<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Gawker&#8217;s numbers</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2010/10/11/gawkers-numbers/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2010/10/11/gawkers-numbers/</link>
	<description>A slice of lime in the soda</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 23 May 2013 15:36:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: IanBell330</title>
		<link>http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2010/10/11/gawkers-numbers/comment-page-1/#comment-24055</link>
		<dc:creator>IanBell330</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 Feb 2011 19:33:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=5721#comment-24055</guid>
		<description>Not accurate. He is probably averaging an eCPM of $2 (average CPM including direct ads and non-paying house ads) and an RPM of $6-9 (RPM = value of ads combined. 3 ads per page at $2-3 each)

So 320 million US pageviews X RPM of $6 would be $1,920,000 per month. And I am estimating that is on the LOW end. He is likely selling Canadian, UK and Australian inventory as well (english speaking countries) and at higher CPM rates than U.S.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Not accurate. He is probably averaging an eCPM of $2 (average CPM including direct ads and non-paying house ads) and an RPM of $6-9 (RPM = value of ads combined. 3 ads per page at $2-3 each)</p>
<p>So 320 million US pageviews X RPM of $6 would be $1,920,000 per month. And I am estimating that is on the LOW end. He is likely selling Canadian, UK and Australian inventory as well (english speaking countries) and at higher CPM rates than U.S.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Gapper</title>
		<link>http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2010/10/11/gawkers-numbers/comment-page-1/#comment-19287</link>
		<dc:creator>Gapper</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 12 Oct 2010 18:00:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=5721#comment-19287</guid>
		<description>Hello Felix

Here is an extract from your post (http://reut.rs/8Bazhh) on my column in January this year in which I said online CPMs for many sites had fallen to about $4: 

&quot;I have no idea where Gapper’s getting his $4 CPM figure from, but it’s clearly much closer to being a minimum than an average . . . It’s also worth noting that Gapper has managed to confuse CPMs — the amount of money that an advertiser pays per 1,000 pageviews — with RPMs, or the amount of revenue that a publisher receives per 1,000 pageviews. There’s nearly always more than one ad unit per page, which means that RPMs are some multiple of CPMs.

&quot;Gapper is systematically overestimating the upside of subscription revenues, while underestimating the magnitude of advertising revenues.&quot;

As you say above, the McGrath-Gawker CPM figure comes out to $5 if you assume none of the international traffic can be monetised (if it can, the CPM figure would be lower - about $4, in fact).

Still think I&#039;m wrong?


John</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hello Felix</p>
<p>Here is an extract from your post (<a href='http://reut.rs/8Bazhh)'>http://reut.rs/8Bazhh)</a> on my column in January this year in which I said online CPMs for many sites had fallen to about $4: </p>
<p>&#8220;I have no idea where Gapper’s getting his $4 CPM figure from, but it’s clearly much closer to being a minimum than an average . . . It’s also worth noting that Gapper has managed to confuse CPMs — the amount of money that an advertiser pays per 1,000 pageviews — with RPMs, or the amount of revenue that a publisher receives per 1,000 pageviews. There’s nearly always more than one ad unit per page, which means that RPMs are some multiple of CPMs.</p>
<p>&#8220;Gapper is systematically overestimating the upside of subscription revenues, while underestimating the magnitude of advertising revenues.&#8221;</p>
<p>As you say above, the McGrath-Gawker CPM figure comes out to $5 if you assume none of the international traffic can be monetised (if it can, the CPM figure would be lower &#8211; about $4, in fact).</p>
<p>Still think I&#8217;m wrong?</p>
<p>John</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: marketfolly</title>
		<link>http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2010/10/11/gawkers-numbers/comment-page-1/#comment-19244</link>
		<dc:creator>marketfolly</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 11 Oct 2010 17:51:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=5721#comment-19244</guid>
		<description>Hey Felix, interesting stuff.  Does seem a little bit lower than expected and it&#039;s almost as if he has a &#039;limit order&#039; just sitting there attempting to buy back shares from anyone willing to sell because he thinks his own enterprise is undervalued. (Or maybe he just wants more ownership period).

I was curious as to where you derived the blog valuations trading at 6x revenues from?  In the past, I had seen 2-4x revenues but had never looked at metrics in-depth.

Jay
@marketfolly</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hey Felix, interesting stuff.  Does seem a little bit lower than expected and it&#8217;s almost as if he has a &#8216;limit order&#8217; just sitting there attempting to buy back shares from anyone willing to sell because he thinks his own enterprise is undervalued. (Or maybe he just wants more ownership period).</p>
<p>I was curious as to where you derived the blog valuations trading at 6x revenues from?  In the past, I had seen 2-4x revenues but had never looked at metrics in-depth.</p>
<p>Jay<br />
@marketfolly</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
