160x600 or 120x600?

which pays more?

[wildfiction]

I am guessing that the 160x600 skyscraper pays more (in general) than the 120x600 skyscraper because of the extra space that the advertisers have to use.

Does anybody know any different to this?

I ask because I could use either on my pages and assume that given all other factors being equal, one would go with the 160x600 because it would probably pay more...?

[ken_b]

I'm not sure I'd say the 160 would pay more. There is an extra ad in the 160 format, so there is a greater chance of getting a click from the adblock.

But that also means the extra ad is likely to be a lower epc ad than the last ad in a 120 adblock. If you get enough clicks, the lower epc might not matter.

[hunderdown]

Try them both and compare.

[Jolly_Roger]

I ran an experiment on one of my sites last year. I got a substantial boost in revenue from the 160 over the 120 skyscraper. I believe the difference is more than just the extra ad. The larger number of square inches helps, and the extra width lets people see a bit more at a glance. I don't remember exact numbers, but it seems like it was between 30% and 50% more (with identical blended color schemes and with both ads starting high above the fold in the left sidebar).

[wildfiction]

thanks guys - that's really helpful :)

[wildfiction]

Another thought: Using a 160x600 skyscraper gives Google's AdBots more options with respect to skyscraper image ads because with 160x600 you can put in 120x600 or 160x600 images but if you only have the narrow skyscraper then you cut out all the 160x600 images that could have gone there.

How is my logic on that one?
Comments....?