Ad units are standardized by the Interactive Advertising Bureau. This is to standardize ad sizes to avoid the creation of an infinite number of sizes being sold across the web. Here is their page with the recommended ad unit sizes [iab.net]. Google is a member of the IAB [iab.net], so the IAB ad standards will have to change by introducing the new sizes before Google can offer them.
If an ad unit is swimming in an ocean of white space or text, then one way to fix that is to avoid fluid website layouts and use a fixed width web page layout, the way the NYTimes, Fox News, and many other major websites do. This way you can control the layout so that the ads are not overwhelmed.
[edited by: martinibuster at 1:15 am (utc) on Oct. 18, 2009]
The page you showed me contains a few larger sizes that Google Adsense does not support. I would love to see the 300x600 or option.
But really, bigger ads? I thought the big rectangles were already kinda spammy.
Good catch on the X-Large Skyscraper. ;)
Here's a link to the IAB example of the ad unit [iab.net] that technipages would like to see offered by AdSense.
Should Google offer the X-Large skyscraper?
[edited by: martinibuster at 3:53 am (utc) on Oct. 18, 2009]
I currently run four of those X-Large skycrappers on my pages...
I could see that with 4 or 5 text links inside it.
I find that using 'medium' as my default font size makes my ads readable in most situations.
Have you considered mobile users in your suggestion to implement the 300x600?
I have a mobile plugin that handles my mobile users. It displays the mobile site and ads for them. It would be ideal to display the 300x600 ads only to people that have a really high resolution.
Yes! yes! yes!
Edit: Too enthusiastic earlier. I would like them, but only if their eCPM is likely to be better. They will likely be used by advertisers for image ads as they are more eye-catching.
A big image ad in a large skyscraper like that would during a big product launch offer much better visibility and branding to advertisers.
I'd like to see the 300x100 rectangle..
Oh sure....300x600 ....that's just what we need :(
Maybe Google could just make those ad blocks into mini advertorials written by the advertiser. Then all we'd have to do is provide a blank page. I'm sure G could come up with a way to generate a dynamic title and headline for the page.
Line up 3 of those 300x600 ad blocks across a page and sit back and rake in the cash!
Sure would cut down on a publishers work load.
YES ... we need 300x600.. that would make whopping amount of money..
BTW I guess premium publisher has the privilege to make 300x600 block?
So is the negative reaction to a 300x600 ad unit because it will encourage MFA publishers?
Is there a scenario where a legit publisher could use an extra large ad unit? Or is it the consensus that this size is unreasonable and should not be offered by Google?
|So is the negative reaction to a 300x600 ad unit because it will encourage MFA publishers? |
i dont think google should make decisions based on what a small percentage of publishers might do.
it is an industry-standard ad unit, and might be of benefit for some publishers (not us), and therefore i think google should offer it.
they could solve the MFA problem if they wanted to.
|...this size is unreasonable and should not be offered by Google? |
Sure they should offer it, if it's an industry standard.
Then they should do a better job of policing their publisher pool for TOS violations to take get rid of the TOS violating MFA sites, ok get rid of any TOS violating sites, even those infamous "built before AdSense" sites if they violate the TOS.
But what about MFA sites that meet the TOS, other than being "made for AdSense"? What to do about those? Anything? Nothing?
I'm guessing there are a ton of high quality content sites that have been built "just because" they could be monetized with AdSense where before it might have been very hard to monetize them. Are they to be TOSed out too?
|But what about MFA sites that meet the TOS, other than being "made for AdSense"? |
If it meets the TOS, it meets their webmaster guidelines, in which case, the site has original and valuable content and the ads are reasonably displayed as such (no 3 rectangles stacked on top of each others before some content that is way below, for example). Therefore, I wouldn't call that site MFA.
|I'm guessing there are a ton of high quality content sites that have been built "just because" they could be monetized with AdSense |
We can't know why someone built a web site so it is not a relevant issue, IMO.
|it is an industry-standard ad unit |
300 x 600 isn't a commonly-used ad size, however. It's a size that a media buyer might select for a campaign on a name-brand site like Washingtonpost.com, but advertiser demand for 300 x 600 display ads on the average AdSense publisher's site isn't likely to be high.
As for text ads, a 300 x 600 ad unit might be acceptable if it were accompanied by a lower limit on the maximum number of ad units per page. (Even Google would probably consider three 300 x 600 ad units to be excessive.)
Google AdSense Announces NEW Ad Unit Size...
Who needs website content.
<added> Why I don't like large ads? Because each and every day I'm hit with a plethora of advertising and it has gotten much worse over the past couple of years. I've seen websites where 70% of the visual was ads and I had to dig around to find what I was looking for. You can believe I DID NOT bookmark that site.
These days if I visit a site and it looks like MFA, I hit the back button quickly. My 9 year old daughter does the same thing. Imagine what the rest of the audience is doing.
Banner Blindness? Pffft, you'd be lucky if I stayed on the page long enough to determine where the banners were. There's no such thing as Banner Blindness in 2009. Many AdSense Publishers have strategically worked around that whole blindness concept. Heck, Google even recommends it.
|Is it Time For Bigger Ads? |
HELL NO! It's time for more freakin content that attracts me to your website which may in turn cause me to click on one of your camouflaged ads by mistake. Isn't that the way it works?
|I've seen websites where 70% of the visual was ads and I had to dig around to find what I was looking for. You can believe I DID NOT bookmark that site. |
On the other hand, if you were reading a story that was accompanied by one 300 x 600 ad, you probably wouldn't have any trouble finding the content, because the ad would be more like a magazine display ad instead of the usual lots-of-little-banners-buttons-and-AdSense-ad-unit Web clutter with content tucked somewhere between the ads.
|It's time for more freakin content that attracts me to your website which may in turn cause me to click on one of your camouflaged ads by mistake. Isn't that the way it works? |
That's the way it works for the "Help! I'm being smart-priced!" crowd. :-)
Personally, I just emailed G requesting they create a new 300 x 300 x 300 equilateral triangle format; my market study shows it's the best possible format (right now).
Ok, on a more serious note, I am not sure that bigger ads (by default) are the solution. How about a unit that detects the resolution of the screen and adjusts the size of the unit, and most importantly IMHO the size of the font?
Some of you seem to be missing the point about higher resolution screens. Again, there may come a day where displays are so big and cheap, a 250x250 ad will look like a postage stamp.
Look at a 160x600 ad on a 37" TV and tell me that it shouldn't look bigger.
|Some of you seem to be missing the point about higher resolution screens. Again, there may come a day where displays are so big and cheap, a 250x250 ad will look like a postage stamp. |
At the same time, some people are viewing the Web on netbooks or iPhones. Hugene's suggestion of "a unit that detects the resolution of the screen and adjusts the size of the unit, and most importantly the size of the font" makes a lot of sense, at least for sites that do the same thing.
This is definitely an interesting debate. I've passed it along to some folks here including the PM who handles ad formats.
Larger ads would be fantastic. I would try them certainly.
Hugene's suggestion of adjustable ad units is what makes sense to me.
We do not know what people will be looking our sites with. We can often adjust other aspects of a site to fit by having both "screen" and "handheld" style sheets and flexible layouts, but at the moment, there is too little we can do about ad sizes.
Great great discussion! Might it be a good idea to have among other options the choice for a publisher of a "flexible" ad size based e.g. on percentage of the page - on the Adsense side they should detect the user's monitor resolution and combine with a "fluid" layout of the publisher's site, so as to accommodate even mobile screens.
|How about a unit that detects the resolution of the screen and adjusts the size of the unit, and most importantly IMHO the size of the font? |
That sounds like an option.
Have you noticed that many websites these days look like Las Vegas? Yupper, they've overdone it. And you know Vegas is something you can usually only handle once a year. Same would apply for a website that looks like Vegas.
I don't know about you but I'm having visual issues with ads that contain movement. They are very distracting and I've found myself not using those types of sites anymore. I mean, if I'm in the middle of an article and have scrolled below the typical ATF stuff, I don't want to see any more damn ads! Especially Flash ads that are distracting my reading experience. That's like being in the library and having Ozzy performing live in front of you.
Ever stop and look at your sites from the everyday visitors perspective? Do you really think we want to see all of that? Sure, we know you need to generate revenue but you know what? Websites with all the flashy ads and very little content are not the way to do it. Not from my perspective anyway.
I do like the idea of a dynamic ad unit size based on viewport dimensions not screen resolutions. Personally I think ads suck. But, that's just me. I haven't clicked on one in years either, not from within a website, I know better.
Anybody noticed the large ads on the pages of Slate?
Essentially that is one large block of content on the left, and a large (I think 300X700 or so) ad on the right.
It does not distract me from what I am reading, and it looks brilliant for brand positioning or creating awareness of a new product. It is in my face - and still does not detract from the large amount of content on the page.
I use Adsense blocks on my page, plus a CPM ad network. Now, scattered across my pages, the actual ad area is more than what that single large ad occupies.
As long as I can make the same revenue from a large ad that takes up all that space, what is my problem? Nothing.
Would my readers have any problem? I don't think so. It works exactly like a large ad in a magazine or newspaper.
It is any day more dignified that the desperate positioning and merging that I have to do with the adsense blocks.
If I HAVE to use ads, a large ad (that can bring as much as the small ones combined do) is a brilliant solution.
|BTW I guess premium publisher has the privilege to make 300x600 block? |
Premium publishers do not have restriction on the height of ads if they are using text ads. Check ezine articles article page.
| This 34 message thread spans 2 pages: 34 (  2 ) > > |