| This 66 message thread spans 3 pages: < < 66 ( 1 2  ) || |
|Google Continues Pushing Image Ads - Latest Message|
Do They Pay As Much As CPC Ads?
Here is my latest message from AdSense -
<edit> saying at least 50% of pages are opted out of image ads and advising that opted in earn more revenues</edit>
Uh, that would be 100% of the pages on my site.
(Notice the typo - "opt-in to text ads" s/b "opt-in to image ads")
The problem is, I don't believe this.
I believe that ALL image ads are CPM, and do NOT pay as well as text ads. They cannot possibly compete with the eCPM of over $10 for CPC ads. From reading this forum, I have concluded that, if opted in, low-paying image ads get "jammed in", in spite of not paying as much. There is NO "pure-auction". I believe that many threads have proven this.
[edited by: martinibuster at 4:16 am (utc) on Nov 1, 2010]
[edit reason] Paraphrased email. [/edit]
I agree with Sally that allowing publishers the ability to choose static (only) image ads and opt out of CPM ads would be a positive move.
But that wouldn't particularly make the advertisers happy. And they're the ones driving the car. The publishers are in the back seat.
|Reading almost everywhere that image ads paid less than text ads, I made myself believe it because there was no way to know, though, at the recommendation of G, I left them. |
Nonsense - of course you can know! Split test.
Create two channels, and make one text only and the other text-image
Then show the two channels on comparable times; I like the top and the bottom of the minute myself, but sometimes I do odd and even final digits of visitors IP address instead.
Then you'll be able to compare text only to image&text over time.
This 'image ads pay less than text ads' concept has to be niche dependent. You can't tell me (without test results to back you up!) that image ads will pay less in, say, fashion, while I would be hard pressed to believe that images beat text in, umm, say train timetables
|For those of you have who may have seen the latest data in AdSense beta interface, this data is now available and you can judge for yourself and decide accordingly. |
No, best as I have been able to tell, it is amalgamated across the account (I'll be happy to hear I am wrong, but I couldn't see it)
I have no use for numbers that aren't split by at least site; my sites aren't comparable and anything that combines them is useless to me.
|But that wouldn't particularly make the advertisers happy. And they're the ones driving the car. The publishers are in the back seat. |
Very true and this is obviously the case from Google's perspective. By the same token, Google has been known to budge a little. The introduction Of the Ad Review Centre comes to mind.
I'd run image ads.
They did well for me on Facebook. (till I got out bid by fat cat corporations)
How much will they charge me for an ad ?
I found revenues went up when we enabled Image Ads. I'm guessing it might be because larger companies who traditionally do flash ads / image ads prefer this sort of advertising, and with placement targeting on as well, better ads took space at higher rates, and bumped up competition. Who knows though!
| This 66 message thread spans 3 pages: < < 66 ( 1 2  ) |