<b>"Sites on premium networks just earn more"</b>

<b>"Sites on premium networks just earn more"</b>

True on the surface: the average premium-network site does out-earn the average open-network site.

But premium networks gate entry — 50k, 100k sessions, sometimes editorial review. So you're not measuring the network's effect; you're measuring the <i>filter</i>. The sites that qualified were already bigger, more established, better-linked, in monetizable niches. Drop a brand-new gardening blog onto the same network and the magic evaporates.

🚩 Hidden variable: survivorship. The entry requirement pre-selects sites that would earn more on <i>any</i> network. Correlation is doing all the work the network takes credit for.

The only honest comparison is the <i>same</i> site, same month, before and after. Cross-site "premium earns more" is selection bias wearing a case study.

Not saying premium is bad — saying the comparison is rigged.