Probably depends on the niche. An image ad has to beat out the sum total of all the ads in an ad block in order to run. That's #1. And #2 - I run image ads on my sites as a publisher, and I've been amazed and how much they're paying now (they used to be just a few cents a click) So all you can do is try it. I'm not sure where your information came from or how it was derived.
I manage a campaign which makes extensive use of image ads on the content network, and they perform okay for us.
We don't get cheaper clicks than for our text ads, but the CTR is higher so we get more traffic from the same exposure.
well, I was told that content network has a .01 minimum bid, so you can manually bid .05 per click and depending on your niche get a decent # of clicks.
Again, this is all second-hand from another source, but I was wondering if anyone has tried this.
When I've experimented with bids that cheap, we get a click here, a click there, but not enough to be commercially useful. Your sector might be more productive at those levels, or maybe not ... all you can do is try it and see, Netmeg says.
Much would depend on the effectiveness of your banners.
> Supposedly there are so few image ads being served that you can get ridiculously low cpc rates - sometimes as cheap as .05 or .10 per click.
The number of image ads versus text ads has nothing to do with it. Image ads compete with text ads as Netmeg pointed out. That is, ads are ranked based on bid and quality. The price you pay, like the search network, depends on what the next guy is bidding and what his quality is.
Using a CPC or a CPM model also has no effect. Google converts all to the same model (likely CPM) to make everyone equal.
When I tested text ads vs image ads on my site, I was amazed at how much higher the CTR was (almost twice) on the image ads. Wasn't expecting that. Evaluating how I can use that information for some of my clients on the AdWords side.
get creative with those images ads, they can rock it!
if you've got video media, test the click-to-play video ads too.
Image ads can be more attractive and that's probably why they get a higher CTR. They still have to have a good message however.
Netmeg's comment got me thinking. I wonder if Google adjusts for the fact that it is an image ad. If indeed the click rate is a certain factor above text ads across the board, do they compensate for that in their calculations?
It is very, very rare to get penny clicks on the Content Network. Especially with image ads. In certain niches or if you get really creative...yes, it might be possible. If you are mainstream and working with generic keyword themes and high traffic placements - unlikely.
Look into Google's in-game advertising, mobile advertising and audio advertising as possible options for low cost clicks. Most people actually avoid those types of marketing so they are wide open for the right products and/or the right promotions.
You can certainly get penny clicks on the Display Network (well UK 1 penny). Just for fun I ran an image ad campaign and got 400,000 impressions and 3700 clicks for £53.
The size of the ads is quite important, some of the sizes were getting a lot of clicks and 2%+ CTR but standard skyscraper (120 x 600) and 468 x 60 were getting poorer relative CTR more in the 0.3% range.
Google are investing heavily in becoming a leader in the display advertising market, they have done little with DoubleClick since they bought them, until now.
I don't see the trend of penny traffic continuing, so get in now with image ads.
Just for completeness the same promotion on the non-image display the traffic level was 2.6 million impressions 12500 clicks for £250 so around 2 pence a click, so twice as much money. Same promotion on search 120k impressions, 5300 clicks at around 4 pence a click.
Apologies for bringing back this older thread but just wanted to know what the conversion rates for those figures were?
Loads more clicks but were there significant differences in purchase rates?