| 3:47 pm on Oct 30, 2010 (gmt 0)|
I have always run text only ads after doing some initial testing. I too have been receiving the same message from Adsense regarding image-ads not running on more that %50 of my sites.
It very well may be a fact that the majority of publishers use text only ads, and Adsense wants to push the image ads for various reasons.
I decided to give it a try again, and will report back. So far this morning I am doing better than average for this time on a Saturday morning.
| 8:00 pm on Oct 30, 2010 (gmt 0)|
I'm absolutely convinced that turning image ads back on greatly contributed to the fact that I'm at 280% of last year's earnings (with two months to go) And the click through rate was nearly twice what it was for text ads.
Your mileage may vary. But I'd sure give it another try.
I'm also a heavy advertiser on behalf of clients. I don't pay less for my image ads. I pay *more*.
| 8:50 pm on Oct 30, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Sally up to yesterday I would have been in agreement with you. I also received that message asking me for the millionth time to add image ads and text instead of just text. I was going to ignore it but the previous days had just been too crappy so I took a chance. I set all my ads to image & text last night and by 5 am this morning I had made almost the daily average. I was shocked. Never believed in image ads. I don't know if there any auction behind the whole thing but it sure appears to be working for me. I had tried image ads by themselves before but never both.
| 1:41 am on Oct 31, 2010 (gmt 0)|
I turned on the image/text option a few days ago but no image ads appear. The text ads pay so well that maybe the image ads can't compete, although from the posts here, it sounds as though that should not be the case.
| 4:36 am on Oct 31, 2010 (gmt 0)|
|I believe that ALL image ads are CPM |
That is not accurate. Advertisers can bid either CPM or per click on image ads, and they'll compete normally in the auction with all available ads.
From the advertiser's side, at least in my experience, good banner ads get a significantly higher click-through rate than text ads with the same targeting.
| 8:28 am on Oct 31, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Netmeg how many ad unit you run per page, which size unit you use, I use only one unit per page 336x280, Text ads only. Am i missing revenue? My earning also grow by almost 100% compare to last year.
| 9:44 am on Oct 31, 2010 (gmt 0)|
I received the same message. Maybe I will give it a trial run and see the difference it makes.
| 10:28 am on Oct 31, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Same here. Tried it but saw totally unrelated ads so turned it off again. Gonna keep an eye on this thread to see what other posters are experiencing.
| 11:37 am on Oct 31, 2010 (gmt 0)|
|We've found that our publishers who show both image and text ads are able to earn higher revenues. Opting into both text and image ads increases competition among the ads... |
This seems to indicate that the increase in revenue experienced by some is not that image ads necessarily perform well, but that the increased competition for the ad space results in the revenue increase.
In theory, I guess a publisher could enable both image and text ads and experience an increase in revenue without having much of an increase in the number of image ads shown on the site.
This may also at least partially explain why Google gives us 2 universal options (in addition to individual ad options) - We can enable account-wide (1)text ads only or (2)text & image ads. But we can't enable image ads only account-wide.
| 2:00 pm on Oct 31, 2010 (gmt 0)|
ember are you using singe ad unit per page?
| 2:10 pm on Oct 31, 2010 (gmt 0)|
I wish the image ads never win the competition as they look ugly and damage the design, hate them. In my case PPC increased but CTR lowered. The overall earnings are still way better, what should i do? I don't like how the sites look. Opt-in or not to opt-in, that is the question and a serious one.
| 2:52 pm on Oct 31, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Rockyou, I use more than one ad unit on a page. If you use only one, I think you are missing out on revenue. Keep in mind, too, that placement of the ads, text or image, is key.
| 3:00 pm on Oct 31, 2010 (gmt 0)|
|Netmeg how many ad unit you run per page, which size unit you use, I use only one unit per page 336x280, Text ads only. Am i missing revenue? My earning also grow by almost 100% compare to last year. |
I have a lot of different sites with all different size ads. Mostly I use 468x60, 300x250 and 728x90. For purposes of testing, I actually don't set the ad blocks to text and image, I set one for text only and one for image only, assign them different channels, and then use a PHP script to rotate them evenly.
I don't have more than two ad units per page anywhere, and on many pages I only have one ad unit. I also usually have one link unit as well.
| 4:24 pm on Oct 31, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Could have something to do with their plans with rich media. After all they're image ads aren't they? They claim these things perform quite well and advertisers get more bang out of them. Translates into higher paying ads?
| 4:59 pm on Oct 31, 2010 (gmt 0)|
I like the use of a single ad unit, as well, because it doesn't look spammy. Every time I have added a second ad block, the results have not been that great - poor, in fact.
Judging by the responses, I may be wrong about my assumptions.
Perhaps I should try images, for a few days.
Issue #1 - I use the 250x250 square exclusively. It has the advantage of serving a maximum of 3 ads. All other rectangles serve up to 4 ads. I like getting the 3 best ads, without the 4th "filler ad".
Google has told me several times, that the 250x250 has FAR FEWER image ads available that the 300x250. I have considered this an advantage, not a disadvantage.
Issue #2 - I detest any screen movement not caused by myself. The first thing I always do when I visit a page, is shift any motion ads off screen, before I start reading. If I can't do it easily, I leave. I will not thrust anything upon others, that I hate myself. NO FLASH. Since I cannot specify static ads only, I haven't used images.
Issue #3 - Google clearly states that ALL the 3rd party ads (Google Certified Networks (now 159) are serving IMAGE ADS only. You must be opted in to image ads, to use these 159 outside advertisers. Which means you are going to be opted into Flash ads. From 159 other entities, many of which are real screwballs. No way!
Issue #4 - What do we get?
IF opted in, what % of the image ads are Flash? 20%?
What % of the image ads are CPC vs CPM? 10%?
What % of "targeted ads" are image ads? 90%?
What % of "targeted ads" are CPC? 5%?
| 5:11 pm on Oct 31, 2010 (gmt 0)|
You want a lot more control than you are ever going to get from AdSense. So maybe you should stick with what you're doing now.
| 6:04 pm on Oct 31, 2010 (gmt 0)|
We use both. We have certain ad units that are only text ads. And we have certain that are image only ad slots. They both do well. Text ads overall do better I think because typically they offer more options to the user, and there is no interpretation needed. They say what they are offering. Image ads need to often be interpreted. Especially animated ads that take a few seconds to unfold what they are trying to sell.
| 6:36 pm on Oct 31, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Netmeg - Ha, ha. I think you are right!
Esp., since we cannot even control the fonts, in spite of being told we can.
And, Google MUST display ALL their inventory. Many publishers don't want ALL their inventory - there is good stuff, and not-so-good stuff. Google lets the webmaster block the not-so-good stuff. I think that they INTEND to let us block the not-so-good stuff, and EXPECT US TO. Webmasters who don't block the not-so-good stuff, get served the not-so-good stuff. Google has a lot of not-so-good stuff, that MUST BE SERVED. Are YOU going to do it?
Actually, I like the Google policy - "let the webmasters sort it out." That's what I try to do. I believe it must be done. After all, they do give us the tools.
In EVERY case, Google wants us to believe that what is best for them, is ALWAYS best for us. How long have you been doing AdSense? Wanna buy a bridge in Brooklyn? Three ad blocks, three link units, and three search units per page? I think not. Jumpin' Jack Flash all over the place? No thank you.
| 9:04 pm on Oct 31, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Image ads work for me. Give them time, at least a couple of months to settle down.
| 9:26 pm on Oct 31, 2010 (gmt 0)|
|Google has a lot of not-so-good stuff, that MUST BE SERVED. Are YOU going to do it? |
Dunno if that was specifically addressed to me or not. But I have pretty much given up the tweaking. There's maybe ten sites in my filter, and a couple of categories (mainly because I have one family-oriented site) Other than that, I don't mess with it at all. No time, and no real control. I don't even look anymore. With interest based advertising, there's not much point. It seems to be working for me.
| 9:45 pm on Oct 31, 2010 (gmt 0)|
No, I just meant the generic "you" as in anybody.
If you get not-so-good ads, I think one needs to take action.
MANY times, I was getting ads that paid less than 7 cents, dropped all 3 ads in the block, and immediately started getting ads for over 20 cents.
I have not believed for a long time, that there is any "pure auction." That simply cannot be the case, when low-paying ads get jammed in all the time. My filtered ads are full of low-performers. You know, those ads that MUST be served somewhere. I say no. Google says OK, here are some better ones. Works for me.
I think a person can get the low-paying ads, if they let Google serve them. Just say no. Ha-ha. Seems to work.
| 10:07 pm on Oct 31, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Anybody know how to block the flash ads?
| 10:27 pm on Oct 31, 2010 (gmt 0)|
I believe that it is all or nothing.
Specifying "images" includes static ads and Flash ads. If there were a way to block the Flash ads, I would be more favorably inclined toward "images" (of the static kind only).
| 11:30 pm on Oct 31, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Yes, it's all or nothing.
I get one cent ads and I get five dollar ads. It's all fine with me.
| 4:18 am on Nov 1, 2010 (gmt 0)|
I opted in because my experience bidding on image ads as an adwords advertiser convinced me that the system will result in higher revenue for the publisher. So far it works well for me.
| 5:35 am on Nov 1, 2010 (gmt 0)|
I got the same email but have been hesitant to make any changes or do any tests because of the abysmal results I experienced a while ago when I switched to image and text ads. I switched back to text only within a few days.
Has something dramatic changed over the last year or so, or @netmeg and @martinibuster, were you fortunate enough to have picked niches from the start that naturally would attract high-paying image ads?
|You want a lot more control than you are ever going to get from AdSense. |
Just curious, why would that be?
| 6:22 am on Nov 1, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Netmeg you can remove link unit, It may help you increase ecpm. Link unit are very poor as conversion compare to ad unit for advertisers.
| 9:46 am on Nov 1, 2010 (gmt 0)|
|has something dramatic changed over the last year or so, or @netmeg and @martinibuster, were you fortunate enough to have picked niches from the start that naturally would attract high-paying image ads? |
I can't speak for Martinibuster, but many of my sites including my best performer were around long before there was AdSense. Various things have changed, including a lot more traffic. But CTR and eCPM have greatly improved as well.
|Just curious, why would that be? |
Because AdSense is what it is, and what it is is the easiest advertising system (for a publisher) on the planet. All you have to do is place a little piece of code, and Google does all the rest of the work (determining which ads to serve, serving them, what policing they do of the advertisers/landing pages, billing the advertiser, paying you) In return for that ease of use, you give up significant amounts of control over ads and earnings. If you aren't getting paid enough by AdSense, or you don't like the ads they run on your site, then you can go out and use another ad network, or go direct and find your own advertisers. The first option usually won't pay as well or reliably, and the second (or affiliate programs) could pay a lot better, but it's a lot more work. There's no particular incentive for Google to change this setup.
|Netmeg you can remove link unit, It may help you increase ecpm. Link unit are very poor as conversion compare to ad unit for advertisers. |
Thanks. Not sure where you get your information. I have a pretty good handle on what I'm doing.
| 11:08 am on Nov 1, 2010 (gmt 0)|
|I believe that it is all or nothing. |
My mistake! What I was referring to was adding the AdURL of a flash ad to the Competitive Ad Filter list.
With the text ads you can "view source" of the Adsense ad iframe and search for the "adurl=" and then block the domain. With "Image" ads especially flash I don't see a way to do this. (Adsense probably prefers it this way anyway).
|Link unit are very poor as conversion compare to ad unit for advertisers. |
At least for me Link Units produce more than 30% of my earnings. Must depend on your topic and content. Try putting a Link Unit at the bottom of your pages, near the center, you might be surprised!
Here's a tip; have a "bottom" and "top" link on all your pages (top doesn't work in firefox?)
Oddly enough having one of these repetitive display/image/branding ads might drive clicks to an adjacent Link Unit. (Does that break the TOS, I don't think so.)
These image/display/branding ads show over and over again on multiple pages as visitors traverse the site. They become a waste of advertising space. (And for small highly targeted sites the CPM ads seem to produce substantially less earnings than the PPC ads.)
| This 66 message thread spans 3 pages: 66 (  2 3 ) > > |