

The real reason Google's clicks are flat - fleaflicker
http://www.skrenta.com/2008/02/the_real_reason_googles_clicks.html

======
fallentimes
As an advertiser or investor I'd be much much more concerned that 6% of the
online population generates 50% of the clicks:
<http://www.smvgroup.com/news_popup_flash.asp?pr=1643>

~~~
gruseom
_6% of the online population generates 50% of the clicks_

... and the 6% are non-representative of internet users as a whole. This
finding deserves to be better known. Why don't you post it in its own right?

Edit: I can't find anything about this besides the press release and blogs
that quote the press release. Why haven't they released the actual study?
Also, the study was limited to "display ads" - does this mean banner ads as
opposed to Adwords/Adsense?

~~~
pchristensen
This finding and the study that it comes from has come up 3 times in last
couple months. I'm surprised it isn't mentioned even more than that!

~~~
fallentimes
It seemed to be all but ignored when the Google clicks data was released last
week.

One blog (I forget which) made a very good point that the market will self-
correct for the lower amount of clicks.

Since the clicking area is now smaller and more targeted, one could make a
relatively safe assumption that less click throughs are accidental and/or from
deceptive web design. All things equal, this should drive up the price per
click enough to offset the lower total amount of clicks.

But that only deals with the "click through" problem not the "who clicks
through" problem.

~~~
pchristensen
Um, that was the source article!

------
ntoshev
Any evidence for this?

