Pay Per Play - Set To Rival Pay Per Click?

You are kidding me ... a lousy 25% ? That's pretty expensive to advertise.

 

Its been deemed plausible, as every impression is an advert played against something that has to be clicked or looked at.

TIER 1: Gets paid 25% of what the advertiser spends "per play" on audio ads that you serve on your website(s). You get paid for every visitor that remains on any web page (where you place your PPP code) for more than 2 seconds.

20% of Internet users do not have their audio system turned on but you will be paid for 100% of your traffic where an audio ad is served whether it is heard or not. The price that our advertisers pay already takes into account that only 80% of their ads will actually be heard.

TIER 2: Gets paid 5% of what the advertiser spends "per play" on audio ads that are served on the websites of those that you personally refer to the Pay-Per-Play opportunity.

TIER 3: Gets paid 5% of what the advertiser spends "per play" on audio ads that are served on the websites of those that your direct referrals bring on board.

 

That's probably the same thought IBM had about Bill Gates in Nov. 1983

 

Damn, I really have to try to mix this with AdSense, would be great

 

Ultimately, it will be a bidding system, so guessing at revenue is pointless. It will vary by genre and popularity, for certain.

I am using it with AdSense. Lots of potential.

 

Don't get me wrong I am all for it and hope it works, I really do - as I have a lot of sites un-monetized at the moment, but there's so many people blowing smoke up our asses and it really sh1ts me.

I am just saying I will wait it out until it's performing and proven ....

 

I understand you thsadmin... too early yet to call this the next google killer or a scam.

 

I know mate, we spoke about that already in a different thread, for me I'm just responding with information that will clear up some of that smoke

 

I hope it's not like WidgetBucks, where their real faces are shown after a few months.

 

I have a question that hasn't been answered though - is there another company or website that offers Pay Per Play like this, not "the news room" but another PayPerPlay ?

I am actually looking into a paid short URL site at the moment as it looks interesting.

 

I'm not sure if I understand your question.

Pay-Per-Play netaudioads/voice2page company uses http://www.bpaww.com/ to verify data which leads to credibility. If you browse that site, not sure where though, you might find similar sites to ppp, but so far ppp is I believe the first for this kind of advertising.

 

I think it is interesting how the poll has changed shift. People are really starting to get the point that this is going to be huge
Anyone interested in becoming my affiliate with this can send me a pm, I am no longer on the fence with this program, personally
I have been seriously implementing it on all of my sites with some great success, also finding ways to help my referrals earn more
by giving them one on one attention. How are you guys finding the opening stages? Are they doing as
good for your sites? Are you going to stick it out?

All the best,
Jas.

 

Nah that pretty much nailed it, I am sure I have seen similar sites though, I reckon Google or another big player in advertising will be watching PPP closely and we will see other advertising companies launch similar programs.

 

It could defiantely be a great money maker, especially for high traffic sites. But you have to way up the annoyance of a sound/video ad compared to other forms of advertising.

Personally I dislike sites that play ads/sound/video as soon as you visit them, but I'm not stupid not to see the potential of this.

 

Google has their audio ads program through AdWords, but that is limited to radio only. There has been some (mostly unfounded) speculation that Google may be in a partnership with V2P (due to some fine print in the TOS), but it could just be a poor copy/paste job.

So far, NetAudioAds is the only player. I'm sure you will see some others pop up over the next year or two, though.