4 ms·

Let's think about this logically. Google takes 32% of every adsense click [1], so assuming an account makes $5,000/month, Google is making $2,352/month from th

by birken 13y ago

Let's think about this logically. Google takes 32% of every adsense click [1], so assuming an account makes $5,000/month, Google is making $2,352/month from that account. So by banning the account, they are making $5,000 one-time, and losing $2,352/month forever. No company is stupid enough to do that. However, considering a site making $5,000 or $10,000/month is generating quite a few clicks, I think it makes perfect sense for any account reaching these thresholds to be manually reviewed to ensure they are valid sites. The quality of Google's clicks is one of its main selling points, and by cutting out spammy sites at the source it both improves the quality of its own program and at the same time removes a lot of the financial incentive to run a scummy site. So my guess is these policies (or similar policies that involve manual reviews of sites) make perfect sense, are not illegal in any way, and this whole posting is as bogus as it looks. 1: https://support.google.com/adsense/answer/180195?hl=en https://support.google.com/adsense/answer/180195?hl=en

DoubleMalt 13y ago
This not necessarily the case. Most advertisers will have fixed budgets to spend on AdSense. Under this assumption banning a publisher would not diminish the revenue stream but just diverting the ads to other not yet banned publishers. That doesn't mean the scheme as described is true, but it's not as obviously stupid as your first paragraph makes it seem.
- voicereasonish 13y ago
  Also obviously if Google reduces the pool of adsense publishers, the money is more likely to be spent advertising on Google properties, and Google will take 100% of that, rather than 32%.
  - CaveTech 13y ago
    If that was an ideal strategy they would have never opened it up to publishers in the first place. Google no doubt optimizes their algorithms for profit, but they surely don't need to block out publishers to ensure their own sites have ads to display.
    - shadbs 12y ago
      Ad inventory supply is and always will be > demand. As such, their actions to make short-term revenue by banning publishers makes sense. It's basically recycling publishers, knowing the pubs wont be able to do anything about it. Obviously it hurts their brand but they're too big to give a shit.
owlmanatt 13y ago
> Google takes 32% of every adsense click [1], so assuming an account makes $5,000/month, Google is making $2,352/month from that account. The publisher (ie your website showing ads) isn't the one paying them that money; they aren't losing any recurring revenue by banning them. Since they're Google AdSense, it's very likely that they have plenty of new signups to show those ads on.
- IanDrake 13y ago
  You might be thinking about it wrong. A site that generates $5K a month is worth way more than some Mommy blog that just started hosting ads. I assure you, if you wrote a report that targeted your highest earning affiliates, gave them the toss, and replaced them with poor performing newbies you would lose money.
1qaz2wsx3edc 13y ago
Is it just me or has it been witch hunting season as of late?
- protomyth 13y ago
  From the current cases, it seems to be a winning, low-cost strategy.
SERPSlayer 13y ago
Nice try Google PR guy.
scottydelta 13y ago
If all this just false accusation then do you care to explain why google dont have any human interaction with their adsense publishers if the account is banned or suspended while their employees go around licking the asses of people using adwords as advertisers? I had my adsense account blocked for no reason and all the appeal went in vain without any human seeing my appeal. Now I am a major adwords advertiser for an ecommerce site and I have google representative just a call away!! thats just taking advantage of the monopoly they have created.
- icebraining 13y ago
  If all this just false accusation then do you care to explain why google dont have any human interaction with their adsense publishers if the account is banned or suspended while their employees go around licking the asses of people using adwords as advertisers? According to the story this only started in 2009, when as far as I know they never had any human interaction with publishers, so that doesn't sound like a good sign of its veracity. The most likely explanation is simply "because publishers don't pay them".
  - scottydelta 13y ago
    yes that's my point, they never have any interaction before blocking a publishers account, doesn't it look like as if google is trying to prove itself superior?
    - icebraining 13y ago
      It depends. Is Google an high school student? If not, then no. It just looks like they don't give a shit.
  - aggronn 13y ago
    I can't speak for 2009, but by 2012 large publishers definitely had account managers.
    - guyzero 13y ago
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
netcat-xx 12y ago
An account was banned on 2012-Nov. We did sign a contract with Google as partnership publisher at that time. No reason, and no invalid activities.
duckingtest 12y ago
I don't agree with your basic assumption - google doesn't get money from publishers, but from advertisers. If they ban one publisher, the ad may get clicked somewhere else. Let's call this metric 'ad fill factor' - how many different ads does google have for this content and traffic? When some niche is getting near the point when there's no enough ads for its traffic the marginal value of website becomes exactly zero. At this point, banning accounts and taking their earnings makes financial sense.

by birken 13y ago

DoubleMalt 13y ago

This not necessarily the case. Most advertisers will have fixed budgets to spend on AdSense. Under this assumption banning a publisher would not diminish the revenue stream but just diverting the ads to other not yet banned publishers. That doesn't mean the scheme as described is true, but it's not as obviously stupid as your first paragraph makes it seem.

voicereasonish 13y ago
Also obviously if Google reduces the pool of adsense publishers, the money is more likely to be spent advertising on Google properties, and Google will take 100% of that, rather than 32%.
- CaveTech 13y ago
  If that was an ideal strategy they would have never opened it up to publishers in the first place. Google no doubt optimizes their algorithms for profit, but they surely don't need to block out publishers to ensure their own sites have ads to display.
  - shadbs 12y ago
    Ad inventory supply is and always will be > demand. As such, their actions to make short-term revenue by banning publishers makes sense. It's basically recycling publishers, knowing the pubs wont be able to do anything about it. Obviously it hurts their brand but they're too big to give a shit.

owlmanatt 13y ago

> Google takes 32% of every adsense click [1], so assuming an account makes $5,000/month, Google is making $2,352/month from that account. The publisher (ie your website showing ads) isn't the one paying them that money; they aren't losing any recurring revenue by banning them. Since they're Google AdSense, it's very likely that they have plenty of new signups to show those ads on.

IanDrake 13y ago
You might be thinking about it wrong. A site that generates $5K a month is worth way more than some Mommy blog that just started hosting ads. I assure you, if you wrote a report that targeted your highest earning affiliates, gave them the toss, and replaced them with poor performing newbies you would lose money.

1qaz2wsx3edc 13y ago

Is it just me or has it been witch hunting season as of late?

protomyth 13y ago
From the current cases, it seems to be a winning, low-cost strategy.

SERPSlayer 13y ago

Nice try Google PR guy.

scottydelta 13y ago

If all this just false accusation then do you care to explain why google dont have any human interaction with their adsense publishers if the account is banned or suspended while their employees go around licking the asses of people using adwords as advertisers? I had my adsense account blocked for no reason and all the appeal went in vain without any human seeing my appeal. Now I am a major adwords advertiser for an ecommerce site and I have google representative just a call away!! thats just taking advantage of the monopoly they have created.

icebraining 13y ago
If all this just false accusation then do you care to explain why google dont have any human interaction with their adsense publishers if the account is banned or suspended while their employees go around licking the asses of people using adwords as advertisers? According to the story this only started in 2009, when as far as I know they never had any human interaction with publishers, so that doesn't sound like a good sign of its veracity. The most likely explanation is simply "because publishers don't pay them".
- scottydelta 13y ago
  yes that's my point, they never have any interaction before blocking a publishers account, doesn't it look like as if google is trying to prove itself superior?
  - icebraining 13y ago
    It depends. Is Google an high school student? If not, then no. It just looks like they don't give a shit.
- aggronn 13y ago
  I can't speak for 2009, but by 2012 large publishers definitely had account managers.
  - guyzero 13y ago

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

netcat-xx 12y ago

An account was banned on 2012-Nov. We did sign a contract with Google as partnership publisher at that time. No reason, and no invalid activities.

duckingtest 12y ago

I don't agree with your basic assumption - google doesn't get money from publishers, but from advertisers. If they ban one publisher, the ad may get clicked somewhere else. Let's call this metric 'ad fill factor' - how many different ads does google have for this content and traffic? When some niche is getting near the point when there's no enough ads for its traffic the marginal value of website becomes exactly zero. At this point, banning accounts and taking their earnings makes financial sense.