OK, but Facebook added +11 million users, Linkedin added +3 million users...that's a "little" difference:)

@XOOST: Not really if you think about how much value a LinkedIn member has to an advertiser, recruiter or other member vs. the average Facebook member. I think LinkedIn is exponentially more valuable as an advertising property because its users view it as a true utility, not a place for mostly juvenile and fleeting interactions.

Want to bet that LinkedIn's CPMs are on average much higher than Facebook's? I don't know the answer but I think it's a safe bet that they are.

you made a good point...but critical mass of users is still "the" great value for advertisers...
by the way I looked again and I saw that in the same period also myspace added +11 million users!!

Okay first of all - MySpace might have added 11 million members - but about 90% of that is spam accounts, and there is no accounting for spam and fake accounts, nor is there accounting of how many accounts got deleted in that measurement.

You can be a lot more certain (especially from an advertisers perspective) that a LinkedIn profile, or Facebook profile is worth a lot more than a MySpace account - that's why you see a lot of smaller companies advertising on MySpace. That in combination with their ad targeting system is completely malfunct because about 99.9% of the MySpace populations demographics are skewed because none of the information about the user is actually valid. (other than maybe the email account?)

To the point about LinkedIn CPMs versus Facebook CPMs, it is assuredly true that LinkedIn is more valuable and can generate more revenue per pageview easily. If you look at text ads like Google Adsense as setting the "floor" for a site in general, and look at the kinds of ads you'll receive as a user when they show you adsense ads on LinkedIn, you will see they are targeted to keywords on your profile. The types of words people put on a LinkedIn profile are just so much more valuable than "Linkin Park" or "Beethoven" especially since those people have already probably bought the CDs. I've seen people getting $0.30 effective CPMs on some of the new Facebook ads they are running, whereas for LinkedIn I would guess it's 5-10x that.

Yeah thats probably why News Corp has stopped investing in MySpace and is looking to buy LinkedIn now. ;-)

What a crock. Pretty soon the liberal google way will be gone, and all we're going to be seeing is Mitt Romney advertisements everywhere.

Good for LinkedIn though - if they can monetize their own advertising space instead of just taking what AdSense will give them, they sure have a huge source of revenue - which of course is in addition to the 10 other ways the site makes money.

How come these numbers are completely different?

[www.techcrunch.com]

@a3x1: Because ComScore and NetRatings aren't the same firm.

I wonder about current CPM being relevant. A lot of people use ad blocking software. I don't see ads on most sites, and only allow them on sites I frequently visit. The CPM might shift in the future depending on how ads are injected, e.g. it maybe easier to block LinkedIn ads than FB ads that are built into the content/service.