http://thinktraffic.net/attract-enough-visitors-to-your-website-to-earn-a-living

 

But here is the reality of online advertising. Advertising won’t pay you anything significant unless you attract massive traffic. And even when you have that massive traffic, the payout is probably much lower than you can earn through other revenue models.

http://thinktraffic.net/attract-enough-visitors-to-your-website-to-earn-a-living

 

But here is the reality of online advertising. Advertising won’t pay you anything significant unless you attract massive traffic. And even when you have that massive traffic, the payout is probably much lower than you can earn through other revenue models.

 

Don't ya just hate it when facts get in the way?

 

Go ahead and compare these to these and tell me they did it to make ad revenue.

 

You can't possibly make that argument with a straight face.

http://thinktraffic.net/attract-enough-visitors-to-your-website-to-earn-a-living

 

But here is the reality of online advertising. Advertising won’t pay you anything significant unless you attract massive traffic. And even when you have that massive traffic, the payout is probably much lower than you can earn through other revenue models.

Now you're just trying too hard to prove a point on something that isn't worth arguing about. :lol:

 

If it wasn't important to pull people to a web site there wouldn't be a thing called Google, or something called SEO. Game, set, match.

 

 

(I feel like the Nationwide Insurance guy.)

Don't ya just hate it when facts get in the way?

 

Go ahead and compare these to these and tell me they did it to make ad revenue.

 

You can't possibly make that argument with a straight face.

Don't you wish you were right? Just a little bit maybe?

Now you're just trying too hard to prove a point on something that isn't worth arguing about. :lol:

 

If it wasn't important to pull people to a web site there wouldn't be a thing called Google, or something called SEO. Game, set, match.

 

 

(I feel like the Nationwide Insurance guy.)

 

Good lord, BF. It's like I'm arguing with a child or a 90-yr-old woman that doesn't know squat other than something she heard in 1998.

 

Your Google comment is silly.

 

Your first argument in this thread is that the few people who might have decided to view the video online was somehow going to make a lot of money for WXIX. I showed you that even the NYT who had 31M unique visitors in one month has gone away from "free" because it doesn't pay. Yet somehow Channel 19's website is paying? Come on. Are you ever going to explain why NYT isn't raking in money on their 31M unique viewers? You think they're making so much money that they risk losing 90% of those viewers by charging to view their content? That by itself should tell you that eyeballs aren't enough.

 

You then throw out "Google" like that is proof. Yes, companies want to draw people to their site. That doesn't mean they make money by doing so (again: NYT).

 

Next, let's show that you don't know squat about Google and SEO as it pertains to your original argument (Channel 19 trying to make money).

 

You throw out the term SEO to try to impress me. Google "Cincinnati news" or "cincinnati television." Notice that only free content comes up. Why? Because WXIX isn't making money by getting you to come to their site so they're not going to pay extra to Google . Now Google "cincinnati cars" and notice that there are lot of links in the paid section. Why? Because car dealers are trying to get you to their business to buy a darn car. Hoever, just getting you to their site isn't making the car dealers money. It's just another source of gaining your interest to get your sorry rear end into the dealership to SPEND MONEY THERE.

 

You need to know when you're in over your head in an argument. This is one of those times.

 

However, as history has shown, you will continue to either a)say "you don't understand" which is BF code for "I'm losing this argument" or b)continue to try to be cute and throw out terms you hope I don't FULLY understand.

 

I'd choose C which is "maybe my initial gut reaction was not based in real world business."

Clyde, I sense that you're getting frustrated, arguing with yourself. Everyone else (with minor exceptions) got the point a long time ago. I'm done. It's not worth trying to explain it to you when you just want to argue. I mean, if you're going to tell me what my "argument" is, at least come close to getting it accurate. I never said anyone was making "a lot of money."

 

I'm not losing an argument. There should never have been one.

CLyde, you're arguing with yourself. :lol: The rest of us (with minor exceptions) got the point a long time ago. I'm done. It's not worth trying to explain it to you when you just want to argue.

 

Classic BF response.

Classic BF response.

I'll let you have the last word. I should never have posted this.

Good lord, BF. It's like I'm arguing with a child or a 90-yr-old woman that doesn't know squat other than something she heard in 1998.

 

Your Google comment is silly.

 

Your first argument in this thread is that the few people who might have decided to view the video online was somehow going to make a lot of money for WXIX. I showed you that even the NYT who had 31M unique visitors in one month has gone away from "free" because it doesn't pay. Yet somehow Channel 19's website is paying? Come on. Are you ever going to explain why NYT isn't raking in money on their 31M unique viewers? You think they're making so much money that they risk losing 90% of those viewers by charging to view their content? That by itself should tell you that eyeballs aren't enough.

 

You then throw out "Google" like that is proof. Yes, companies want to draw people to their site. That doesn't mean they make money by doing so (again: NYT).

 

Next, let's show that you don't know squat about Google and SEO as it pertains to your original argument (Channel 19 trying to make money).

 

You throw out the term SEO to try to impress me. Google "Cincinnati news" or "cincinnati television." Notice that only free content comes up. Why? Because WXIX isn't making money by getting you to come to their site so they're not going to pay extra to Google . Now Google "cincinnati cars" and notice that there are lot of links in the paid section. Why? Because car dealers are trying to get you to their business to buy a darn car. Hoever, just getting you to their site isn't making the car dealers money. It's just another source of gaining your interest to get your sorry rear end into the dealership to SPEND MONEY THERE.

 

You need to know when you're in over your head in an argument. This is one of those times.

 

However, as history has shown, you will continue to either a)say "you don't understand" which is BF code for "I'm losing this argument" or b)continue to try to be cute and throw out terms you hope I don't FULLY understand.

 

I'd choose C which is "maybe my initial gut reaction was not based in real world business."

Question to you Clyde. If your wife, daughter, son, sister, mother had been killed in this accident, would you be so quick to defend WXIX?

Question to you Clyde. If your wife, daughter, son, sister, mother had been killed in this accident, would you be so quick to defend WXIX?

 

That is irrelevant to this discussion. BF is implying that it this was motivated through financial opportunity. Clyde is showing that it is not. BF is arguing something that is simply not there.

What in the world has happened to the General Discussion forum? The accident was a horrible tradegy with two lives lost. Some programs will do anything for ratings. When I first heard of the terrible accident it was in the morning, and the station was Channel 5, and they did not show the whole video clip. If someone wanted to watch the whole video clip it was available on the internet. (not sure why anyone would like to see a car get T-boned and then know the passenger and cab driver died.)

That is irrelevant to this discussion. BF is implying that it this was motivated through financial opportunity. Clyde is showing that it is not. BF is arguing something that is simply not there.

But he's ignored my argument, as have you.

Hahahahaha!!! You go BF!

 

And RTS!

 

I'm with you guys.

Question to you Clyde. If your wife, daughter, son, sister, mother had been killed in this accident, would you be so quick to defend WXIX?

 

I am not defending WXIX. I'm not a reactionary person. I would fully expect that the video would be shown. It wouldn't change a darn thing.

What in the world has happened to the General Discussion forum? The accident was a horrible tradegy with two lives lost. Some programs will do anything for ratings. When I first heard of the terrible accident it was in the morning, and the station was Channel 5, and they did not show the whole video clip. If someone wanted to watch the whole video clip it was available on the internet. (not sure why anyone would like to see a car get T-boned and then know the passenger and cab driver died.)

 

What's your point? What does Channel 5 showing or not showing the video have to do with the GD forum?