window of world
Home All Categories Business & Economy Chitika – What went wrong?

Chitika – What went wrong?

Chitika – What went wrong?

Everything I have to say is WOW. I haven’t seen this kind of vitriol since the last Democratic Convention, and everyone is targeting Chitika, a company that started with the Google killer. Their crime? Cut people’s income checks after they have earned the money. Not a good PR move. And there seems to be more trouble with what looks like a good idea on the surface. I have to admit I don’t understand how anyone (including Chitika) makes any money with their income model.

Darren Rouse of problogger.net, which I incredibly respect (and which makes a few hundred annually a blog), really hit the Chitika. From the beginning I had problems understanding how they were going to make money.

With Chitika Mini Malls you can sell specific products (merchandise) within the pages of your website or blog. The advertisements boast the best price for a particular product, allowing the user to click to (presume) buy the product. They also include tabs for search and other features built right in the banner-like ad.

Publishers can choose to show ads on keywords (they choose the words), or by context such as Google (both contextual mode ads on your site violate Google’s terms of service).

Apparently, Chitika deals with companies like Shopping.com, Ubid and others to share in clicks. Or they can only go through channeladvisor.com, a content indicator for key shopping malls (explaining why they all share the same content).

From my comfortable chair I can see where the trouble starts. When someone arrives at Shopping.com, they are looking for something, whether one-day LL Bean or a battery charger from Sears, and they are looking for the best price, presumably so that they can buy the product (it is not mentioned just to don’t look com its shopping.com


So Bean of Sears doesn’t pay the case Shopping.com fifteen cents or a quarter or whatever to get the person to buy the button because they know the person is ready to put down the credit card number

Im Not sure that this model will be relocating to my site, I will pay in a pay-per-click model Back as our CASIE-award-winning (5 awards) John Hancock campaigns The purpose was to catch someone who has a specific life event, such as a baby, marriage, graduation, etc., and get them to Hancock, the suspicion was that they would be ready to buy. See a banner that says you’re ready to tie the knot – or something like that and they have t clicked, they were ready to buy, and it is worth paying for the click.

Shopping.com is similar. If you are there, the life event is a new TV (not as deep as marriage, but just the same).

I’m not sure how much a click at the best price for a TV MiniMall ad is worth by someone who isn’t ready to buy a TV. Remember, they didn’t come to Shopping.com. Shopping.com came to them.

Keeping this in mind (the value of a click from my site, versus the value of a click from the Shopping.com website), the controversy is perfect.

Let’s start with the audit fasco. They told a lot of publishers how many people they made from people who clicked on the ads, and decided to take it back. They claimed they were getting money back from pressure from countries where the products could not be shipped and accounting click fraud. Although it is annoying, I can understand it, although I am not quite sure how to investigate each click and portray these things, especially when rumors are, the system is not exactly a technological power station. In fact, according to Shoemoney.com, technology is a PHP ripoff.

So they pulled out a few clicks, right. Great story. But here’s where Chitika crossed the Rubicon, they decided to filter what their pleasure click, which defines their desire as pressure that won’t likely lead to a sale.

Wait a while here, one said something about sales. As I mentioned in my previous article on Pay Per Click Advertising, the publisher’s responsibility is in the pay-per-click model to get the user to click. The rest of the chain is then out of the publisher’s hands.

Chitika basically created its own model here, and I call it Pay-per-selected-click. Indeed, they decide that some clicks are more valuable than others. Specifically, they say that pressure leading to sales is better than non-sales pressure. Viola! They found pay-per-sale (or pay per action for that semantic in the audience).

Other people call it BS. Actually, it does. I think it’s dishonest to tell publishers that you’ll pay for each click and then decide which click to pay. It’s like telling the lottery agent that you’re now going to buy the tickets for $ 1 each, but you come back to the drawing to return the one who doesn’t win back your dollar.

If you earn 70% of you (60% for the publisher and 10% for its referring publishers), you can’t throw the dollar bills. And if your model is stupid (which one is obvious), you need to give some hocus-pocus-man-behind-the-curtain-with-one-and-take-with-the-other kind of magic.

The most surprising part of this should reflect the appearance of marketing at LL Bean and Sears when the account comes in for a million clicks and they find that they have made four sales.

The bottom line here is that in this context (selling someone’s merchandise) a click from Shopping.com has more value than a click from Bobsblog.com.

Chitika rejected me for an account. They said I didn’t meet the qualifications. Darren Rouse says sites that are product-centered. Chitika says the same thing.

This proves my point even more. If a website is product-oriented (ie computers or reviews are the benefits of a Palm Pilot), the fact that you are on the site is an interest in the product. Your Chitika MiniMall is buying it now for that product. That means there won’t be so much curiosity clicks, and Chitika won’t take as much of your earnings back.

You are subject to pay-per-action criteria with pay-per-click rewards. If you want to see how publishers respond to this, you might want Google to chit Chitika, or look up one of the anti-Chitika sites like Shitika.com. Jensense also has a good synopsis that you may want to see.

Without looking, I’m going to guess that angry people are the foremost of Shopping.com in content and model, and those who have least diminished their earnings are more product-centered (whatever hell means).

Chitika claims he is the leader in Impulse Merchandising. Their model turns another word on the word context. To make their ads work, you must purchase the product on one of their banners. The theme of the site on which the ad appears is the actual context of the ad, not the keywords you provide or context that Chitika uses to select the banner.

Id replaces Chitika with a Pay-Per-Action ad that matches the theme of your site. If you keep them lazy, at least until they or the model changes, they make more money or go out of business. At this point I don’t know who to bet.


How you feel for this post?
Share your vote!