Smaller ads or larger ads

which are better?

[Clark]

I was just thinking today, maybe having more Google Ads on your page is NOT better. If you have a themed page with highly bidded traffic, say electronics, if the top two bids are $2.00 and the bottom two are 25c, you may be giving up more money by displaying the extra lower bidded ads. Has anyone tried A/B testing to determine if showing only a couple of ads offers better conversion and more importantly, higher CPM than showing more adsense ads on a page?

[Rodney]

I think I remember reading in this forum a while back that more ads were better.

I think the reasoning was (not sure if there was A/B testing) that with 4 (or 5) ads showing instead of just 2, even though the bottom 2 ads might pay less, it gives your site 2 more chances to earn the click.

While the top 2 ads might pay more, if they are the users only choices, they might skip over them completely, and you get $0 instead of the possible lower priced click.

Or something along those lines :)

[europeforvisitors]

I doubt if there's any rule of thumb that will apply to every site, although I've done better with four ads than with two. Here's something to consider: If ads aren't available for a page's main keyphrase, having four or five "theme" ads displayed (instead of just two) will increase the chances of the user's seeing an interesting ad.

[Clark]

good points.

[ken_b]

It varies for everyone, but I get the best results from the 250x250 box that displays 3 ads.

That said, most of the pages I use that format on the ads are above the fold in a spot where the visitor can't help but see them.

[mike schmitz]

Ken - did you try the 336 size? If you have, I would be curious how that compares to the 250x250.It has 4 ads with a small font point size. I have been using this but think I will experiment with the 250x250.

Mike

[ken_b]

Mike; I use the 300x250 - 4ad block on most of my pages (1,000+). But the positioning is not nearly as prominent, because of the way the pages are laid out. The 250s are only on a handfull of pages.

Still the performance is very, very much lower than the 250x250. I mean a LOT! Keep in mind that my visitors use the two groups of pages for very different purposes. That may be the main reason for the difference.

I replaced the 300x250s with the 120x600s on a couple hundred pages for a couple weeks, maybe 50,000 impressions. Above the fold, the whole deal. I even had to completely rebuild those test pages to get the above the fold position.

The diference between the 120x600 above the fold and the 300x250 just partly above the fold was barely noticeable.

Since using the 120x600 would mean rebuilding the whole site I just reloaded the pages with the 300x250s.

I still use the 120x600s on about 30 pages, but performance is terrible compared to the pages with the 250x250s. But again that's got a lot to do with the page design and the way folks use those 30 pages.

My next move, when I get around to it, is to replace all the 300x250s with 250x250s. The positioning won't improve, but I'll pick up some space I want to use to add other stuff.

It's amazing what channels show.

[mike schmitz]

Great info thanks - I tried the 160x600 and when I replaced with 336 unit I saw 20% lift in CTR. Hoping for 10-20% lift with 250x250 from either increasted CTR ot CPC.

Regards,

M