Discrepancy between views and earnings

1. 89

   NateB11posted 8 years ago

   On September 11, I got a short burst in traffic that lasted a couple days due to someone linking to one of my Hubs on a social site. I was expecting earnings to go up, at least for the 11th, because my traffic pretty much doubled on that day; and CPMs are about the same. However, earnings stats are only showing a slight increase in earnings and impressions. Just trying to figure this one out, doesn't come out the way I expected. I imagine it has something to do with ad blockers being used or maybe the way the share of the impressions came out. Or maybe the source of the traffic had an effect.
   
   So, just wondering why the boost in traffic is not showing a significant increase in earnings on the 11th or 12th.

   replyreport
   1. 71

      Matthew Meyerposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      As you mentioned, there are many factors in play, including ad-blockers.
      This FAQ has a bit more info about some of the factors that can affect impressions.
      http://hubpages.com/faq/#impression-percentage

      replyreport
      1. 53

         paradigm searchposted 8 years agoin reply to this

         .
         "A big part of this is related to how common ad-blocking software has become, but there are other factors as well (slow loading, ads disabled on Hubs, fraud traffic that Google doesn't serve ads on, etc.)"
         .
         I'd be interested in the specific cause in this case. Would it be possible to find out? I'm kind of wondering if the particular social site is somehow a contributing factor.

         replyreport
   2. 53

      paradigm searchposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Nate, may I ask which social site?

      replyreport
      1. 89

         NateB11posted 8 years agoin reply to this

         It came from Reddit. Someone referenced my article in a discussion.

         replyreport
2. 53

   paradigm searchposted 8 years ago

   Hmmm... Double the traffic, but no corresponding increase in impressions. I'll be interested to see the reason; when I do, I hope I don't end up being depressed.

   replyreport
3. 71

   makingamarkposted 8 years ago

   Since ad-blockers work all the time they should not ratchet up their effect on the day when you expected extra income from extra impressions due to extra traffic.
   
   Hence - all other things being equal (ie all the factors which affect impressions operate all the time) I think it's perfectly reasonable to assume you would see more impressions on the day you KNOW you got more traffic.

   replyreport
   1. 89

      NateB11posted 8 years agoin reply to this

      I think so too. It seemed unusual to me, because usually if the traffic increases significantly so do the impressions and earnings. That's why this instance really stood out to me.

      replyreport
4. 97

   Glenn Stokposted 8 years ago

   Here's a thought...
   
   If traffic and views doubled from random across-the-board sources then you might expect the ad impressions and earnings to double along with it.
   
   But if the doubling of traffic is mostly from a single source, as you indicated, then the impressions will be screwed based on whatever is a result of the type of visitors you are getting from that single source.
   
   For example, maybe more of those visitors from that source use ad blockers than if you received a random selection of visitors across the board. Or maybe many of those particular visitors have a common interest that produces low paying ads.
   
   Advertisers pay by auction via AdWords, and ads are serviced based on two things - the subject of the article and the interests of the visitor.
   
   Visitors from search results tend to see ads that are relevant to their interest. But if all the visitors are from one source, the chance is much greater that the effect is screwed since many will see meaningless ads that they have no interest in.
   
   As a result, your revenue will not be linearly equivalent to the increased traffic.

   replyreport
   1. 89

      NateB11posted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Interesting, I was thinking kind of the same thing. It occurred to me that the visitors themselves, or the commonalities they share and where they came from (the site where my link was placed), would affect my earnings; as you say, maybe they mostly use ad blocker or their history brings up low-paying ads, etc.

      replyreport
5. 53

   paradigm searchposted 8 years ago

   And I just had another theory. Around Sept 11-12, this was happening: http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/132942 .  It could be, as Matt referenced: "...slow loading, ads...", that hose Mode Video ads are what screwed you over; especially if most of the visitors were mobile visitors.

   replyreport
   1. 89

      NateB11posted 8 years agoin reply to this

      That makes sense, because the discrepancy seems very unusual.

      replyreport
      1. 53

         paradigm searchposted 8 years agoin reply to this

         I've noticed I haven't seen those suckers around anymore the last couple days.

         replyreport
6. 53

   paradigm searchposted 8 years ago

   It occurred to me to check my own stats for the 11th. Turns out I had around the 60%, so I'm back to the social media site theory. Glad it wasn't FB or Pinterest. I hear that Reddit users have a rabid hatred of spammers, even more than we do. So there's a real possibility that the vast majority of them do indeed use ad blockers. I think Glenn nailed it.

   replyreport
   1. 89

      NateB11posted 8 years agoin reply to this

      I'm thinking that is it too. I know about Reddit users hatred of spam, it's likely they use ad block.

      replyreport
      1. 89

         NateB11posted 8 years agoin reply to this

         In fact, when I've gotten a surge from social media, it's not usually from Reddit, more likely from Facebook; which I would think lends credence to this theory too, possibly Facebook users are less likely to use something like ad block and also, I'm thinking, are a more diverse crowd.

         replyreport