Correlation between traffic and ad. revenue?

[purp]

I know different markets will vary and quality of traffic will affect this greatly, but is there a rough guide to the ad revenue you could expect for a certain amount of real traffic?

[Frinkenstein]

not really... There are too many factors that come into play.

Sure, there's probably some correlation between traffic and ad revenue, but it's probably a weak correlation at best.

[maxtower]

More traffic = more money!!!!!

You can't really say how much traffic gets you so much money because different sites attract different types of traffic. For example, forums typically do pretty bad considering how much traffic they get. This is because most of the traffic are repeat visitors who have programmed themselves to ignore the ads. How many of you click on the ads on this site once you have RB?

Some sites which target selling an affiliate product can do quite well with less traffic. The whole site is typically based around promoting the product in question. Sites with general information or blogs won't produce nearly the same revenue because the readership isn't incentivized to click on any ads. A particularly net savvy audience is really bad. They abhore ads and probably have them turned off in their browsers.

[Gauss]

0 < r(traffic, ad revenue) < 1

[Sniper]

[ QUOTE ]
You can't really say how much traffic gets you so much money because different sites attract different types of traffic. For example, forums typically do pretty bad considering how much traffic they get. This is because most of the traffic are repeat visitors who have programmed themselves to ignore the ads. How many of you click on the ads on this site once you have RB?

[/ QUOTE ]

Worth noting, that 2+2 advertising works off a fixed ratecard, rather than CPC or CPM.

Also worth noting, that on 2+2 the Brand Recognition aspect of the advertising is way more valuable to advertisers than any actual ad clicks.

[Taylor Caby]

[ QUOTE ]
Also worth noting, that on 2+2 the Brand Recognition apect of the advertising is way more valuable to advertisers than any actual ad clicks.

[/ QUOTE ]

can you explain how and why this is?

tc

[WarBus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Also worth noting, that on 2+2 the Brand Recognition apect of the advertising is way more valuable to advertisers than any actual ad clicks.

[/ QUOTE ]

can you explain how and why this is?

tc

[/ QUOTE ]

For me and probably others, I'm much more likely to use an advertiser of RB on 2+2 than through a search. If I have seen their ads on many pages, for many months, I eventually remember the names. I may never click a banner to visit the site, but it is still one of the reasons why I end up using their service. Plus, the longer I have seen their ads, the more trustworthy they appear and the more likely they are to receive my business.

[Falang]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Also worth noting, that on 2+2 the Brand Recognition apect of the advertising is way more valuable to advertisers than any actual ad clicks.

[/ QUOTE ]

can you explain how and why this is?

tc

[/ QUOTE ]

Just as the other guy said, lots of people who signup for rakeback (the primary advertiser on 2+2) don't click through on a banner they see, they just go straight to the site to signup. They know the site name because they see it on 2+2 all the time.