3 ms·
I don't think Contributor is intended to directly benefit sites at all. If you use Contributor, the site receives $0.00136* and a blank ad is shown, paid for b
by koala_man 12y ago
I don't think Contributor is intended to directly benefit sites at all.
If you use Contributor, the site receives $0.00136* and a blank ad is shown, paid for by you.
If you don't use Contributor, the sites receives $0.00136 and an Initech ad is shown, paid for by Initech.
It will make no direct difference in revenue for the site, but hopefully they can get indirect benefits from people being less inclined to use ad blockers.
* $2 CPM at 68% revenue share
- greedoshotlast 12y agoHow much of that revenue did Google take? Is it a 80/20 revenue split or what? My point is the middle-man must be paid but if there is no middle-man you keep 100% of the profit.
- koala_man 12y agoAt 68% revenue share it's a 68/32 split.
- jonas21 12y agoI don't think that's how it works. It sounds like the CPM for a particular user's visits is determined by that user -- by the amount they choose to contribute per month and the number of pages on participating sites they view. So, depending on a site's audience and content, it seems like they could end up with a CPM that is much higher (or lower) than with ads.
- fairblocker 12y agoWhat you describe is exactly how my product works (FairBlocker). We split up a user's chosen subscription among sites where they block ads... I imagine it is what Contributor is doing, too. The way it is working out for us is that a ~$6.5 / month subscription is equivalent to a ~$12 net CPM, though it varies depending on how heavy a browser the given user is. So, higher than what many small sites normally make, but also lower than many video ads or top-tier sites with their own sales teams.