| 1:40 pm on May 29, 2009 (gmt 0)|
Good idea -I think many surfers now subconsciously filter out Google ads because they are used to them. Some alternative formats may reinvigorate their interest.
| 1:45 pm on May 29, 2009 (gmt 0)|
I think the ability to customise ads further would be a great idea. Especially for adlinks.
| 2:05 pm on May 29, 2009 (gmt 0)|
and how pray tell ..would that jive with "not drawing attention to ads" ..as per adsense TOS ?
| 2:50 pm on May 29, 2009 (gmt 0)|
|what if we had more choices to make adense ads more exciting, like adding pics on the side, or making so when a user goes over the link it changes color ect... |
I doubt if Google or its advertisers want a zillion Webmasters making design decisions for the "Ads by Google" space. Traditionally, design decisions for anything but classified ads (or their online counterpart, search ads) have been made by advertisers, since he who pays the piper calls the tune.
I wouldn't be surprised to see AdSense text ads become less dry-looking in the future, though. You mentioned "pics on the side." What if Google were to offer advertisers a standard "contextual with image" format along with the existing straight-text format? Would such ads improve clickthroughs while maintaining existing conversion rates? (Of course, if such a format were offered, we'd see a flurry of complaints by publishers who weren't happy with how the new format looked on their sites.)
| 5:14 pm on May 29, 2009 (gmt 0)|
Oh lord, it would be just like back in the 90s when so many webmasters used blink tags...
| 5:16 pm on May 29, 2009 (gmt 0)|
|Oh lord, it would be just like back in the 90s when so many webmasters used blink tags... |
Which reminds me..... how do we make our comments blink here? :)
| 5:53 pm on May 29, 2009 (gmt 0)|
As a publisher I would like to have more options.
However, before doing something like this, a company such as Google has to consider all the people who will abuse whatever is offered.
The "give me an inch and I'll take a mile crowd" makes things worse for all of us.
| 7:06 pm on May 29, 2009 (gmt 0)|
|Oh lord, it would be just like back in the 90s when so many webmasters used blink tags... |
That's how I feel when I come across one of those ads that instantly fills the screen if you accidentally hover the mouse over it.
FWIW, I get best results from plain text ads. While they're boring, the layout is more predictable and for whatever reason, they get more clicks. On top of that, a poorly-made banner ad can wreck the entire page. I think some advertisers make them ugly on purpose in order to attract attention.
| 7:17 pm on May 29, 2009 (gmt 0)|
|What if Google were to offer advertisers a standard "contextual with image" format along with the existing straight-text format? |
Like the jiggling fat bellies that are showing up everywhere? Thanks, but no thanks.
| 7:28 pm on May 29, 2009 (gmt 0)|
it would be nice if they could so something like popping them out of the screen in 3D. maybe have them playing a few tunes as well. that would get people's attention.
| 7:38 pm on May 29, 2009 (gmt 0)|
|Why are Adsense ad Layouts so boring? |
Why is the Google search page so boring - and works?
| 10:08 pm on May 29, 2009 (gmt 0)|
Give me boring over tacky. At least it's classy.
| 10:48 pm on May 29, 2009 (gmt 0)|
|I think some advertisers make them ugly on purpose in order to attract attention. |
not only they make banners ugly but especially they annoy the viewer with every cheap direct call to action one can imagine like "click here", fake dropdown menus and shady promises.
why? advertisers optimize their spending: if they pay per impression (like image ads), they are keen to take along as many clicks as they can. therefore the lousy appearance of the adsense banners. penny-pinching at its best instead of the really cool brand advertising you are used to see on print or tv. all on the back of the publisher who sends out the traffic for free and only gets paid minimum.
that's so wrong and that's why adsense image ads don't work for publishers.
as for the original post: i'm all for spicing up the lame text ads with some more "font-face/size/weight" and "background: transparent"-flavor..
| 11:23 pm on May 29, 2009 (gmt 0)|
Personally I think that adsense ads look a bit spammy and yes they are boring as well. That aside it would be nice if the widths were customisable so that publishers could design the ads to fit their sites rather than the other way round.
I'd also like to see google offer advertisers more formats like the ability to add a small image to their text ads then publishers could have a choice between displaying text, image, and text+image ads.
| 11:25 pm on May 29, 2009 (gmt 0)|
I'm happy to bring a list of requests related to ad formats to the right people here. So far it looks like you're interested in more customization and better opportunities for users to interact with the ads on your site.
What do you like so far? What other ideas do you have? The team at Google that works on ad formats for Google's Content Network is always pretty secretive with what they're working on, but they're famous for loving ideas and feedback (and baked goods). :)
| 11:48 pm on May 29, 2009 (gmt 0)|
Let's not forget that part of the popularity and acceptance of Adsense among visitors were the fact it was relevant, legible, unobtrusive text links instead of "punch the monkey, "You are the 1000th visitor to this site!" or "Your computer might be infected" distracting banner ads and pop-ups.
I know some publishers back in the day who swore off banner ads on their sites because they wanted keep their site genuine and credible, not to appear as they sold out, yet had no problems adding Adsense when it came out because it didn't look like a defacement of their pages.
| 2:17 am on May 30, 2009 (gmt 0)|
while we're at it: isn't it astounding that automatically only the good old text ads and not the image ads come to our mind when we think about adsense? a fact that google - at least since the doubleclick banner network acquisition - would certainly like to see revised.
indeed, we have to strongly differentiate between text and image ads. the key to impove the image banner experience is to reflect the different capabilities of the two advertising types in the pricing models.
let's see: as mentioned above, internet advertisers will always want to optimize their earnings - and unlike the other media, the internet gives them the right instruments.
so we have the text ads: as a matter of fact image branding with text ads is more or less ruled out. they mostly exist only to generate clicks. evidently pay per click is the right accounting method here.
secondly, we have the image ads. they are capable of generating clicks and visual impact. now if you only charge for impressions, advertisers will bring out these ugly spammy ads with annoying call to action. most of us hate them, we don't want this kind of trashy advertising on our websites.
on the other side, if you only charge for clicks on image banners, savvy advertisers will do branding, free of cost without the intention of hunting clicks. in both cases, the advertiser gets a free ride one way or another (clicks, branding) and the publisher gets paid inadequately low for image banners. imo that's the "secret" why they perform so badly.
resolution? different purpose - different pricing model. google has to adjust the pricing for image banners, as this advertising form generates clicks plus visual impact. it's simply a different business. i know of at least a few other publishers who have come to the same conclusion here in some threads in the recent years: to solve the issue, image/video ads have to be seperated completely from the present auction model, where all ad forms (text, image/video) are thrown together competing for the same ad slots in the same bidding process. it doesn't work out.
i'm afraid, but advertisers will have to pay a premium on graphical ads to reflect the larger capabilities of this ad type. again: it's a different business. different businesses require different accounting methods. there's no other way to get decent graphical ads with good performance for both sides. the current handling with ads that can be reviewed by the publishers in their control panel is nicely intended but impracticable. no one does this. it's time consuming and it doesn't tackle the actual problem.
asa, maybe take this to your team for discussion. i know you at the plex like image ads to perform better just as many publishers would like to show other ads than text ads once in a while.
| 2:23 am on May 30, 2009 (gmt 0)|
As long as we're talking about ad formats, I'll try asking in this thread.
Anyone seen those expanding ads AdSense introduce in Mar?
| 3:40 am on May 30, 2009 (gmt 0)|
> Anyone seen those expanding ads AdSense introduce in Mar?
I don't know if we're talking about the same thing, but I've seen a bunch of extra space surround my ads and actually alter my layout to make it fit. I don't care much since it doesn't mess up my layout too much, but I find that and the increase in font size an interesting development. Unfortunately, my daily AdSense earnings continue to be struggling along.
| 3:49 am on May 30, 2009 (gmt 0)|
Play_Bach; The expanding ads actually get bigger when you click on them, but you don't get paid for that click. The visitor has to click on the expanded version of the ad and go to the adertisers website to get paid.
2 clicks, only the second pays. Kind of like how adlinks works.
Is that what you're seeing?
| 4:10 am on May 30, 2009 (gmt 0)|
Now that I think about it, how would we even know if the expanding ads are running on our site? Isn't the only way to know for sure to click on the ad?
Do they have a special label of some kind?
How do those 2 clicks affect our CTR?
Are they both counted?
| 3:31 pm on May 30, 2009 (gmt 0)|
|Do they have a special label of some kind? |
I'm not aware of having seen any AdSense expanding ads, but the expanding ads that I've seen from other providers have had labels.
| 4:21 pm on May 30, 2009 (gmt 0)|
To ASA - I'll be happy to have skyscraper 200*600. I use to have blocks 200*200 & will be glad to mix them with such skyscrapers because of site design
| 5:48 pm on May 30, 2009 (gmt 0)|
@ASA: I really like moTi's idea of letting us set the background color to transparent.
| 2:57 am on May 31, 2009 (gmt 0)|
please add more ad sizes like 600(800) x 100(200) or so
| 5:55 am on May 31, 2009 (gmt 0)|
I love wish lists so here goes ..
Ads in a circle
Ads in an Oval shape
I mean the border is a circle or an Oval not the text..
| 8:10 pm on Jun 1, 2009 (gmt 0)|
I've just sent along your ideas to the team that works on ads formats. They're always happy to hear from you.
| 6:49 am on Jun 5, 2009 (gmt 0)|
I think 468*120 (double the height of the standard 468*60) would be interesting. So many older layouts have been built with those classical dimensions in mind, that's one way to have something with the power of a rectangle, easily inserted in those layouts.