Image ads paying next to nothing

They suck big time

[conjo_guam]

I was praying all along to see image ads, mainly because of the layout of my website. I have added lots of lots of content and now, results seem to pay off.

But unfortunately, they are paying avg 10 cents per click in 300X250 ad layout.
Good thing is CTR is high.
I have never used text only or image only ads.
All my ads are text_image ads.

Can anybody tell me how google decides which ad is better for my website?

thanks

[sailorjwd]

I tried image ads for about 3 weeks. Put them in prime spots above the fold.

Never got more than a dime for a click whereas regular ads on the page were getting multiple dollars.

No sense losing a visitor for less than 10cents. So I removed all image ads.

[conjo_guam]

I still don't understand, why image ads have lower PPC.
They occupy more space at the cost of other advertisers and pay less.

Image ads, only should be displayed, when they bid higher than combined PPC of all text ads in that ad unit.

Also, they should have PPC and pay per impression.

Will see for another week. I can't complain on the quality of image ads. They really increase CTR.

[moftary]

Same here, best EPC for an image ad for me was 10 cents. But, AFAIR, google mentions that if you set your ad block to text/image, they would show an image ad only if its EPC beats the total EPC of all the other text ads that would have appeared in the same block. If set to image only, you can serve ads that earn you even 1 cent. Oh, isnt the minimum EPC 3 cents? Why do I get clicks that earn me 1 cent then? But that's another story..

Cheers,
moftary