160 wide skyscraper

is it better than the 120 thin skyscraper?

[dibbern2]

I am experiencing a decrease in CTR and sorting thru the possible causes (besides just normal AS flucuations).

One recent modification was replacing the "old" 120x600 skyscraper block with the wider 160 px wider version. Has anyone experienced a change -either positive or negative- by making the same change?

I'm guessing that the wider version will be more effective, but it appears to have the opposite effect.

Thanks in advance.

[ProTalker]

It will vary from site to site, and page to page. The only way to find out is to take identically-designed pages on your site, set up one type of ad on some of the pages and the other type on the rest, give them separate channels, and watch.

[europeforvisitors]

Unless I'm mistaken, Google claims that the 160 x 600 skyscraper is its most effective ad size.

Why not test by switching back to the skinny skyscraper to see what happens?

[bts111]

I agree with EFV, Google does rec. the 160x600. Just give it a go and see what happens.

[DamonHD]

Hi,

For me, 160 wide is *generally* the most effective, especially on the left. But ad blindness can set in in any format.

Rgds

Damon

[hunderdown]

I recently switched a number of pages from 120 to 160, and CTR increased significantly...

[dibbern2]

Thanks for the advice. As usual, this forum's people are the best.

[jimh009]

I had a positive increase in CTR by switching to the 160x600 from the 120x600. It's larger, easier to read and you get one more "ad choice" for the user to click on (5 ads displayed instead of 4).

That said, that size ad also blends in much better with my site, where-as the 120 wide ad sort of disappeared into the navigation area (my left navigation area is 200 pixels wide).

So look at your site structure first and foremost. If the ad looks good to you, it will likely increase CTR. If not, stick with the smaller ad is it is working for you.