|Image Ads Pay $0 CPM?|
... what the heck is going?
On one of my pages, I placed three 120x600 "IMAGE ONLY" ads.
Now, I get three banners displaying <snip> etc.
When I login to my account, I can see the following stats for that particular page on my website:
page impressions: 180
page CTR: 0
Page eCPM: 0
What's wrong with these "image only" ads? Why Google does not pay me for banner impressions? It is my understanding that image only ads are not paid by the click, but by each 1000 impressions. Please help. Thanks!
[edited by: Jenstar at 5:07 am (utc) on Aug. 2, 2005]
[edit reason] No outting advertiser ads please [/edit]
image ads are both CPC and CPM.
dantol - you are mistaken in your assumption. image ads come in both CPC and CPM varieties, not solely per impression. what you are seeing are obviously cpc campaigns - you have 0 clicks so you earn nothing.
read ASA's post in [webmasterworld.com...]
|both image and text ads come in two varieties – cost-per-click (CPC) and cost-per-thousand-impression (CPM). |
Thank you! I was mistaken.
I think I should remove Image Ads from that page.
I mean, 180 impressions = 0 clicks? That's worse then terrible. I am removing these ads immediately!
Why not just choose to show both (text and image) and let G decide which it feels is the best, after a couple of weeks change it if still unhappy to compare it to a different choice.
180 impressions is not very much to base any form of decision.
Yes, that's what I chose a couple of minutes ago, "text and image ads". Usually, when I select "text and image ads", 95% of the time I get text ads.
I am not against image ads or anything - in fact, I think they look 50 times more beautiful than text ads - but, if I am going to have 180 impressions on that page, I expect to receive CTR of at least 8-10%. If after 100 impressions I receive CTR of 0, that's enough for me to freak out and change these ads or position of these immediately.
I am really pissed that people read my article 180 times and did not click, not even once, on my valued advertisers. And the image banners that I was talking about earlier were 100% related to what they read. Some other pages on my website were visited/read 30-40 times each, and I received 3-5 clicks for each 'read'. And when I saw that 180 people read my "image ad only" page and clicked 0 times on my precious advertisers, I freaked out. I guess people are ignorant of image ads - in some way, they hate banners. No matter how beautiful banners really are, most people are sick of them.
*3-5 click for each 'read'*
I am really pissed that people read my article 180 times and did not click, not even once, on my valued advertisers.
First what makes you think 180 people read the article? Do you have webanalytics software that tells you how long people were on the page?
Who said your advertisers were valued other than yourself?
Did you ask your users if they thought they were valued?
Did you perhaps think that you would simply throw up a website and make money because others are?
Maybe the ads clash with the page...your ads could be outside the golden triangle...
Perhaps you targeted the wrong market.....
But rather than being pissed at others...perhaps you should spend that energy to offer content thats even better than what you have now,,,better color choices....advertise in the right spot....change test keep what works...toss out the garbage
lol..... 180 impressions....
what you expect, 180 clicks?
i each day my site prints out thousands of pages.. sometimes i get 1 or 2 clicks with just 200 impressions, sometimes i get none with 1000 impressions. you can't expect to nail the head with each impression.