Who actually clicks on ads?

DreamBuster

Joined
Mar 26, 2016
Messages
5
Likes
5
Degree
0
Last night I had a discussion with a friend about the type of person who actually clicks on ads. We were thinking about major review sites such as Pitchfork, AV Club, or Engadget. We assume that this audience group may have the following characteristics:

1. Reasonably tech-savvy

2. Younger

3. VERY rarely click on Ads (ad-blocker)

So how do these sites afford hundreds of staff and still (presumably) turn a profit?

And as a starter looking to compete in those verticals, is it all about the angle? Basically, I want to know how sites make money off of someone like me or you, if the content targets people like us.

I'm new to all of this, and I appreciate the insight!
 
At the time of reading and writing this I unfortunatley didn't have the time to go through the statistics but I figured I'd through them at you so you can compare and try to find see what they have in common and what seperates each from the other.

pitchfork.com/
https://www.quantcast.com/pitchfork.com#/trafficCard
http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/pitchfork.com

www.avclub.com
https://www.quantcast.com/avclub.com#shoppingInterestsCard
http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/www.avclub.com


www.engadget.com/
http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/www.engadget.com

unfortunatley there isn't any quantcast data for engadget but I'm sure you'll survive without it LOL
 
Thanks for those links - let me try to interpret this right:

1. A lot of those sites don't necessarily make revenue off of the products/services they write about, but instead they target the characteristics of a demographic. For example, Pitchfork ads targets people who buy luxury cars, household goods, and love hockey.

2. More people see and click on ads than I realize. After googling "who actually click on ads" I see a lot of anecdotal evidence describing people who are less computer-savvy and can't differentiate between an ad an a "legitimate" search result.

I'm reading the Crash Course and trying to understand where these types of sites are in the AIDA model as well, so any help would be appreciated.
 
I assume that there's a good chunk of money that's from true Native Advertising. Not the stupid blocks that people put below their blog posts, but real deal Native Advertising like you see in magazines. You pay for a full two page or even four page spread, and instead of making a classic flashy advertisement, you write and design an article so it looks just like the rest of the magazine (or pay the magazine to do this). If you're scared, you reveal at some point that it's an advertisement, but I'm sure there are tons that are never revealed, and I suspect these big sites take a lot of money for native articles.

At that point, it's not about commission and making sure you drive the sale. You help the company make the sale from anywhere and you get paid up front.
 
People love to sit around and circle jerk about how they don't click on or aren't effected by ads. It's not true and it cracks me up. It's why people like Dan Ariely have been able to conclude through research that asking people what they think/feel is absolutely useless for figuring out anything beyond what people will say, not how they actually think/feel.

Everyone clicks on ads and everyone is influenced by ads, even all the "smart" people that think they don't or aren't. My life is advertising and I'm in no denial that ads effect me big time because I'm not a robot.

To answer your question simply all those sites have plenty high CPM rates for simple IAB banners. Now either all those advertisers spending money are idiots or all the young tech savvy people visiting those sites do in fact get influenced by ads plenty.

The funny thing is young tech savvy audience is often some of the most easily manipulated by the ads "they never click on".
 
What people forget is you can't click a billboard advertisement on the side of the highway or other traditional marketing campaigns yet those mediums make billions off of advertisement. They are there for brand exposure = eyeballs.

Seeing the AD, the impression, is worth the money spent for brands that know what they are doing.
 
Hi Miketpowell,

Thanks for the response. Sure - I agree that we are all influenced by ads. I guess my question is more from a starter/noob site's perspective, where it's not in a position for the Native Ad opportunities that Ryuzaki and CCarter brought up.

So, if it's an information/entertainment type site with only a few hundred or few thousand views, and it's solely reliant on Ads, then naturally it will not be very profitable until you are past some threshold. (I'm new and I haven't looked into the numbers yet.)

I think I answered my own question. I didn't mean to offend or be an elitist. I'm simply trying to understand how it all works.
 
I agree with @Ryuzaki about native advertising, I remember when a internet marketer started screaming about it like he just invented the wheel a few years ago, but as I recall true native advertising dates back as long as David oglivy at least, and by the way that guy was a genius.

This is a little something for those who aren't affected by ads, truth is we all are, we just dont know it.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
DreamBuster said:
Hi Miketpowell,

Thanks for the response. Sure - I agree that we are all influenced by ads. I guess my question is more from a starter/noob site's perspective, where it's not in a position for the Native Ad opportunities that Ryuzaki and CCarter brought up.

So, if it's an information/entertainment type site with only a few hundred or few thousand views, and it's solely reliant on Ads, then naturally it will not be very profitable until you are past some threshold. (I'm new and I haven't looked into the numbers yet.)

I think I answered my own question. I didn't mean to offend or be an elitist. I'm simply trying to understand how it all works.
Click to expand...

No offense at all!

You will get higher rates from Adsense than you might expect to start. But it will no doubt be much lower than what those sites get total with the ad sales teams they have.

Don't let it intimate you though, everyone site has to start somewhere. As you said those large sites have teams of hundreds of people. Your advantage is being incredibly more efficient and effective with your time and no employees that bring no value you have to pay a full salary to.

The point would be don't worry about a given audience being to sophisticated or using to much Adblock to make as much money on. If they have money you can make money if you've got there attention. It's not the sophisticated audiences you have to worry about it's the broke ones.
 
"With our loyal audience of more than 7 million monthly unique visitors, we are read daily by the most passionate music fans. We regularly partner with brands to develop thoughtful integrated campaigns that leverage our digital, print, video, and event capabilities, along with any number of advertising and sponsorship opportunities on the site." - http://pitchfork.com/ad/

And you don't have to assume the demographics. Most sites tell you: http://www.engadget.com/about/advertise/
"
Engadget's Digital Reach
• 20.3M monthly global visitors
• 10.3M monthly US visitors
• 41M monthly US page views
• 55% read Engadget only on a mobile device
• 5M social media fans and followers
• 195K daily newsletter subscribers
• 2.5M monthly Flipboard readers
Engadget's Readers
• 67% are male and 33% are female
• 26% are 25-34 years old
• 35% earn $100K+ HHI
• 5x more likely to spend $2,500-5,000 on personal electronics
• 40% always upgrade to the latest gadget model right away*"

It's also important to note that tech savvy does not mean they're harder to market to (aside from higher adblock usage rates). I imagine the consumer pc tech brands getting a little moist each time they hear people yell "PC MASTER RACE". $$$
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back