How would you like a transparent stats service for parked domains? - Page 2 - IDN Forums

domainguru · #21 12-01-2007, 08:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jacksonm

According to public financial reports, Google revealed that they pay publishers around 88% of what they charge a publisher for a click.
.

That's total nonsense of the highest order. There is no way in the world google pay out 88% of what what they get for a click on an adsense site. Why do you think they make so much profit? Everyone knows google screws everyone they can, and yahoo pay out far more, but at the moment, yahoo are limited to US, and only a small part of that.

88% = joke.

jacksonm · #22 12-01-2007, 08:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by domainguru

That's total nonsense of the highest order. There is no way in the world google pay out 88% of what what they get for a click on an adsense site. Why do you think they make so much profit? Everyone knows google screws everyone they can, and yahoo pay out far more, but at the moment, yahoo are limited to US, and only a small part of that.

88% = joke.

You may not believe it, but what I am saying is that I read reports over the past year that this is the figure they had filed in their annual sec filing. True or not, this is what they were reported to have filed.

.

domainguru · #23 12-01-2007, 09:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jacksonm

You may not believe it, but what I am saying is that I read reports over the past year that this is the figure they had filed in their annual sec filing. True or not, this is what they were reported to have filed.

.

Nah, I don't believe it. I had a name where top bid was $5 to $6 on adsense, but we were getting paid around $0.20. But when we put it on a domain parking program (yahoo, not google), we got upwards of $1 per click.

So tell me Google are paying out 88% - simply don't believe it. They paid us less than 10%.

And why would they pay 88%, when worldwide their competition is minimal. If they wanted to pay a decent amount, they would stipulate that in their partnership agreements, which of course they don't, not a single figure is mentioned ....

Steve Clarke · #24 12-01-2007, 09:43 PM

I remember seeing a report last year ( I wish I knew where to find it), where Google said that they were taking far less than they were previously, and that the parking companies were making significantly higher profits as a result.

That leads me to believe that the parking companies have colluded together, to keep a much higher percentage of the pie.

I know my per click money has declined steadily over the last couple of years.

I know when I originally placed domains at Bodis, when it first started out, at 100% pay out...domains that were earning about $8 at various places, shot up to $45/day.

Too bad they had problems with fraudulent accounts.

We, as domain owners are definitely getting the short end of the stick, from these parking companies!

I've redirected most of my traffic IDNS, to GreatIDNS.com....I'd rather get some exposure to IDNS, and my names, than accept the peanuts they are throwing at me, at the parking companies.

jacksonm · #25 12-01-2007, 09:52 PM

I say we team together and make our own parking company.

.

Steve Clarke · #26 12-01-2007, 10:10 PM

I'm not very tech savy at all....but I would definitely move my names to such a site, and also place banner and text ads on GreatIDNS for it.

The time has come for a parking service that is willing to share a higher percentage, while still earning very good revenues for its owner/administrators.

As a domainer, and a very important piece of the parking industry...I'm tired of getting only the scraps that fall off the table.

Fka200 · #27 12-01-2007, 10:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jacksonm

I say we team together and make our own parking company.

.

I hate to say it, but we would need to be VERY limited with applications. With what happened to Bodis.com... not worth a repeat. I'd actually be interested in something like this, but have no clue what I could offer to help start it up

.

jacksonm · #28 12-01-2007, 10:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fka200

I hate to say it, but we would need to be VERY limited with applications. With what happened to Bodis.com... not worth a repeat. I'd actually be interested in something like this, but have no clue what I could offer to help start it up

.

What happened to bodis.com? They appear to still be operating.

BTW, there is something fishy about someone who offers 100% revenue share.

.

Fka200 · #29 12-01-2007, 10:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jacksonm

What happened to bodis.com? They appear to still be operating.

BTW, there is something fishy about someone who offers 100% revenue share.

.

They banned 90% of their users. Revenue isn't fixed yet either. Still waiting for them to take care of that.

jacksonm · #30 12-01-2007, 10:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fka200

They banned 90% of their users. Revenue isn't fixed yet either. Still waiting for them to take care of that.

What was the reason for the mass banning?

.

sunsei21 · #31 12-01-2007, 10:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jacksonm

What was the reason for the mass banning?

.

traffic quality and something about the feed provider comming down on them or something like that

Steve Clarke · #32 12-01-2007, 11:38 PM

I think the main problem was with fraudulent accounts, and click fraud.

Some members were setting up multiple accounts, and click fraud was being commited with these accounts.

Because the feed providers and their advertisers were paying out so much due to these accounts and their fraudulent clicks, I believe some of the feed providers backed out.

Then the ads became irrelavant, and the revenues tanked.

That is one area that would have to be addressed in some way.

It was doing awesome on my names, (and my wifes names which saw a 500% increase in revenue, over Namedrive....without any click fraud.

I guess Bodis grew so fast, because of the promise of 100% revenue share that it couldn't keep track of who was joining....even members joining with multiple accounts and the same IP address.
However, at the same time, because it had so many domains in its stable, it was able to acquire pretty good deals with feed providers.

The trick would IMO be able to balance who was joining, and still have a good number of domains, so that the feed providers would want to make decent percentage deals.

Thats my take on it, anyway.

tee1 · #33 12-02-2007, 04:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Clarke

That leads me to believe that the parking companies have colluded together, to keep a much higher percentage of the pie.

No question that who to accept would be important, but you still have to keep in mind IDNs are in their infancy as far diffusion and type ins, tough to evaluate all portfolios. alot of info could be gathered by analyzing the emergence of type ins in one language and apply it to others

seems like BODIS needed to evaluate the owners, if click fraud was occurring. However, lets see BODIS 100% payoff.
1. owners should be making much more, so wouldn't they want to support BODIS and not participate in click fraud/arbitrage
2. some are just greedy bastards, sure but 90%

so if parking companies colluded, would they facilitate click fraud on a new establishment in the parking industry paying 100%, they wouldn't, would they. lets see they lose a good portfolio to BODIS, would turn the click bot loose on it. that wouldn't happen would it?

touchring · #34 12-02-2007, 09:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by domainguru

88% = joke.

Was it gross margin - in that, did they include the cost of overheads?

Like cost of serving the ads, cost of maintaing the program (most of it go towards the hundred million dollars options), cost of running adwords, etc, etc.