Forum Moderators: skibum
IAB banner standards [iab.net]
related article from techweb [techweb.com]
"...the variety of shapes could pose layout problems for online publications."
That said, I must confess my love the wide skyscraper. So sue me. ;) Maybe that is because so far it has only been the realm of top-notch designers and high-profile sites. My mileage may vary after some hack unleashes 96,000 blinking pixels on my weary retinas. :o So far they have been almost print-like, featuring higher quality and less animation than typical banners. Works for me.
Not sure what to call the "rectangles". Are people really going to say "I'm making a rectangle buy" or "Design some new rectangles" many moons from now? Seems awkward.
Sounds pretty cheesy doesn't it? I hereby pronounce them "Recs" -in part because they wreck a page layout. But whatever we end up calling it, as a publisher, I have to really give some thought as to how to incorporate that in the body. The skyscrapers, I can handle... just set your right column to accommodate the widest one. As for the recs, it looks like there will have to be an inset just above the fold and right justified.
<TABLE BORDER=2 CELLPADDING=2>
<TR><TD BGCOLOR="#FFFFFF">
<!-- ad network server code goes here -->
</TD></TR>
</TABLE>
This would allow the rec to be injected into the page using SSI and the border would expand or contract to fit the rec. But, isn't there a problem getting text to flow around an inset table? I seem to recall having that problem in the past.
BTW, looking at other sites that are using recs, the minimum table size to bracket the entire content seems to be 750. I think that's the maximum width you can get in a 800x600 without having to scroll right.
Hopefully advertisers will produce their ads in all sizes, so you can pick the ones you can fit into your page.
I think the skyscrapers will be most useful from a publisher's perspective. You can put them in the right-most column, leaving your content alone in the center. I read (sorry, don't remember the source) that ads pull much better on a right-most column than on the left.
That approach works well from the perspective of affilitate programs, but it's going to get messy for publishers with large volume contracts with Engage, Burst, etc. I'm assuming we'll have different categories of ads by size. (Ugh! This is getting more and more like the print world all the time.)
Along those lines, there might need to be some survival-of-the-fittest among the new banners. Prior to the new suggestions a publisher could fit most of the standard creative units on a page (468x60 banners, various buttons, 120x240 vertical banner, text). That is no longer an option. You can't have a page with a banner, a wide skyscraper, a large rectange, and a vertical rectange all on the same page ("this page optimized for 1600 x 1200"). There are only so many pixels to go around. Either a few of the sizes die quickly, or things get really fragmented.
Quick Questions For Y'all:
Which sizes will be most widely accepted?
Which sizes will be least widely accepted?
With some tweaking, the layout could carry a 336 x 280 rec, a 160 x 600 skyscraper, and a 468x60 top banner. But we're also constrained by the time-to-load, too. You could easily be hitting 70k total for just those three page components.
I think those three sizes will be the most used, btw.
Although I really don't see the "need" for having ad size "standards". Obviously, a small site without exceptional draw needs to take their pick of what ad sizes are offered by agencies and advertisisers, as they've been doing, and large sites can come up with whatever ad sizes they want... Like those super obnoxious in-the-middle-of-the-article inline frame ads CNet is doing. (Sorry mr. Publisher sir, but right smack in the middle of an article is usually reserved for explanatory or illustrative graphics, NOT ads. Bad design move.)
I think least popular will be the vertical rectangle.
Whichever the big banner brokers pick, will win hands down.
I think there is a need for standardization, not only from banner brokers that serve many different ads to the same slots, but also for affiliate marketers who swap ads in and out for testing/evaluation.
Yeah, I know what you are saying; we could theoretically pack a lot in a page. I'm just thinking about all those pixels in terms of the combined (1) space (2) load (3) sensory overload.
It might make for some interesting "battles"... remember when the 468 banner was battling the 400 banners? We might see: <160x600 vs. 120x600> or <336x280 vs. 300x250>.
For a historical shapshot, this AdRelevance ad size report [adrelevance.com] is a good, quick read (fresh, too, Nov 2000).
I know what you're saying -that there's a danger of becoming the "all ads all the time" website if a publisher gets greedy. Point well taken. But I was addressing what might actually fit if we're just looking at it as a layout. From the webmastering side, if I can figure a way for the body of the page to flow around the rec, then the height becomes less of a concern. If I set the body to accommodate 336 x 280 and keep in mind that Engage might be delivering 240x400's in the same spot then I'd just sign up for recs of all sizes. It seems to me that -with the proper planning- many sites could handle recs in general and not really be concerned whether any given one was landscape (336) or portrait (240).
>they've been doing, and large sites can come up with whatever ad sizes they want...
They don't develop or even host the creative, they just drop the call code on their pages and let the ad server supply something to fit the spot. I have thousands of static pages, I can't go back and recode them to fit a particlar ad, that's why I have to know the standard. Better yet if I can come up with a layout that allows the page to dynamically reformat itself depending on which ad is delivered.
>those super obnoxious in-the-middle-of-the-article inline frame ads CNet is doing.
You might as well get used to them. Cnet and others have already SET this as the next ad type. Before I comment on how obnoxious they are, has anyone seen a CPM on these yet?
BTW, has anyone used IFRAMES to dynamically resize space for an insert that was right-justified?
I am also concerned that the new recs and their inherent layout problems are going to spark a rash of pop-ups.
As always, your good points are well taken. I think it will be good for minimalist and flexible designs, bad for dense and fixed designs.
>mivox> I really don't see the "need" for having ad size "standards".
Sounds like a Mac user. :)
(only kidding, of course)
"dense and fixed" ...very well put, I was thinking about those sites that are, ummm, "white-space challenged" and how they are just out of luck with this move to a larger format.
Short-term, you might be eerily accurate.
Hmmm... "rash of popups"... sounds like a medical condition
I am a little surprised they are supporting all new sizes/formats, but I think it's great.
The PR says this is effective immediately. Is anyone in this (adforce) network?
I think too many sites and ad networks are focussing too heavily on ad sizes and not enough on targetting. Yahoo! isn't getting those insane CPM rates just because advertisers feel generous. I'm glad to see Burst! adding new targetting.
People keep talking about CTRs falling despite the increase in clicks-per-user, but they seem to be missing the fact that ad sizes keep getting smaller. A 468x60 banner is not nearly as large as it was a few years ago, before higher resolutions became more common.
You've got that right. I've been reading about Burst's geo-targeting, but isn't the system for targeting already available on many of the networks, and no one is using them? On Engage, if the publisher has taken the time to construct a decent media kit, a buyer should be able to target banner placement. RON buys are cheaper and easier, but there's a huge hidden cost.
>one more reason not to use fixed-width layouts
Yes, it is... but I'm not sure I can part with old habits that easily.
Very interesting point! One I have not considered, but very important indeed.
Hopefully the new sizes will see widespread adoption and this will help with the size situation.
Salon.com Rolls Out Larger Ad Units and Readies Launch Of Premium Subscription Service [biz.yahoo.com]
I don't know much about the site/network, but regular visitors may accept the $30 annual fee for ad-free/new content. I know I would pay it for WmW.
I think it is great they are trying both methods at once, surely one of them will work.
It certainly takes the sting out of the change-up. In the past, their users have howled. This time, it's put up or shut up.
Ditto, but I haven't seen any small or mid-size publishers using them, i.e., none served by Burst or Engage.
