This graph [i.imgur.com...] from the article sums up my current relationship with big G pretty well :)

@- rish3 - I hear that!

They're up again, we're down again...no surprises there. Enjoy it while it lasts G' cause it never lasts. They've already caused an implosion of companies that used to be their customers. Time has come to break 'em up.

I'm sceptical about that graph. When I read the Google Report, I see +12% in number of clicks from partner websites. Not -12%. Look at the yellow table here:
[investor.google.com...]

What I find interesting is that Google pays way less for these clicks now:

2014 Q1: [investor.google.com...]
$3.23 billion paid to partners. $3.4 billion revenue from that traffic.

2015 Q1: [investor.google.com...]
$2.39 billion paid to partners. $3.58 billion revenue from that traffic.

Looks like even though they get 12% more clicks from publishers and make more money from those, they pay about 26% less to publishers. That would mean they lowered the percentage of what they pay to publishers by about 30%.

Would be interested to hear if this math is correct or if I am missing something.

Nope. You pretty much nailed it. Its an ongoing trends for severl Q`s now if you bother to look the numbers up. G is beating on a soon-to-be dead horse. Let`s see where will this lead them.

It looks like a normal way of doing business to me. At first there is a time when you invest to get traction. Then there is a time when you reap the benefits and make a profit. Paying $3.23 billion for $3.4 billion worth of traffic is a gross margin of only 5%. Don't know if they made a profit from that. Probably not. And tech companies usually aim for huge profit margins.

Now they make a gross margin of 33%. Taking into account that they have by far the largest base of advertisers and publishers, that seems reasonable. What do other ad networks charge?

Looks like even though they get 12% more clicks from publishers and make more money from those, they pay about 26% less to publishers.

Well, they've certainly been paying less to Firefox since they let that deal expire. And what other deals (new, ongoing, or recently expired) does Google have with publishers, browser companies, ISPs, etc. that might skew the overall payout percentage?

I'm sceptical about that graph. When I read the Google Report, I see +12% in number of clicks from partner websites. Not -12%. Look at the yellow table here:

You're seeing it wrong. The yellow table shows (12%). The parentheses in financial reports indicate a negative number. The graph is correct.

Here's a picture with the -12% outlined in red: [i.imgur.com...]

The parentheses in financial reports indicate a negative number.

Oh! I did not know that. Interesting.

Something does not add up. They got 12% less clicks from partner sites, but made more money from that?

I put together this spreadsheet with some of the infos in the statements:

[ethercalc.org...]

As I understand ethercalc, everybody can edit it. So let's hope it stays sane for a while :)

You can see a more detailed breakout of numbers, percentages, etc. if you scroll down to the tables in the official press release:

[investor.google.com...]

Something does not add up. They got 12% less clicks from partner sites, but made more money from that?

Yes, it's a bit odd.

If you pull just the YoY numbers, just for "Google Partner Websites", they are saying:

- 12% fewer clicks
- 2% higher CPC
- 1% more total revenue

That doesn't add up terribly well.

None of the numbers is great news for "Google Partner Websites" though. 1% more revenue, in a number that should mirror internet growth, is not good.

Edit: Listening to the transcript, I think I see what's happening. They used to show YouTube click revenue in a completely different category of "Other Revenue". It sounds like they moved it to "Google Partner Websites", and then restated ALL of the numbers, including previous quarter. The 12% fewer clicks, then, is attributed to the "Skippable ads" on YouTube. It also has the effect of obfuscating what happened to actual "Google Partner Websites"...can't tell if that was intentional.

Here's specifically what I read:

Network paid clicks were down 12% year-over-year and up 4% quarter-over-quarter, and network CPCs were up 2% year-over-year and down 11% quarter-over-quarter. As you know, we don't usually break down the impact of the individual factors on the quarterly changes in our clicks and CPCs. But this quarter, I want to provide more color...
So many commentators are incorrectly assuming that the growth trends in our sites, clicks, and CPCs are primarily due to difficulties monetizing search on Mobile, but that's in fact not the case. Remember that sites metrics includes clicks and revenues related to ads served and Google's and on properties, most notably, obviously, Google.com, but as well as YouTube, engagement ads like TrueView, where users choice not to skip an ad is counted as a click.

That would mean they lowered the percentage of what they pay to publishers by about 30%.

How does that work if they claim their revshare percentage is 68%?

How does that work if they claim their revshare percentage is 68%?

The way I read the reports, they paid almost 100% in 2014-Q1. And dropped it to 68% in 2015-Q1. So that is a drop of about 30%.

The way I read the reports, they paid almost 100% in 2014-Q1. And dropped it to 68% in 2015-Q1. So that is a drop of about 30%.

What I find interesting is that Google pays way less for these clicks now:

2014 Q1: [investor.google.com...]
$3.23 billion paid to partners. $3.4 billion revenue from that traffic.

2015 Q1: [investor.google.com...]
$2.39 billion paid to partners. $3.58 billion revenue from that traffic.

Not sure what the two of you are seeing. I see the 68%, unchanged from 2014 to 2015.

Here's a screenshot that shows the text from the 2014 Q1 report, and the straight YoY comparison of Q1/14 vs Q1/15 : [i.imgur.com...]

Guys, in your Adsense account you can see the revenue share percentage. According to my knowledge this was set at 70% at least since 2010.

Does anyone have data that contradicts that? I would be perplexed if they lowered that without notifying publishers. If that was the case, Google would have to face class action suits en masse, that's why it's highly unlikely.

Google is really gambling with publisher trust lately. I am sorry, but they are in a position Microsoft was in years ago, facing antitrust suits, being disloyal to clients and partners etc etc. - all they'd have to do is to take care of ad-blocker issues, take care of the issue with click-bombing and everyone would be happy, but no that's too difficult to tackle for them, they'd rather focus on Youtube and milk publishers there.

Here are Google's instructions on how to see the revenue-share percentages for your account:

[support.google.com...]

(I'm seeing the usual 68% revenue share for content ads and 51% for search ads in my account info.)

The company generates more than 55% of its revenue outside the U.S

Wow.. 55% of that international revenue has virtually 0% tax applied to it as all that money gets sent to Singpore/Ireland and then to another offshore entity.

How would you explain to your kids that the average US tax payer doing this will land in jail (even if all of his web based business had all international sales), but a large corporation like Google can do this legally?