DRAFT
Affiliate advertising can be a waste of
time and effort.
Is affiliate advertising really worth it for
publishers?
The
tables below show actual impressions, unique clicks, and the
subsequent commission for sales, clicks, and leads over the
same period with Tradedoubler and Google.
This is the experience of a (small web site)
owner showing affiliate advertising across two sites with a mixture
of pay per click, commission on sales, and lead based clicks for
advertising through Tradedoubler and for click based advertising
through Google.
Update: Google also now offers limited income
via impressions but site owners have little or no control over this
income stream other than encouraging advertisers to target their
sites.
|
Tradedoubler |
Google |
|
Period |
Imps |
Clicks |
Commission |
|
April 2004 |
175,629 |
99 |
5.07 |
|
May 2004 |
156,179 |
85 |
4.04 |
|
June 2004 |
135,140 |
78 |
4.47 |
|
July 2004 |
168,711 |
61 |
4.96 |
|
Total: |
625,659 |
323 |
£18.54 |
|
Tradedoubler |
Around 625,000 impressions and
300 clicks produced an income of £18.54
in 4 months An average
of £4.63 a month Or, put another way, a little over 5p per click with no return on
impressions whatsoever.
Some may well say it was a waste of time and effort, others might even
say fool hardy for allowing a site to be used for virtually free
advertising. What do you think?
Given that some schemes currently offer
around £15 per 1000 impressions, the above experience of using Tradedoubler would indicate that it is obviously un economic. In the
above case not only is the click through rate showing up as very low, the actual
commission is also very low indeed.
£0.000028 per 1000 with Tradedoubler.
(CPM equivalent) -
income per thousand impressions: £00.000028p |
|
Period |
Imps |
Clicks |
Commission |
|
April 2004 |
50,864 |
444 |
64.63 |
|
May 2004 |
46,072 |
424 |
48.43 |
|
June 2004 |
48,844 |
434 |
59.82 |
|
July 2004 |
63,029 |
600 |
65.13 |
|
Total: |
208,809 |
1,902 |
£238.01 |
|
Google |
Around 200,000 impressions, almost
2,000 clicks produced an income of £238.01
in four months. (The equivalent of around £1,000 over a year! That's
over £900 more than Tradedoubler!)
An average of nearly £60 a month
In contrast, the
Google scheme used on
the same two sites produced more income in one day than the
Tradedoubler
scheme did in it's best performing month.
The income from Google in just three
months far exceeds the income from Tradedoubler.
As can be seen above, it took 4 months to get just £18 through the Tradedoubler
affiliate scheme and only a few days to exceed this amount through Google. The click through rate
is also higher with Google. On a pro rata calculation, the income from
Google is still much higher than the amount received through Tradedoubler.
(With Google averaging around 13p per click and Tradedoubler at just 5p
per click). For rates per impression see below.
£1.139 per 1000 with Google. (CPM
equivalent) - income per thousand impressions: £1.14p |
If a site is worth advertising on it
can expect to receive well over £10 per 1000 impressions. However, getting the
advertisers is the hard part. I wonder what companies, the likes
of Tradedoubler, Valueclick, DGM2 and others charge to actually advertise
through them?
The very high contrast between the two
schemes above shows how careful even small site owners need to
be. This of course is only one example and may not represent the experience other
publishers have had with affiliate schemes.
The interesting part here is perhaps
the exceptional performance of Google when compared to Tradedoubler,
yet neither affiliate scheme offers anything like £10-15 per 1000
impressions.
|
Dave Left:10/05/2005 10:02:08 |
|
There is a huge disparity between these, my only comment is WHY stay so long in such a poor performer as tradedoubler!? |
|
|
Andrew Left:16/05/2005 11:20:11 |
|
This comparison between Google and Tradedoubler is very interesting, I tried Commission Juction for about 6 months on my web site and gave up because I never got anything (well £2.60!) after showing about 250,000 adverts. |
|
|
Francis Left:27/07/2005 23:06:00 |
|
Wow, thanks for providing this information on advertising! Now I know it's a waste of time. |
|
|
ddddddd Left:17/08/2005 13:39:13 |
|
This is interesting BUT who was the target audience? This is crucial with affiliate schemes! |
|
|
Dave LambL Left:30/11/2005 09:14:35 |
|
I wonder why others do not share there experience of PPC etc. I also question the value of Tradedoubler advertising, the revenue we get is a lot more than above but having switched to Google it has tripled in the last three months! |
|
|
Brian Left:09/02/2006 18:29:39 |
|
Thank you for this info, very useful indeed. Now I know Commission Junction, Tradedoubler, Valueclick and others are not what they seem. |
|
|
SL NY Left:29/05/2006 00:12:35 |
|
Thanks, as a general guide the above is useful because I run a small site with around these page numbers and I can confirm Google performs better, but is still a poor income per thousend! |
|
|
Ryan Left:17/08/2006 19:07:42 |
|
The poor return you report from TD is not indicative of the CPM we get although the advertising returns you reoprt from Google are well above ours with TD. So thanks, not sure why I could not see all this months ago. You see Google on most sites now so maybe I missed the boat?
Cheers! |
|
|
Sue Carter Left:03/12/2006 19:47:38 |
|
Hi, good to read all this info, but I wonder how it is not that Google have reduced the payout percentage? This info is getting a bit old now although I know most CPC and CPM advertising is a waste of time, Are Google Ad rates still the best around. |
|
|
Paul Left:19/02/2007 13:51:39 |
|
We have Goolge on our site and receive a nominal income but what I've noticed is that the site target income seems to have a ceiling on it, some days we get anything from $1 to $10 from clicks but site specific income never goes over $0.99/day. Any ideas? |
|
|
Hal Left:05/09/2007 16:19:29 |
|
It is obvious that prior to Google Adwords most small to medium sized sites were getting ripped off, with google it is almost the same but an improvement non the less. The targeting that is used really helps. Thanks for the info, it is reassuring to see what other sites get in the way of revenue, even if a little old. |
|
|
Simon Left:31/10/2007 02:22:53 |
|
Great info even if a little old. My site gets around 2000 sessions a day and this information is reassuring. |
|
|
noname Left:01/11/2007 09:20:02 |
|
Returns are far better on my site, even allowing for a few years, targeting is the key, matching advertisers with the site content, Google kind of does this automaticly but with careful planning others can work just as well if not better. |
|
|
R Freeland Left:11/04/2008 14:47:35 |
|
Advertising for smaller sites is far better when it is targeted directly rather than through Google Ad Words or Tradedoubler etc. If you have useful contact target organisations and companies that would benefit directly. Be professional, tell them your figures for both page views, visitors and demographics and price accordingly. Make contact with agencies etc. Remember using 3rd parties may save effort but you loose revenue!! |
|
|
