[GooglyMoogly]

>A view is a view, and an ad will pay out the same regardless of the quality of the content on the page.

That's not really true. Advertisers can bid on how much they want to pay for each individual impression. Advertisers will likely bid more for ads on high quality websites. Advertisers will also bid more for people willing to buy stuff.

[notgood]

>Advertisers will likely bid more for ads on high quality websites

Citation needed

> Advertisers will also bid more for people willing to buy stuff.

Unfortunately, there is no correlation between people willing to buy stuff and high quality content.

[eli]

We don't typically sell them this way, but the CPM for an ad on e.g. retaildive.com is much higher than anything on Google's network.

> Unfortunately, there is no correlation between people willing to buy stuff and high quality content.

Citation needed :)

[notgood]

Do I really need a citation to prove dumb people have money? Because that's basically what you are asking. Or perhaps you believe that when people click an ad on "low-quality" site the are less likely to buy than from the same ad on "high-quality" site?

Seriously, the "enlargement penis" spam works because the average person is not that selective on the ads they chose nor the websites they visit.

[Noseshine]

> the "enlargement penis" spam works because the average person is not that selective on the ads they chose nor the websites they visit

I don't think you understand "average". It's the extreme tail of the distribution that is targeted by such ads.

Example:

> Nigerian scam emails 'deliberately implausible'

> New research from Microsoft suggests that email scammers maximise profits by entrapping only the most gullible.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/microsoft/9346371/Nige...