Hi I think that it may be your business model that sucks Adsense quote $0.05 to $5.00 per 1000 clicks This would generate between $1.25 and $125 per 1000 clicks excluding the $31.25 or $3125 generated before the 25000 quota. If you cannot generate over $0.2 per 1000 clicks you why should Google subsidise your particular business model
Regards Davie On Nov 7, 12:59 pm, JD Gauchat <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Rossko. Thanks for the advice. Here is what I know: > > I was working on a project that requires Google Maps. Due to its > characteristics, I estimated the following: > > - I would have 5 loads per user in average (possible more considering > that I can't save static images on my server, not even thumbnails). > - Since the limit is 25000 loads, my project is limited to 5000 visits > per day. > - Concentrating the business on advertisement I can make between $10 > and $15 per day (based on previous experience and websites that are > already running since several years ago) > > Once reaching this level of traffic, the next step for any business is > investing. The money earned has to be invested in advertisement to > make the business grow and turn the 5000 visits into millions a day. > But here is the problem. As soon as I get the numbers over the limit I > will start loosing money (or if I'm lucky I'll get even). I'll have to > stop investing in advertisement and my business, for one reason or > another, will be dead in 5000 visits (no money for me, no money for > Google). And with that level of income, it's impossible to pay for a > premium account (and according to the values I saw a premium account > is too expensive as well, comparing with any cloud service). > > Conclusions: > > With the current business plan there is a gap. You can't start a > project that might turn into a big business because you have to be a > big business since the beginning to be able to afford the services you > need. It's IMPOSSIBLE to scale. Once you reach a point in which you > have to start paying your business is frozen because you can't pay for > the service without loosing money. And if you don't pay, Google don't > make ANY money. > > Google knows the numbers. They have a cloud service and they know the > low cost of the bandwidth and storage. A static image, for example, is > no more than 50k, thus 1000 images will be 50 megabytes. The cost of > bandwidth for 1 gig is $0.13 (maximum), so for 1000 images we are > talking about $0.0065 (it's not even a cent). You can't turn this into > $4 without killing thousands of projects that could become big > business and bring millions of dollars to Google. > > I think I don't need to explain more, Google has ALL the numbers they > need to understand this. > > Thanks for reading > JD > > On Nov 7, 8:40 am, Rossko <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Hope you can come up with something realistic... > > > Clearly Google think they already have, and it is already in place. > > > One way to encourage re-think is to provide a concrete alternative. > > We don't have access to the numbers (users, hits, etc.) to see how a > > suggestion pans out, but if a suggestion is made it should be easy > > enough for Google to do sums. > > It might be most effective to present such a suggestion with an > > estimate of the results, compared to the status quo. > > > Most likely the wrong Google folk are reading this forum, but if the > > message is more persuasive than "poor me" and more like "benefits to > > Google", I'm sure it would get passed upwards. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google Maps JavaScript API v3" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-maps-js-api-v3?hl=en.
