Help
The advertising models on the Internet have changed markedly in the past 18 months or so. While 2 years ago a site may have had a 468X60 banner and 3 or 4 125X125's down the right, and maybe even a text ad embedded between news stories - all paying $10 CPM each, now the rate is down to under $1. And that's only if you can provide at least 100,000 targeted uniques per month.
PPC also had its day, but now only the huge search engines have the clout to make that work.
Small content sites can still host ads, just as they had before, but now they have to find very targeted partners, who only offer paypersale relationships: Affiliates.
Skip to the poor ODP editor trying to slough his (or her) way through 100's of scummy web site submissions that are just copies of some affiliate merchant's web site catalog under Joe-Bob Trailerpark's alternate domain name. Or the 43rd mirror of an MLM affiliate web hosting program. It's pretty easy to get soured on anything affiliate related.
But it's a mistake to automatically label every site with link-tracking codes a scummy affilate site. Link tracking for banner, skyscraper, and even text ads, whether PPC or PPS is just as legitimate as the old CPM model. A site may have 10 or more relationships, targeting different vendors on different pages or in rotation. You may think the old banner across top and skyscraper down side looks horrendous, but it's a legitimate, time-tested design that visitors still respond to (albeit not as well as they used to).
Yes, affiliate programs have led to the creation of all sorts of vapid, get-rich quick schemes that offer no benefit to end users and should be vigorously prevented from sneaking into ODP. But lumping all sites with affiliate (or simply link tracking codes) into the same trash heap is a big mistake. For the small content site owner, this is about the only viable revenue source still available.
Page 1 of 1
Affiliate vs PPC vs CPM ads
Rate Topic:
#2
- Member
-
- Group: Inactive
- Posts: 2,497
- Joined: 26-March 02
- Editor Namethehelper
Posted 14 October 2002 - 04:17 PM
PPC, CPM, PPS - these abbreviations might be common and known to you but I am just a lowly ODP editor and do not have a clue. I would understand it much better if you avoided the acronyms or just defined them before you used them. The reason why I say this is it appears your post is targetted at ODP editors and I have a feeling I am not the only one that does not know what those terms mean. (I know PPC is Pay Per Click).
The Helper
http://dmoz.org/prof.../thehelper.html
If you are not an editor or I don't know you do not PM me. You are wasting your time if you do because I just delete them - unread.
http://dmoz.org/prof.../thehelper.html
If you are not an editor or I don't know you do not PM me. You are wasting your time if you do because I just delete them - unread.
#3
- Member
-
- Group: Inactive
- Posts: 1,022
- Joined: 02-August 02
Posted 14 October 2002 - 04:27 PM
Well PPS is Pay Per Sale, but CPM has me mystified.
<ADD>
Apparently CPM is "cost per thousand impressions", which I assume means they pay you a fee for every thousand times you show the ad to a surfer.
</ADD>
<ADD>
Apparently CPM is "cost per thousand impressions", which I assume means they pay you a fee for every thousand times you show the ad to a surfer.
</ADD>
#4
- Member
-
- Group: Inactive
- Posts: 263
- Joined: 19-July 02
- Editor Nameoldcrone
Posted 14 October 2002 - 04:28 PM
The problem isn't the affiliate links, it's that the actual content doesn't stand out, leaving the user to weed through all the spammy stuff. A good content site will focus on the content rather than the affiliate spammy, flashing, blinking ads.
When your user/viewer isn't sure what content belongs to the site and what is someone else's, then the designer/webmaster/owner has done something wrong. Affiliates should support the content, not the other way around.
Just my 2 cents.
When your user/viewer isn't sure what content belongs to the site and what is someone else's, then the designer/webmaster/owner has done something wrong. Affiliates should support the content, not the other way around.
Just my 2 cents.
#5
Posted 14 October 2002 - 04:35 PM
Assuming it's the same online as in other types of advertising, CPM is cost per thousand - the amount you'd have to pay to get your ad in front of a thousand people.
<edit>Looks like dfy beat me to it...</edit>
<edit>Looks like dfy beat me to it...</edit>
#6
- Member
-
- Group: Inactive
- Posts: 1,022
- Joined: 02-August 02
Posted 14 October 2002 - 04:44 PM
We don't mind sites that have a banner across the top, and a skyscraper down the side, as long as there is real content there. What you read about in this forum are sites that purport to be directories, but are actually just glorified affiliate link farms.
If someone submitted a site that had 20 banner ads at the bottom of every page, along with original content on every single page, I'd list it without hesitation. Even if two or three of the banners were at the top, I'd still list it. If all of them were at the top, I'd have to think twice, as the content is now difficult to find. Even so, if the content was good, I'd list it. What we actually get are sites with a dozen banner ads, then 'content' which turns out to be links to other sites.
The bottom line is, if we think the site is there to provide content, and it's covering its costs with affiliate links, we'll list the site. If we think that the site is there to host affiliate links and only provides content to attract people into the link farm, we won't list it.
If someone submitted a site that had 20 banner ads at the bottom of every page, along with original content on every single page, I'd list it without hesitation. Even if two or three of the banners were at the top, I'd still list it. If all of them were at the top, I'd have to think twice, as the content is now difficult to find. Even so, if the content was good, I'd list it. What we actually get are sites with a dozen banner ads, then 'content' which turns out to be links to other sites.
The bottom line is, if we think the site is there to provide content, and it's covering its costs with affiliate links, we'll list the site. If we think that the site is there to host affiliate links and only provides content to attract people into the link farm, we won't list it.
#7 tac2502
Posted 14 October 2002 - 04:51 PM
Old crone is right, and is refering the the same issue I mentioned in the original post - affiliate sites that are nothing but sub-sets of some online-catalog site, or a site that is just a bunch of banner or text links of all the merchants you can sign up for at Commission Junction, with a few keywords sprinkled in for the search engines.
These types of affiliate web sites have no place in ODP.
The point I want to make is that some editors become over-zealous in their weeding out of submitted sites, automatically casting doubt on any site that utilizes link-tracking ads (which are mostly affiliate-based on the smaller sites). It seems some editors have a higher content quality bar for sites that have affiliate links than they do for sites that have other revenue models, or have no advertising at all. I think it's perfectly acceptable to "profile" sites that have ads with tracking links for closer review, since a higher percentage of scummy sites use affiliate sales, but the content evaulation bar should be the same height no matter the revenue model.
These types of affiliate web sites have no place in ODP.
The point I want to make is that some editors become over-zealous in their weeding out of submitted sites, automatically casting doubt on any site that utilizes link-tracking ads (which are mostly affiliate-based on the smaller sites). It seems some editors have a higher content quality bar for sites that have affiliate links than they do for sites that have other revenue models, or have no advertising at all. I think it's perfectly acceptable to "profile" sites that have ads with tracking links for closer review, since a higher percentage of scummy sites use affiliate sales, but the content evaulation bar should be the same height no matter the revenue model.
#8
Posted 14 October 2002 - 06:01 PM
What dfy said.
I do not automatically assume that a site is scum just because the webmaster has some tagged affiliate links on the page. If I am reviewing a submission from Joe Blow's page on Geocities and it offers an extremely in-depth critique of Quentin Tarantino's work with informed, well-thought-out opinions - where the film titles are hyperlinks and these are Amazon affiliate links, I will list the site despite these.
If Joe Schmoe from Tripod submits a page with Quentin Tarantino's filmography which is nothing but a list of films whose titles are hyperlinked with affiliate URLs to Amazon or Allposters (or worse, both), this is something I would not list in the directory.
Our guidelines tell us to look at the site and imagine it without the affiliate links - is there unique useful content? If yes, list it; if not, delete. One of the most prominent listings in Arts/Movies/Titles is a movie database which uses quite a bit of affiliate advertising with a skyscraper down *each* side, a banner up top, and affiliate links within individual movie pages, but these pages offer solid content not available elsewhere - so they get listed.
<edited to add after re-reading and realizing I missed a point>
Also, there are cases in which affiliate links are intrusive to the point of obscuring the content - we have a submitter in Arts/Movies who submits such deeplinks. These deeplinks feature excellent film reviews.. with affiliate links disguised as 'price comparisons tables' put at the very top of the page, before the review starts. For very popular films, there are many products available at amazon, buy.com, allposters, and the 6 or so other retailers the site is affiliate with - this results in monstrous tables of 'price comparisons', scrolling for about 2 screens at 800x600 before I can get to the review. I do not list these deeplinks, despite the excellent reviews. It is not useful to be looking for a review and be faced with 'here, buy this!' spam that I didn't ask for. Editors are users, too.
I do not automatically assume that a site is scum just because the webmaster has some tagged affiliate links on the page. If I am reviewing a submission from Joe Blow's page on Geocities and it offers an extremely in-depth critique of Quentin Tarantino's work with informed, well-thought-out opinions - where the film titles are hyperlinks and these are Amazon affiliate links, I will list the site despite these.
If Joe Schmoe from Tripod submits a page with Quentin Tarantino's filmography which is nothing but a list of films whose titles are hyperlinked with affiliate URLs to Amazon or Allposters (or worse, both), this is something I would not list in the directory.
Our guidelines tell us to look at the site and imagine it without the affiliate links - is there unique useful content? If yes, list it; if not, delete. One of the most prominent listings in Arts/Movies/Titles is a movie database which uses quite a bit of affiliate advertising with a skyscraper down *each* side, a banner up top, and affiliate links within individual movie pages, but these pages offer solid content not available elsewhere - so they get listed.
<edited to add after re-reading and realizing I missed a point>
Also, there are cases in which affiliate links are intrusive to the point of obscuring the content - we have a submitter in Arts/Movies who submits such deeplinks. These deeplinks feature excellent film reviews.. with affiliate links disguised as 'price comparisons tables' put at the very top of the page, before the review starts. For very popular films, there are many products available at amazon, buy.com, allposters, and the 6 or so other retailers the site is affiliate with - this results in monstrous tables of 'price comparisons', scrolling for about 2 screens at 800x600 before I can get to the review. I do not list these deeplinks, despite the excellent reviews. It is not useful to be looking for a review and be faced with 'here, buy this!' spam that I didn't ask for. Editors are users, too.
#9
- Member
-
- Group: Inactive
- Posts: 2,497
- Joined: 26-March 02
- Editor Namethehelper
Posted 14 October 2002 - 08:41 PM
I don't think any editors need to know about PPC, or PPS, or CPM. I do not think we need to change our review methods. I think webmasters need to change there thinking about CONTENT and put content before the ads and everything would be just fine. That is just my 2 cents though <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" />
The Helper
http://dmoz.org/prof.../thehelper.html
If you are not an editor or I don't know you do not PM me. You are wasting your time if you do because I just delete them - unread.
http://dmoz.org/prof.../thehelper.html
If you are not an editor or I don't know you do not PM me. You are wasting your time if you do because I just delete them - unread.
#10
- Member
-
- Group: Inactive
- Posts: 1,556
- Joined: 26-May 02
Posted 15 October 2002 - 01:39 PM
The business model of the web site is irrelevant to being listed in the ODP. The only thing that matters is that the information does not simply duplicate information that is already available on other sites, or isn't a front door to some other place. If there are affiliate links on a site, then it will still qualify for a listing if the site has useful and unique content. If it is simply a reseller for some other business, then we would list the main manufacturer or the main supplier, not the thousands of other web sites that merely provide a front-end-under-another-domain for the main business, regardless of who actually runs the site or how it is paid for.
ODP Editor g1smd
#11 raymonds
Posted 15 October 2002 - 01:47 PM
Somebody stop me if I'm wrong, but aren't all the directory type (non-retail) sites that are actually making a profit moving to either direct partnersips or selling additional premium services? A few affiliate links on an small site might draw in a little revenue - perhaps enough to pay for hosting fees - if targted appropriately, but really, all three of these advertising methods are dead. If you cloud your site with affiliate links, the content of the site itself gets lost in the sea, and its not making money for anyone but the manager of the affiliate program. Make sure an editor can find the content, preferably without having to look hard. If an editor can't find content, neither can your users - and the users won't come back again once they get fed up.
#12
Posted 18 October 2002 - 12:10 PM
Looks like an old monster popping its head up again <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" />
I can confirm that it is becoming increasingly difficult to tell between an affiliate link and a paid ad.
However, Furiosity and others made this same point clear to me in another thread - unique content is king. What defines unique content, however, is probably going to be a matter of opinion.
I can confirm that it is becoming increasingly difficult to tell between an affiliate link and a paid ad.
However, Furiosity and others made this same point clear to me in another thread - unique content is king. What defines unique content, however, is probably going to be a matter of opinion.
#13
- DMOZ Meta
-
- Group: Meta
- Posts: 9,532
- Joined: 23-March 02
Posted 18 October 2002 - 03:47 PM
>I can confirm that it is becoming increasingly difficult to tell between an affiliate link and a paid ad.
Fortunately, it's not necessary. Neither is "content"(*) in the ODP definition. A site consisting primarily, exclusively, or predominately of either will not be listed. A site that contains significant, prominent, unique content may be listed -- even though it also contains either paid ads or affiliate links.
Footnotes:
(*) I understand that the marketing industry has a looking-glass view of the terminology here: For instance, TV programs are just vehicles for the advertising "content." It can cause confusion. If you're a marketroid, just use this simple rule: if it's content in your world-view, it's NOT content for the surfer: conversely, if it's NOT content for you, it MIGHT be content under the ODP definition.
Fortunately, it's not necessary. Neither is "content"(*) in the ODP definition. A site consisting primarily, exclusively, or predominately of either will not be listed. A site that contains significant, prominent, unique content may be listed -- even though it also contains either paid ads or affiliate links.
Footnotes:
(*) I understand that the marketing industry has a looking-glass view of the terminology here: For instance, TV programs are just vehicles for the advertising "content." It can cause confusion. If you're a marketroid, just use this simple rule: if it's content in your world-view, it's NOT content for the surfer: conversely, if it's NOT content for you, it MIGHT be content under the ODP definition.
Share this topic:
Page 1 of 1