Picture ads stink compared to text ads

[froghat]

Ok so I changed my ads around, I'm still testing, and I put a picture banner ad up and I got a bunch of crappy 3 cent and 1 cent clicks on them. Must be fewer companies who use the graphic ads. Oh well I'm going back to text! Did you guys experience the same thing?

[greedy player]

Yep image ads just sucked for me.

[greatstart]

I tried image ads once, and it was bad. Text rules!

[Cakkie]

Strange, I always thought image ads would earn you more. I'm also running adwords for a site, and have 2 adgroups in my campain. Both are using the same keywords, but the one contains only image ads, and the other only text ads.

The text ads go active around $0.20, but the image ads won't go active until $0.85. It might be something keyword related, although it would sound obvious to pay (and earn) more for an image ad (since they take more space)

[europeforvisitors]

There probably isn't a lot of competitive bidding for "image ads." I'd guess that most display advertisers who are willing to pay decent CPMs aren't buying such ads from Google--they're using ad agencies and media-buying services that deal with rep firms or (in some cases) display-ad networks.

[7_Driver]

I'm running a test on "text and images" v "text only" right now.

Results are patchy so far: Day one, text and images was way ahead, day two, way behind. Need a much bigger sample size to get a clear answer.

Google assure us that "text and images" will always produce better results over the long term.

Personally, I agree with Gary Kasparov (world chess champion for many years): "Believe it - but check it".