Comments on: Ads Suck, BUT not WidgetBucks! http://arzhou.com/2007/11/02/ads-suck-but-not-widgetbucks/ Sun, 11 Dec 2011 20:54:43 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Patrick Quek http://arzhou.com/2007/11/02/ads-suck-but-not-widgetbucks/comment-page-1/#comment-950 Patrick Quek Fri, 02 Nov 2007 13:37:09 +0000 http://arzhou.com/2007/11/02/ads-suck-but-not-widgetbucks/#comment-950 No, is not against TOS. No, is not against TOS.

]]> By: Patrick Quek http://arzhou.com/2007/11/02/ads-suck-but-not-widgetbucks/comment-page-1/#comment-943 Patrick Quek Fri, 02 Nov 2007 06:27:05 +0000 http://arzhou.com/2007/11/02/ads-suck-but-not-widgetbucks/#comment-943 I have a CPM $0.26 although I'm don't run the ads on blogs but if you have products-focused blogs, your WB ads will do better. I have a CPM $0.26 although I’m don’t run the ads on blogs but if you have products-focused blogs, your WB ads will do better.

]]> By: Larry Lim http://arzhou.com/2007/11/02/ads-suck-but-not-widgetbucks/comment-page-1/#comment-940 Larry Lim Fri, 02 Nov 2007 02:03:18 +0000 http://arzhou.com/2007/11/02/ads-suck-but-not-widgetbucks/#comment-940 I've been hearing quite a bit about them recently. Would be intersted to know how they performed. Since it's also contextual, will it go against Google's TOS? I’ve been hearing quite a bit about them recently. Would be intersted to know how they performed. Since it’s also contextual, will it go against Google’s TOS?

]]> By: Ed http://arzhou.com/2007/11/02/ads-suck-but-not-widgetbucks/comment-page-1/#comment-939 Ed Fri, 02 Nov 2007 01:33:20 +0000 http://arzhou.com/2007/11/02/ads-suck-but-not-widgetbucks/#comment-939 Not sure if you would like to take a look at this? http://www.ianfernando.com/2007/google-pimped-slapped-the-widgetbuck/ Not sure if you would like to take a look at this?

http://www.ianfernando.com/2007/google-pimped-slapped-the-widgetbuck/

]]>