Hacker News Reader

HNHacker News

Top New Best Ask Show Jobs

Comment by nostromo | Hacker News Reader

Full thread

nostromo·

May I compare apples to oranges?

$0.1 Google revenue per search.

$0.001 Twitter revenue per timeline view.

View on HN

That's almost certainly because Google searches are significantly more likely to indicate purchasing intent. That means advertisers will pay more per search than per timeline view.

Yes and for an advertiser a click through from Google is far more valuable than just a view on Twitter or Facebook. The latter is more of a brand building advertising. Google's is immediate revenue so advertiser is likely to pay more.

To be fair, this is CPM, not CPC. So the click vs view thing is already accounted for.

Yeah, the difference being nobody sits around refreshing their google searches.

Im hard pressed to believe what you're suggesting

.1 vs .001 is a 100x difference

Do you spend 100x mor time on twitter

No, in fact I don't spend any time at all on twitter.

But I do searches much more often than I check my Twitter feed (and I suspect I'd be in the majority, though there definitely is a set of very active Twitter users)

Wait, does google really get a $100 CPM? I know their revenue on search is immense, but is it really that high?

Well, Google doesn’t show one ad per SERP, it shows over a dozen. Also, ‘a search’ could be one search results page or several.

The majority of google searches only hit the first page, but yes, the dozen-or-so ads per page component makes sense. Really each individual ad is then only getting around an $8 cpm. Still quite impressive.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com