Forum Moderators: martinibuster
That's the best part :)
- image ads take longer to download for the visitor;
- they take more space than text-based ads (1 image ad for 4 text ads);
- how long before enough image ads exist, so they get displayed?
- how much higher will the payout be?
I would expect the payout to be about 8 times a normal click, otherwise it would be a bad business decision for the publisher. The visitors may be annoyed by (however small) the delay in page loading.
Will the various banner ad blockers block those graphical ads?
My initial euphoria is already calming down again...
Mozart
Well, I don't 'bout you but I'm getting more than double the rich media click. What a waste of time and money. I can't believe Google is going for this? Publishers must have been leaning on them. I'd be pretty shocked if this will get more revenue for us all.
I might test it out on a few pages, but again, if it comes down to displaying 1 targetted image vs. 5 targetted text pieces, its no question at all.
Geez, I've even read usability studies pointing out that people "overlook" images, no matter how flashy they are. If its something you don't want...
In the pre-AdSense days, I experimented with banners from some of my topic-related affiliate vendors for a while, and the clickthrough rate wasn't too bad. It was a little lower than I'm getting with AdSense these days, but that was probabably because the ads were targeted to my site's theme rather than to individual page content.
If AdSense can deliver better targeting than a conventional ad network or an ad-rotator script can do, the results could be fairly decent. And if nothing else, having the AdSense block rotate between text and display ads may help to prevent "ad fatigue."
My main concern would be that such ads might be even moer effective for branding than for direct response--and we don't get paid for "brand" ads that users don't click on. I assume Google will build incentives into the AdSense network to discourage low-CTR ads, just as it's done with AdWords on SERPs.
I've had banner advertisers get click through ratios of 1%-10%.
Graphicial banners *do* get clicked if they are targeted to the site and what the users are looking for.
I'd be interested to see if they have graphic advertisers in my market.
To AdsenseAdvisor:
Does this mean we can have one graphical ad code and one contextual text ad code on the same page? Or, does the graphical ad code still show text ads so there is the possibility of two ads from the same advertiser showing on the same page?
Image ads will be slow to build momentum unless google is willing to do the creatives for the advertisers.
To me it seems to much like going back to what adsense has allowed me to move from. Time will tell.
It has nothing to lose, just use the worst channels to test the image ads. I just did that.
You know... this is great advice. I have one channel with a horrible CTR. Thanks.
In theory, *I* shouldn't care about this. The sort of advertisers I draw will not find it cost-effective to make image ads. When your ads cost $.05–$.10/click, graphic design is a luxury indeed! But image ads are going to hurt my business anyway, as consumers "learn" that "Ads by Google" no longer means "Ads you aren't irritated at."
Serge and Larry deserve to be multi-billionaires. Their company is so sure-footed, who am I to imagine I know better? They must have thought this through and through. Still, it seems screwy to me.
Second, only one advertiser can be shown, instead of multiple companies at one place. Thus, exclusivity.
Big budget companies will increase their bidding war, because now there is a very strong reason to be the top bidder for the keywords of choice.
This will increase not only the top bid, but the second bid, and possibly the third and fourth. Overall, this will only benefit our EPC.
I am sure that G will soon allow us to put 2 ad units. Image ads will, by any way you look at it, improve the program, increase advertiser base, and provide more alternatives of advertisements for the websmasters.
Cheers G!
we don't get paid for "brand" ads that users don't click on
Aint that the truth. Maybe a 'pay per impression' plan is in the works.
I am yet to be sold on the new addition until I see it in action. Due to my experience with graphical ads, editorial judgement comes to mind.
Big budget companies will increase their bidding war, because now there is a very strong reason to be the top bidder for the keywords of choice.
I suspect that's a major reason for offering image ads. This will make AdSense the ad network of choice for advertising agencies and companies that want to combine traditional display advertising with the kind of targeting that's been hard to obtain until now.
To echo what kwasher said, I wonder if CPM pricing of image ads will be the next big surprise from Google?
In internet ad contents, "branding" is the attempt to argue that ads are worth something even if they aren't clicked on. "Branding" campaigns are consequently attempted by general consumer products--the sort of things that don't get a lot of searches. Put in "toiler paper" into Google, and you get advertising for cut-rate bulk providers, not Charmin. Coca-cola? Not rival sugar waters, but antiques and collectibles! Targeting is antithetical to branding.
Even if targeting worked with branding, branding is not the way to make a buck online. There was an article in the NYT yesterday about online branding ads. They were the only segment of online advertising to *decline* last year! I can't believe that Google is chasing that shrinking dollar, particularly when indiscriminate advertising would undermine their *own* brand.
Want a real use? I'll bet Amazon could generate image-based ads for all its books automatically. Take the cover image they have on file, flow the title in, add some Amazon promo copy. Voila, insta-banner. That's what will work.
I think G's comparison with a newspaper is apt. You trust a newspaper to have certain bounds, such as the separation of content and advertising. It doesn't matter to you that the newspaper is owned by a media conglomerate that owns film studios, which accept product placements and makes movies about toys.
If Google wants to see how targeting can improve graphical ad serving, they should buy a few FastClicks and DoubleClicks, and turn their superior technology loose on them, *without* compromising their own gold-plated brand identity.
It does not do the Rolex brand any good to have a bright shiny rolex ad showing on Joe's Discount Watch Advice site.
Branding isn't just about what ad is seen, but also where it's seen.
... and how often. This could be a place where G has an edge.
I'm looking forward to hearing everybody's feedback
I enjoyed playing with the new reporting features and the ability to note the difference between a weekend and a business week. Anything added to reporting is nice to have.
As an Adsense user....:-(
Not all brands will use it but that's not the point. It doesn't take many major brands / media buyers to jump onboard to add significantly to the revenue stream - if they aren't currently using Adwords at all. I'm sure many aren't using Adwords for the simple reason that it isn't glossy enough compared to press advertising.
When you see the dreadful state of some of the copy on websites, (many of them big ones) you can see why media buyers might not have been interested in putting Adwords copy in amongst it as text. Whereas an image allows them to get exposed without necessarily being 'associated' with a site.
Although as an Adsense user it looks like we can opt out, I'm not looking forward to advertisers deciding to use images. The copy isn't exactly riveting at times - can you imagine the state of the images?
But the restrictions Google has put on them has made it tough - while they follow 4 standard formats, there can be NO animation and NO rich media (again, rich media ads on average convert at a much higher ratio.)
I expect that the Google Image Ads *will* perform *much* better for these advertisers than the latest quarterly standard of 0.44% simply because they are targetted. Likely this will draw their attention as they look across their campaigns, and with any luck Google will succeed in breaking some into Adwords as well, meaning even more ads for us all to run.
The more I think about it, the more I believe its a reasonable compromise aimed at getting the best for us all.
We will play around with it in the future. Right now our biggest concern is targetting: It has been a bit off on our site, and you can see it in the bottom line. Days that the targetting is right? Everything doubles...
I'd like to turn on image ads in addition to the text ads as a test, but without making X number of pages image ads only (which I'm not about to do anytime soon), it's going to be really difficult to tell if adding the image ads wholesale improves revenue or decreases it.
As I run both AdSense and AdWords, it will be interesting to see how they work together.
A few quick concerns.
- They need to break out image stats vrs text so we can see
- 50K image for 468x60 is HUGE. That is more than double most of my websites whole page.
Long live the ad banner! Years after the funeral, it is back! :)
BZ
I don't follow the argument that all the big advertisers will jump in now that they can use graphical ads and get branding benefits. Branding isn't just about what ad is seen, but also where it's seen.
1) All the big advertisers don't have to jump in. In fact, the biggest ones may not want to jump in, because AdSense's strength is its ability to deliver niche audiences--not the kind of mass-market audiences that Procter & Gamble, Ford, or Visa can get at MSNBC or USA TODAY. To put it another way, AdSense isn't a good place to advertise Spaghetti-O's or Wonder Bread; it is a good place to advertise specialty foods.
2) It's true that "where it's seen" is a potential problem for AdSense, especially if AdSense goes to CPM pricing for graphical ads. This problem could be fixed by giving advertisers more control over where their ads appear (or don't appear) or by offering an "AdSense Select" network of human-vetted sites.
It does not do the Rolex brand any good to have a bright shiny rolex ad showing on Joe's Discount Watch Advice site.
That's true, but on the other hand, it makes more sense for a Silversea Cruises ad to appear on a cruising site than as a run-of-network banner on CNN.com.
This is fantastic for the advertiser. With graphic ads they can get an absolute load of almost free branding. They just make their ad featuring their logo or product but with absolutly (sic) no reason to click through.... From a publishers point of view its a terrible development. I can't see any reason to publish them at all.
I'm going to use caution and lots of testing before making any real commitment.
