moTi - 5:00 pm on Feb 6, 2013 (gmt 0)
Is anyone else seeing better results from 320x50 compared to 300x250?
well, normally more ad space for the bigger banner (here >4.5 times), more revenue. that shouldn't suprise at all, right? if i plaster my web real estate with an ad that occupies the biggest part of the screen, you bet that my earnings will rise (they should at least). so all other things being equal, you would have to compare the 300x250 with at least four 320x50s. it's all really a trade-off between short-term earnings gain on the one hand and long-term perspective on the other, that is increasing repeat visitors through great user experience, you know that.
Responsive design is unlikely to produce a design and content which is best suited to mobiles
that's my philosophy as well. i'd even like to claim, that responsive design isn't even capable to deliver a comfortable viewing experience on a set of normal size screens.
A separate mobile site takes time and effort but in the end that is what is really needed
in short: you need a webapp. and it needn't be complex at all. basic features, clever content structuring, superior usability. depends on your site, but maybe you only need an alternative layout and that's it.
combined with more reasonable expectations regarding advertising capabilities. make no mistake: earnings will be lower on mobile for the average publisher (well, they are). but you better cater to them adequately. don't turn them off with half-baked gimmicks.
it seems that the only thing that's completely acceptable is to switch the ads out in server-side code.
to get this straight, there are these two main platforms (and screen sizes) to cater: desktop/tablet and mobile.
google for: detect mobile browsers. it's easy to implement and works very well for me. the scripts detect just these two cases so you can deliver your content and ads appropriately - namely through your website for desktop/tablet and your webapp for mobile devices.