| 6:08 pm on Nov 15, 2012 (gmt 0)|
I just checked and I have 300x600 listed too, don't know how long it has been there...
Considering my low CTR I'll give it a try...
| 6:09 pm on Nov 15, 2012 (gmt 0)|
And for the Ad Type, there are only two options to choose from, text and text/image... Can't have image only...
| 6:14 pm on Nov 15, 2012 (gmt 0)|
Removed it from my site. I know it wasn't long enough for a proper test, but I dipped my toes with it, and decided to remove it as it only generated 1 click, whereas I would have had far more than that by now with the other format.
| 6:27 pm on Nov 15, 2012 (gmt 0)|
I plan to do an A/B test to see how it performs. I think you should give it some time, a week or two to see how it's doing.
| 6:53 pm on Nov 15, 2012 (gmt 0)|
ACTUALLY once they get image ads, I don't think it will be all that intrusive on very long pages in a sidebar. I would never mix it in with content (myself) but I see that size all over the place now in sidebars on major sites. I had a Halloween (image) Amazon ad that size running for a while, and it did much better than last year.
However, the text version leaves something to be desired, definitely. I wonder if I set it to the smallest font size if it would actually serve that way. I notice Google honors my font choices only when it feels like it.
| 7:33 pm on Nov 15, 2012 (gmt 0)|
I placed it on the sidebar next to articles. I don't like the text version since it looks too spammy, too many ads. One image ad looks better to me, at least when it's next to an article.
| 7:38 pm on Nov 15, 2012 (gmt 0)|
Maybe some other time. Since removing it, I have had far more clicks from that channel.
|I plan to do an A/B test to see how it performs. I think you should give it some time, a week or two to see how it's doing. |
| 4:40 pm on Nov 16, 2012 (gmt 0)|
I'm waiting for images. As netmeg says it might be a good fit on longer pages.
| 7:27 pm on Nov 16, 2012 (gmt 0)|
I'm seeing some images now - great big one for Haagen Daz ice cream at the moment. I'd almost click on that myself. (Almost)
| 7:57 pm on Nov 18, 2012 (gmt 0)|
There is a trick to have only image ads, it's sort of a bug. Go to "my ads" and click "edit ad type," you can set the ad to show image ads only.
| 8:04 pm on Nov 18, 2012 (gmt 0)|
It's neither a trick or a bug. It was made/designed to do that.
|There is a trick to have only image ads, it's sort of a bug. Go to "my ads" and click "edit ad type," you can set the ad to show image ads only. |
| 8:26 pm on Nov 18, 2012 (gmt 0)|
I don't think so. There is no "image only" option on the page where you can edit the ad. It means someone took it from there, not wanting publishers to have image only large skyscraper. And apparently that someone forgot about the quick editing option ;)
| 8:54 pm on Nov 18, 2012 (gmt 0)|
There is an "image/rich media ads only"
|There is no "image only" option on the page where you can edit the ad. |
You cannot overtype the options.
I've not tried it, but you may be able to use the old-style code, and overtype the image size - where needed - and have it set to image only.
| 8:59 pm on Nov 18, 2012 (gmt 0)|
Ah, I see what you mean now. This occurs when you are trying to create a new 300x600 advert, rather than alter an existing one. All clear now. :)
| 9:00 pm on Nov 18, 2012 (gmt 0)|
|I've not tried it, but you may be able to use the old-style code, and overtype the image size - where needed - and have it set to image only. |
Which may be another trick(on our side)/bug(on their side) ;)
The reason why I said "trick / sort of a bug" is because it is obvious that image option is removed from ad types, and still there is a way to have it... Don't know why you didn't like it.
| 9:20 pm on Nov 18, 2012 (gmt 0)|
I guess they removed it because it is so new, and people have not had enough time to create image adverts in that size. Given time, you will be able to choose image only right from the start.
There is a lot of cost/testing involved when making a small change like that. Again guessing, but no doubt it was talked about in the meeting and was decided to just remove it from when making a new 300x600 advert. It's far quicker and cheaper to do it that way, than to also remove it from the edit advert option.
| 5:11 am on Nov 19, 2012 (gmt 0)|
|I guess they removed it because it is so new |
Yepp, that's what I thought at first too, but wasn't it available for "elite" publishers before us mortals? Anyway I decided not to push it, and currently have text/image option... So far it's not performing good... I'll give it some time though
| 9:31 pm on Nov 20, 2012 (gmt 0)|
I like the idea of the 300x600 as an image ad in the sidebar. I think I will wait until it hits the "recommended" list though.
| 5:31 am on Nov 24, 2012 (gmt 0)|
Sidebar? should I upgrade my site from the good ol' 160 wide sidebar now? hmmmm.
| 2:03 pm on Nov 24, 2012 (gmt 0)|
Well I've had it up since the first day it was available; it's been reasonably successful. Hard to tell because this is my slowest time of the year, but it has done better than the 300 x 250 that used to be in those spaces has typically done. Moderate EPCs; it's not the first ad on the page, so other ad units get better paying clicks.
Mine's in the sidebar and only on pages that are long enough to support it; I sure wouldn't put it in with the content or use more than one on a page. And for what it's worth, on all my pages and on all my sites, it ends up being below the fold, after my FB box and search box and some other widgets.
If you're going to use it, play it safe and ease into it.
| 2:10 pm on Nov 24, 2012 (gmt 0)|
Good advice netmeg. When I do try it it will go below the fold on my pages as well.
| 3:37 pm on Nov 24, 2012 (gmt 0)|
The 300 x 600 is old and outdated already...LOL. I'm looking at what appears to be a 300 x 900 on the Home Page of the WSJ. Doesn't appear all the time but when it does you notice it.
| 9:20 pm on Nov 25, 2012 (gmt 0)|
|but it has done better than the 300 x 250 that used to be in those spaces has typically done |
300x600 compared to 300x250 = 2.4 times more screen real estate, which is a scarce resource. if content quality and user experience means something to you, you should demand considerably more yield for that space. simple as that.
| 11:53 pm on Nov 25, 2012 (gmt 0)|
That space goes to direct advertisers in season; I'm satisfied with how it does off season (and my content quality and user experience is just fine, thanks)
| 11:51 am on Nov 27, 2012 (gmt 0)|
we trialled this format out last week - the image ads look great however in text ad mode it looks awful, performance wasn't nowhere near good enough to keep it there
| 12:48 am on Nov 29, 2012 (gmt 0)|
Tried it for a week or so. CTR was about half of the 160x600 ad. This thing is just too intrusive and needy.
| 10:50 pm on Nov 29, 2012 (gmt 0)|
Don't have that size option yet...but I can't see how it would fit nicely with my layouts.
| 9:33 am on Nov 30, 2012 (gmt 0)|
Sadly the 300x600 is becoming very popular and by this time next year I expect it will be mainstream. I run ads via various agencies and also take ads direct, defaulting to Adsense when I don't have "premium" inventory. There is an increasing amount of pressure from the agencies to show the 300x600 now, and it is (generally) paying 25% less than the CPM that I used to get from a standard 300x250 this time last year, rates for which have dropped about 50%.
Personally I think there are too many agencies out there competing to stay alive, driving the prices down in an effort to get the business and dumping the results (and lower rates) on their publishers - but that's another discussion!
They can look good. I'm running one in the UK in my right sidebar at the moment. It has a video playing in the top half of the unit (with sound disabled until requested) and a survey / social section beneath. It really draws your attention.
If you think the 300x600 is bad, look out for the 300x1050 - two agencies have mentioned that they are beginning to sell that size and asked whether I will run it. Again it would show a series of items from the same advertiser - perhaps a video, a survey, some info, a big image - all spaced out within the stack. The rates I have been quoted for this are surprisingly disappointing given the amount of space it would take up on a page.
In my opinion both sizes can work, but only with the web-magazine-style layout you see on major sites (two columns, content in 600px and ads concentrated in 300px sidebar), and preferably image only.
The whole 300x600 filled with text ads as screen-shotted by netmeg is daunting, but again can look OK if carefully placed to one side and if there are no other ads in the same "scroll". If there aren't enough text ads to fill the whole space, or if Adsense starts messing around with the text sizes and bolding (which I am seeing increasingly on the large rectangle unit which I show at the bottom of my page) then it looks terrible and just unprofessional.
Most requests I get these days are for ads that take over my pages. Recent examples have been ads that i) roll down from one corner and obliterate my content completely until clicked away ii) smash down from a leaderboard at the top and obliterate my content until clicked away iii) slide out from the side of the page and obliterate my content until clicked away. You can see that there is a theme here! It really comes down to how much one is prepared to sell one's soul for, in the end. The 300x600 and even the 300x1050 are kind by comparison. These days I love Adsense ads for being unobtrusive, gentle and undemanding!
| 2:39 pm on Nov 30, 2012 (gmt 0)|
|look out for the 300x1050 |
This must be what I saw on the WSJ and joked about several posts above. It was exactly as you describe and BIG...REALLY BIG.
| 4:08 pm on Nov 30, 2012 (gmt 0)|
> look out for the 300x1050
Can't wait to try it!
| 9:11 pm on Nov 30, 2012 (gmt 0)|
I have lucky brand image ads coming up.
| This 72 message thread spans 3 pages: < < 72 ( 1  3 ) > > |