Traffic Bait Doesn’t Bring Ad Clicks | Hacker News Reader

Traffic Bait Doesn’t Bring Ad Clicks

nytimes.com

24 pointsdonohoe6 comments

They don't go into much detail, but they are talking about contextual ads (google adsense), so this isn't that surprising at all: contextual ads on celeb stories pay less than contextual ads on mortgage stories.

But, for large sites that sell its own ads against its traffic for good CPM rates, then, you do make good money off page views (even the celebrity ones), and more page views over time = more income.

> more page views over time = more income

Advertisers are getting wise. If they'd see no return because their content was mostly displayed next to celebrity articles, instead of more attractive ones (let's say finance) - they'd leave, taking their money with them.

Use Googles AdWords Keyword Tool enable the estimated CPC column. Take the keyword "mortgage rates" the CPC (Cost Per Click) on similar searches is around $30. Which most search terms are around $1,2,or 3. So even if a few people interacted with the ads you are getting alot more in return for ads being displayed. Now put Lindsay Lohan as the topic. You maybe break $1. I wonder why those articles perform better.

I work for the company that delivers ads to travelers before they travel, below your printed boarding pass. And ads that work well are ones that are contextually relavent to actions they are about to take or might take while on their travels. But the CPM is much higher than just random search terms, but it takes that guess work out of what internet ad servers are trying to do. We know exactly what the person is doing and can deliver ads to them based on where they are going, coming from and such. Most people searching for mortgage rates are not interested in the history of mortgage rates they are interested in the current rate and how they can perform the next action of refinancing, which means a big payout to the lender.

A mortgage broker can advertise its loans on an article about mortgage rates, and readers were more likely to click on an accompanying ad. The same applies for an immigration lawyer who bought space on a piece about immigration policy.

“I think that this runs counter to a lot of the conventional wisdom in the industry, and it was a bit of a surprise,” said Tim Ruder, Perfect Market’s chief revenue officer.

Makes me wonder why the conventional wisdom was so. Intuitively, relevant ads is what makes sense. Aren't relevant ads the whole strategy behind adsense?

I can't quite understand how they made $129 per 1000 page views unless this is direct advertising.

... says NYT linkbait.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com