Advertising I'll Actually Click

Comments

Good point, but one flaw:
Good point, but one flaw: this idea is the advertising equivalent to perpetual motion.

Site [a] pays site [b]. Where does site [a] get the money to pay site [b]? From site [c].

So site [c] pays site [a] who pays site [b]. Where does site [c] get the money to pay site [a]? From site [b].

So site [c] pays site [a] who pays site [b] who pays site [c]. No one ever makes money.

This is why you will never have a world where only content is advertised. Products always have to be there. There has to be a link in that circle to outside revenue other than other content providers. Otherwise, the money in circulation will never profit anyone.

It's kind of like living paycheck to paycheck.

Did this make any sense?
Yeah, this wouldn't work if it was the only type of advertising done on the internet, but it'd be nice to see more of it.

Imagine you're NYTimes, who is rumored to be removing its paid subscription wall. Let's say you start taking out ads for your content in gmail and a set of medium-sized blogs.

If you're bringing in one million hits a day, with an advertising click-through rate of 1%, that's 10,000 people clicking on the Cialas ad. Now let's say you can goose traffic by 3% by advertising your stories on blogs, that's 30,000 new people viewing content, meaning 300 extra people clicking on the Cialas ad.

I know very little about advertising (or math) but if the cost of goosing traffic by 3% is less than the payments you'll receive for 300 ad clicks, it seems like a good idea. Plus, you need to look at long term traffic growth for your site. If people like what they see, they'll keep coming back without needing an ad to direct them there.

Post a comment

Already a Vox member? Sign in

Jon

About Me

Jon
United States
I love building.
  • Powered by Vox

My Bouquet