| 5:47 pm on Aug 24, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Greater than 100% improvement in both CTR and revenue going from 468*60 2 ad banner to 728*90 4 ad banner. I'm thrilled. :)
But then my previous CTR was extremely low.
| 5:48 pm on Aug 24, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Put them up...then took them down. When rectangular ads don't serve all 4 ads, the increase in the fields looks totally out of place on our site, especially where some pages are serving 4 and some only 2. Our visitors reacted quicly in the negative to this. Interesting that the acceptance level on the skycraper ads, even with the white spaces has been high. Liked it better though when skyscraper sized itself to fit....looks neater.
| 6:16 pm on Aug 24, 2003 (gmt 0)|
It's really too soon to tell. I went from skyscraper on some pages and 468x60 banners on others to all leaderboards, on thursday.
Comparing with the same three days (thu, fri, sat) the previous week, CTR is up about 25%. But, CPC is down 18% or so (perhaps more lower-paying ads shown in the 4 ads?), so the effective CPM (which is what really counts to me) is up less than 10%.
However today sunday both the CTR and CPC are way down so far, so I can't make any conclusions yet. I'll give it at least a week.
From the design point of view my preference is for resizing skyscrapers, but now that they are no longer available the leaderboards are not too bad. However they do have smaller text than the banners, which might reduce their effectiveness.
| 6:23 pm on Aug 24, 2003 (gmt 0)|
robho, prior to Thursday, approximately what percentage of your banners were 468*60 and what percentage were skyscrapers?
Also, how were they split as to traffic on those pages? In other words, what size did you have on your most heavily trafficked pages and what size did you have on your least heavily trafficked pages?
| 8:00 pm on Aug 24, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I changed from 468x60 banners to 728X90 4-ad banners yesterday, and my CTR, which was averaging 1.0%, is 4.1% so far today.
| 9:37 pm on Aug 24, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|prior to Thursday, approximately what percentage of your banners were 468*60 and what percentage were skyscrapers? |
About a 1:4 page ratio skyscrapers:banners - skyscrapers on selection pages, banners on item pages (which contain wide data tables, not suitable for skyscrapers). In terms of traffic, it's nearer 50/50.
The CTR and CPC have improved since earlier today so it's now looking nearer to the last three days. Still too early for firm conclusions, but leaderboards look just about worthwhile for me so far.
| 11:02 pm on Aug 24, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I just decided to switch over some sites to 728 x 90. The only problem is that they look awful when only one ad is served. Google should never serve up a 1-ad banner in this size.
| 11:06 pm on Aug 24, 2003 (gmt 0)|
If Google doesn't have at least 3 relevant ads, then it would probably be best that you switch back to 468*60s. That hasn't been an issue for us. We have gotten 4 ads each time. Some of them have been mistargeted, but that's not related to the banner size. It was happening occasionally when we had 468*60s as well.
|West of Willamette|
| 2:43 am on Aug 25, 2003 (gmt 0)|
728 * 90 ROCK! Switched to them from 468 * 60 and click-thru rates nearly triple. A big thank you to Google for the new ad sizes.
| 2:53 am on Aug 25, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I had a noticeable CTR increase when I switched from banners to skyscrapers, but things settled down after a couple of days, and the CTR went back to normal. (Of course, it's possible that it would have dropped if I'd stuck with banners; there's no way of knowing.)
I flirted with the leaderboard format a couple of days ago but reverted to skyscrapers. I didn't like the look of the leaderboards, and I prefer having the AdSense ads below my affiliate links (which are in the right-hand margin of my pages). Although AdSense is working very well for me, affiliate sales continue to produce at least 2/3 of my total revenues, and I don't want my affiliate links to look like afterthoughts.
| 7:14 am on Aug 25, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I switched from the 468x60 banners to the 728x90 ads last night. I had average views today but every other stat was a record-breaker. The previous 5 Sundays have all been low to average in every column.
| 7:48 am on Aug 25, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I switched from 120x600 to 300x250, and my CPC dropped quite a bit, but number of clicks increased. Still, my total revenue has dropped somewhat...
| 8:56 am on Aug 25, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Massive improvement by switching from 468x60 banners to 728x90.
| 6:29 pm on Aug 25, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Switched from 120x600 to 300x250 on index page and highest traffic sub page, has been 5 days now.
Ctr up on each of those five days by 1.5-2.0 points, earnings up by 60-80%. It has been a very steady and uniform change, no spikes or troughs.
| 7:03 pm on Aug 25, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I switched from the 468x60 banners to the 728x90 ads the night they started offering them. My clickthrough doubled the next day, and everything was great. Now, there's mostly only Non-Profit ads being displayed on all of my pages, and my clickthrough has dropped down to nothing for the past 2 days.
Is it possible that with a lot of people displaying 4 ads instead of 2 that the inverntory is exhausted quicker, and there's no ads left to display?
| 7:10 pm on Aug 25, 2003 (gmt 0)|
VinnyC - It is entirely possible and very likely. Supply and demand are most likely out of sync. Remember that there are *many* more sites than there are advertisers. I think that the business model will be hard for Google to sustain in the long run. The hope you have is to ride this out longer than others. As others drop off you'll get less public service ads. Assuming of course that the ROI is in line with advertisers expectations and they don't go away also.
| 8:04 pm on Aug 25, 2003 (gmt 0)|
VinnyC, I would definitely contact Google about that. If you were receiving relevant ads the first day after the change, you should continue to. There could be a problem.
I also made the change from 468*60 to 728*90 within a few minutes of when they began offering the leaderboards and I have not had a single charity ad.
| 9:17 pm on Aug 25, 2003 (gmt 0)|
But you have to also keep in mind that ads are ROI based.
If I make $10 for each ad, then I don't care to have the ad clicked 10 times or 1 million times. The more clicks, the more money I make. So it's not just that there is a deficit in advertisers, there is a near unlimited need for clicks. Only when ROI is not positive does this decline. Of course it takes time to balance out as advertisers earn more money to increase their budget.
Of course order fullfillment plays a role as well.
What I'm trying to say is that the existing advertisers have a demand for more clicks.
| 9:31 pm on Aug 25, 2003 (gmt 0)|
killroy - You are right but the whole process of selling something, because of the logistics involved, can never match the speed at which the Internet can move. If for example a company sold 10 items last year and now because that company can advertise on millions of web sites it gets orders for 10 million items, what will it do? It'll have to remove the advertising until it can handle the volume or risk having irate customers.
Now let's assume this happens with every advertiser. I know it's a stretch but let's pretend. Now every advertising campaign comes to a screetching halt and your peice of that campaign goes away as well. Now if you were the only site displaying the ads you probably wouldn't care that much as you sit on your private island :-)
Unfortunately by the time they can handle the volume they have already lost customers. Remember that's one reason why this whole Internet stuff never panned out. The hype was get on the Internet you'll sell more instantly and retire. Not true, You have the potential but the reality is you cannot feed the Internet as fast as it would like. That's why I say there is a limited number of advertisers and advertiser dollars.
| 9:42 pm on Aug 25, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|Supply and demand are most likely out of sync. Remember that there are *many* more sites than there are advertisers. I think that the business model will be hard for Google to sustain in the long run. The hope you have is to ride this out longer than others. As others drop off you'll get less public service ads. |
It's impossible to make an accurate generalization about AdSense supply and demand because AdSense is targeted contextual advertising, not the kind of RON advertising that we're accustomed to seeing from ad networks. It isn't like an AT&T ad, where AT&T buys 10 million impressions from FastClick, Burst, or Tribal Fusion and the impressions are divvied up among all of the ad network's sites. Depending on the keyword, there may be extreme demand for AdSense clicks or there may be none at all.
If a site is getting a lot of public-service ads, it isn't because AdSense has excess inventory (there's no such thing as excess inventory with a CPC campaign). It's because the site's pages are on topics that don't attract AdSense ads. Not all content sites are equally suited to a program like AdSense. If you've got a site about French medieval poetry, you're likely to see a lot more public-service ads than you would if your site were about cruising, digital cameras, financial services, or weight loss. On the flip side, if your site deals with a topic that has great e-commerce potential, you may never see a public-service ad on your pages.
| 9:50 pm on Aug 25, 2003 (gmt 0)|
You are right about the bad content but the original poster said he had ads then they went away. Either Google really messed up (doubtful) or there are no advertisers. I didn't say that inventory was excessive, it's the opposite. Remember, advertisers set their daily amounts. When it's gone its gone until they refill it. Theoretically if the real estate that an ad is possible to be shown on is big enough then an entire bucket of advertising dollars can disappear almost immediately :-)
| 11:31 pm on Aug 25, 2003 (gmt 0)|
switch 50% of my site from skyscaper to leaderboard for a test. so far stats remain exactly the same, no change.
| 12:00 am on Aug 26, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I don't buy this whole arguement that an overload of sites joining adsense will exhaust the advertiser base of adwords. To me that's a bunch of bunk (and I don't think bunk is a good thing ;) There are hundreds, if not thousands of little guys waiting in the gates, eager to try adwords, but their budget will not allow it....until now. You see, the more sites that show the ads of the big advertisers, the faster the big advertisers budgets will be exhausted, thus lower CPC ads will be shown on adsense carrying sites. You will not run out of advertisers. I do agree, that temporarily, EPC's may go down due to the fact that lower budget advertiser's ads are being shown on your site. However, the growth of sites adding adsense is likely to slow down, while the growth of advertisers using adwords is not likely to slow down, but increase with the influx of new internet users on a daily basis trying to sell something to make a living online...I know, I know, that was a LONG sentence ;) Well, this is just how I see things..you can pop my bubble now! :)
| 12:19 am on Aug 26, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I think it's great to be that optimistic Dave. I really do wish you are correct but economic indicators don't suggest a lot of spending let alone an endless supply of money from businesses no matter what the size. Let me also say that I worked for a smaller marketing company and the last few years we saw nothing but a downspin in both Internet and traditional advertising spending and about 40 good people are now out of work :-(
| 12:29 am on Aug 26, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Justageek...Yes, it may be optimistic, true. But I tend to be an optimist. In my opinion, with respect to the adsense program, I see it as a generous "half-glass" full :) Here's to hoping that the economy picks up and that those 40 good people (and many others) get their jobs back!
| 12:34 am on Aug 26, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I'll toast to that, davewray :-) Come on economy!
| 11:21 am on Aug 28, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Blue_Fin, West of Willamette, DavidT, others:
It's been a couple days since this thread was started and I'd be thrilled to learn how the new ad formats are performing on your sites. Are you seeing a permanent increase in revenue? What's the percent increase?
| 1:32 pm on Aug 28, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Has been a full week now and my earnings and clickthrough rate have kept the same pattern since I switched over to the box size as said on previous page. Payout per click has fallen though but increase in ctr compensates for this.
| 1:53 pm on Aug 28, 2003 (gmt 0)|
My CTR is down a bit the last 3 days from the first 4 days following the change from banners to leaderboards, but it is still significantly higher than it was. My earnings per click is also down the past few days, but overall, there's been a tremendously positive effect to my earnings.
I attribute this solely to the fact that there are 4 ads displayed vs. the former 2 ads, meaning that I wouldn't suspect there would be a significant difference for those who had always been serving skyscrapers.
| This 36 message thread spans 2 pages: 36 (  2 ) > > |