Why do companies even bother to say they are paying based on CPM when it seems to me they all adjust the rate down based on click rate? Why can't they just be honest and up front about it and admit they are paying a click rate, not an impression rate? Throwing words out like "Smart Pricing" only makes it worse the way I see it anyone care to explain why they do it this way, am I missing something?
I think to save advertisers sake , so every advertiser pay only for CPM that convert into a Click or Sale or Lead or ... , so this save a lot of money for advertisers and sameway publishers earn very less money
You're looking at it from the wrong point of view - CPM means cost per mile. It's just that the rates are starting to become dynamic. At the end of the day, if you're displaying a CPM banner that gets a higher CTR and Conversion rate, you deserve more for it, and it makes sense that the advertiser pays more. And vice versa. The problem is, that as the publishers that most of us are on DP, we tend to only see our side of the coin, when in fact, there is another one. If we bear that in mind when working on our sites, we can enhance the rates we earn.
I think it's better this way in that if you have good traffic you will get paid higher, but if your traffic is very poor then you shouldn't deserve the same earnings as someone sending top quality traffic.
I couldn't agree more, I think the revenue model that we're starting to see is definitely the way to go.
...so then why don't they just stick to CPC if that is what is going to be the determining factor in the end anyways?