I will analyze one sentence at a time:
(1) Some of the weaker PPC companies will begin to disappear.
It is also likely that some of the healthy ones will disappear due to mergers and acquisitions. Decreasing competition increases the market power of the remaining players, and thus, typically prices (payouts) go up (down), which is bad for the domain name owner. This is true whether the ad providers, such as Google or monetizers increase their market power.
(2) Surviving companies will increase payouts in an effort to compete and hold their base.
The statement violates the cardinal rule of strategy; namely, do not compete on prices (payouts), as they lead to price wars, especially when there is no dominant player. Moreover, as noted above, payouts are reduced under market concentration.
(3) The more progressive PPC companies are already employing more powerful pages that have more depth and much greater earning potential.
As a strategy, being progressive is at best vague. Moreover, if the more powerful pages have the potential of greater earnings, why arenât they actually generating higher earnings?
(4) They are the ones staying one step ahead and continue to improve and innovate.
Iinnovation without financial discipline does not necessarily create shareholder value.
(5) Many other things will happen that will shakeup the industry. Those factors convert to increasing domain values.
To reach the value conclusion, while holding other things outside his statement equal, he must believe that it is highly unlikely that Google will dominate the ad provision market.