- Joined
- Sep 3, 2014
- Messages
- 6,221
- Likes
- 13,095
- Degree
- 9
I read that post yesterday. It's all massaging the data. They create thresholds for everything, between "how much of a decrease" and then there's this most important part:
It's pretty obviously a PR spin and an attempt to stop the bleeding.
From there, we filtered out sites making under $100 per week in gross revenue, not because these sites aren’t important, but because comparing a 50% decrease in revenue on a site making $100 is vastly different from a 50% decrease on a site making $10,000.
That is how they pulled off this massive lie. They cut out most everyone they could that decreased, claimed very few relatively decreased, and then the best part is at the end:Now is not the time to adjust ad density settings because ad spend is ramping up. And when you change something like the number of ads you’re serving — especially if you’re lowering your density because someone without data claims too many ads are the cause of your troubles — you’re hurting your earning potential from all the othertraffic sources out there.
Now, I'm in 100% agreement with them. Their ad densities are fully in line with Google's rules even at "max" levels allowed. But clearly they've taken a massive beating and are asking the relatively few remaining winners not to follow the rumor mill and reduce Mediavine's revenue's even further.It's pretty obviously a PR spin and an attempt to stop the bleeding.