CTR data with my site www.surviveoutdoors.com, but I just re-read Google's terms and they specifically say:

""Google Confidential Information" includes without limitation: (a) all Google software, technology, programming, specifications, materials, guidelines and documentation relating to the Program; (b) click-through rates or other statistics relating to Site performance in the Program provided to You by Google;

---

Im not looking for exact ctr's im just curious if anyone gets over 50%. Sorry i did not intend to get anyone to violate the Google TOS.

OK, I have re read Jons post and understand his point about web 2.0.

It was just a little too subtle for me.

You can do all of this stuff that Andrew is talking about without Web 2.0. Of course you can and the poitn Jon was making is that PPC arbitrage is the second coming of the web ie web 2.0

So no indication of tinkering with the ad format.

I just had to post that to make sure I understood his point.