I don't display image ads, but if I did, animated ads would get me to turn off the option.
I've been permitting image ads to show for some time now, though they seem to rarely make an appearance.
Animated GIFs are another story and if they do come to be, then I'll definitely turn image ads OFF. I don't like any ads that move or blink.
|I've been permitting image ads to show for some time now, though they seem to rarely make an appearance. |
Ditto. I saw a few in the early days of image ads, but I haven't seen any in quite a while.
|Animated GIFs are another story and if they do come to be, then I'll definitely turn image ads OFF. I don't like any ads that move or blink. |
For me, it depends on what Google considers to be an acceptable animated GIF. A bit of movement (as in a tagline appearing after the initial ad) is okay, but I draw the line at blinking banners. I'll probably wait to see what others report (or what I find on my site) before deciding whether to turn image ads off, though.
Depends on how animated they are. Blinking ads drive me up the wall, but a clever animation could be fine. Especially if EPC was, say, twice as much as for a text ad!
I haven't heard good things about image ads generally and haven't experimented with them. And don't think there are in any the subject areas covered by my web site.
>>animated ads would get me to turn off the option.
Even if they, say, DOUBLED your CTR?
On top of that, We have a page which gets a graphic ad pretty frquently. I've been trying to figure out the payout ratio of when GAd puts on a single graphic ad vs. 4 text ads. It appears to be around about 2:1. (i.e. payout for the graphic = 2x the average of the top 4 ads.)
|Even if they, say, DOUBLED your CTR? |
LOL, I'd probably never know. But if I did know, yes, I'd probably still turn them off.
I tend to agree with what EFV said, if they were very simple animations I might go for that. But unless Google let me see the ads in advance, and be able to select only those I felt comfortable with, there is not much chance of them appearing on my site.
And I have no expaectation that Google will give publishers that level of choice any time soon.
As a test, I've had one small section of my site using the text/image ad option. I've had no increase or decrease in either CTR or EPC in this test section over my control time period. I'm not suggesting that my test is any indication of the effectiveness of image ads since there as so many valuables I can't test for, but at this point I have no plan to expand image ad usage. I’m still a firm believer that text ads are more effective than image ads in general.
I should also indicate that the quality of the image ads appearing on our site has been excellent and only from major national US brand names firms.
|Even if they, say, DOUBLED your CTR? |
Not likely, but you can bet I’d have to re-evaluate my current position on not using them.
Ditto for me -- I used to allow image ads, but now that Google is serving animated ads I'm turning that off.
Yes, even if it animation tripled my CTR. You can make a lot of money spamming, too. Money isn't my bottom line. *First* I try to give the user a good experience, and *then* I see how I can monetize their visit, without infringing too much on their experience. Everyone draws the line in difference places; animation crosses the line for me.
The real scandal here is why Google doesn't give us the option of accepting static banners but not animated ones. My guess is that they didn't bother to do five minutes of market research before rolling this out. If they had they would have seen that a healthy percentage of their publishers are going to be turning image ads off now, as evidenced in five minutes in this forum.
I would love to see any quality image ads, animated or not. I've yet to see a single one on any of my properties.
I see many image ads on my site and all of them are very tasteful. I've adopted a "wait and see" attitude about the amimated gifs.
|If they had they would have seen that a healthy percentage of their publishers are going to be turning image ads off now, as evidenced in five minutes in this forum. |
They probably know from experience that very few publishers will bother to change their accounts' default settings.
|They probably know from experience that very few publishers will bother to change their accounts' default settings. |
Yeah, I even forgot I had image ads turned on. And like many folks here I've never seen or happened to notice one on any sites,let alone my own.
I think the default is image ads OFF, isn't it?
Animated gifs coming to AdWords on google.com searches? Eeww.
Maybe I'll get to play "Spank the Monkey" again, this time while reviewing serps. Kewl.
I get image ads all the time, but they are high quality images and do not detract from the website's "image." I spend a lot of time on site design, not sure I want the shoot the duck, blast the tank or sink the putt type advertisements.
I think the default is actually turned ON for advertiser (at least used to be).
>I've been permitting image ads to show for some time now, though they seem to rarely make an appearance.
Seems like the CPC for Google is most likely generally lower also since there are far fewer advertisers utilizing the image ads. This is of course speculation, but from an advertiser standpoint our image ads have generally been lower priced than text based content ads. Perhaps G is paying a higher percentage AT THIS POINT to promote the image ads?
I don't run Adsense and wouldn't use image ads in any case, but I consider animated ads in Adsense a very poor idea. Just that many more sites with flashing and blinking and waving and jerking . . . happily, the FireFox "Nuke Anything" extension comes to the rescue! ;)
Has anyone here ever succeeded in shooting the duck? ;)
I haven't seen any image ads yet, but I am very curious to see just how animated they happen to be.
I wouldn't consider using image ads and especially not if they were animated (regardless of income).
My pages are almost entirely text, mostly 1-3k in size, the up to one second lag until the Adsense ads display is already very noticeable. Graphic ads up to 50k in size would mostly be ignored if they arrived many seconds later.
as long as it isn't a punch the monkey type ad... ;)
yet too see one ...
Or an ad that's animated like this:-
Ads by G
Ads by Goo
Ads by Gooooooo
Ads by Goooooooooooooooooooog
Ads by Goooooooooooooooooooooooooogle
;) I think Google is finally moving away from its "one size fits all approach" I was surprised when they went for image ads in the first place, animated ads will bring a lot more advertisers onboard - although I think that Google should set their limit at under 50k. Just my 2 cents.
Ok, From the reverse perspective..
As a CPC campaign manager, I think I would not use the ads based on the conversation here. Why would I want to use an ad that a lot of websites would [probably] block? Besides, we are a high end IM provider. When we sell an ad for a client on a partner's site, we craft our ad to fit the look at feel of their site. I can't imagine how I'd create an animation that would be universal and not terribly annoying. Images might be useful for brand recognition, but could be VERY annoying if they were animated!
|As a CPC campaign manager, I think I would not use the ads based on the conversation here. Why would I want to use an ad that a lot of websites would [probably] block? |
Don't forget that a majority of AdSense publishers don't participate in this forum (or any other). A lot of publishers may not care one way or the other about image ads--whether they remember them or not.
For what it's worth, the image ads that I've seen on my site have all been for high-profile travel vendors. I think the appeal of image ads will mainly be to the kinds of advertisers and ad agencies that turn up their noses at anything resembling a classified ad. :-)