Forum Moderators: martinibuster
I don't think this change will make it possible to place two ads on a page without violating the TOS - at least not now. Currently you can choose between text ads and text-or-image ads, so you still can't be sure that google won't place two identical ads on your page.
Does anyone know where the image ads come from? I couldn't find any changes in my adwords account, was there some kind of beta program for advertisers or do only premium advertisers get to book image ads?
Thanks for your answers,
Bye, CF
I did not see any image on my site served by google.
I think this is only beta 4 the moment.
So is Google News, but that doesn't make it less real. :-)
If you aren't seeing image ads on your site, it's probably because the ads were just announced and we'll have to wait a while before there's a supply of graphical ads for more than a handful of keywords.
Hi,
I just saw my first image ad on my site.
It caught my eye for a second, but it's just another banner. Unless EPC is much better than it has been with text ads, it probably won't earn as much.
I've been seeing one on my site. It's going to be interesting to see what it does. I don't have tracking installed so, I'll just have to wing it and see what I can figure out from it. I'ts pretty persistant, in that it seems to want to stay there. This might well cut into my ctr. If I note a drop... nix on the image ads!
Shortz
The thing is that I have never seen this ad in the text format before. I wonder if image ads has a different criteria for matching keywords or the ad has a higher bid that pushed every other text ads aside.
15k for an image might seem like small potatoes, but with 100,000 impressions a day or greater it ads up to some serious bandwidth.
It sounds like so far enabling image ads is nothing more than requesting ads that pay less and may look awful in certain layouts to be placed on your site.
As far as I am concerned they stay disabled unless i see big time $ per click
As far as I am concerned they stay disabled unless i see big time $ per click
How will you see this if you don't try them?
Shortz
the costs associated with image ads have to be greater for google, from the extra storage space to the increased badnwidth, their is no doubt image ads will cost more to maintain. Does this mean a higher bid amount required by publishers or a larger cut for google?
The additional bandwidth costs are trivial compared to the opportunity for increased revenue. In any case, such bandwidth costs are likely to be lumped in with Google's overall costs of serving ads rather than accounted for separately, because Google wants to encourage--not discourage--the use of image ads by publishers.
I'm curious how they'll do, but I predict it will be a huge bust. If I wanted to run banner ads I'd jump into a time machine set to "1997" and do so.
There's nothing with banner ads; the only problem is how they're used. Most banner ads are run-of-network advertising, so it's inevitable that they perform poorly as direct-response ads. After all, how many readers of a Washingtonpost.com article on the Iraq war are looking for a "Better than Botox" beauty prduct at any given moment, and how many readers of an About.com travel site about Japan or South America are in the market for a dating service?
Banner ads can--and do--perform quite well when they're targeted.
personally i still prefer the text based ads, easier to load, nice to read and dunno why but like it much better as both a surfer and publisher.
How will you see this if you don't try them?
No, the question is: how will you see when you try them?
There doesn't seem to be any way to measure the ctr of image ads.
AdSense banner ads will be a huge failure for Google and a waste of space for AdSense publishers.
We'll see. I doubt it.
The below average image quality of amateur banners leads to pathetic CTR.
Remember, Google doesn't just use bids when determining which ads to display--it also takes clickthrough rates into account. Ads that don't perform will give way to ads that do.
In any case, "amateurs" aren't the target market for image ads (of which banners are merely one format, by the way). The ads were introduced to meet the needs of advertising agencies and mainstream advertisers who aren't willing to settle for text-only advertising. Image ads will bring more such buyers into the marketplace for contextual ads, creating upward pressure on bids and more revenue for both Google and publishers.
No, the question is: how will you see when you try them?There doesn't seem to be any way to measure the ctr of image ads.
Other than try them and check ctr and epc... ctr seems about average for me since implimenting them, epc seems quite a bit higher. I think they are maybe a good thing.. We'll see, time will tell..
Shortz
I won't be running the graphic ads on my sites because I can't afford to subsidize free branding campaigns. I wholeheartedly believe in charity, but certainly not for advertisers.
Our experience has shown that well targeted banner ads can get good CTRs. We have banner campaigns both from different ad networks as well as our own set of advertisers. The run-of-the-network ads from the ad networks only get 0.2 percent CTR every month; but the ads from our own advertisers -- especially those who have learned how to create good banners -- has been able to get as much as 2.3-4.5 percent CTRs. Why? Because their ads are targeted to our own audience.
So I'd rather adopt a wait-and-see attitude rather than declare that image ads for Google will be a bust.
On properly tarketed sites, I would expect this could make a good deal of money for the publishers.
Would this work for all my campaigns? No, but for this one it seems like a much better fit than three small lines of text.
Perhaps you might try running the graphic ads with an A/B split test, EFV. Create a channel to track the results. I'll put $50 on the table that the graphic ads will underperform the text ads in terms of CTR and overall revenue. :)
It's a bit early for A/B split tests, because Google has very few "image ads" in its inventory at this point. (I have yet to see one on my site, and I'm in a commerce-heavy sector.)
I'd guess that it may be six months or a year--maybe more--until the benefits of image ads become clear, because (as I mentioned in an earlier post) the target market for such ads consists of ad agencies and mainstream advertisers who aren't currently using PPC. Google is thinking ahead and planning for growth, not just limiting itself to harvesting the same old low-hanging fruit.
I won't be running the graphic ads on my sites because I can't afford to subsidize free branding campaigns. I wholeheartedly believe in charity, but certainly not for advertisers.
That's a valid concern, but don't forget, Google doesn't want to subsidize free branding campaigns, either--which is why ads are ranked according to their bids and clickthrough rates, not just according to their bids. I suppose it's possible that a marketer could devise a low-CTR branding campaign for obscure keywords that attract very few ads, but it's hard to see what the point would be when the bids for such ads would be minimal.
Image ads, as they now stand, will be a loser for publishers and a winner for brand-building skinflint advertisers.
Consequently, it will be a short-term loser for Google.
Google will eventually switch to a blended CPM/CPC scheme for the image ads, sharing some of the CPM fees with the publishers. This would be a fair development for all.
Text - > Image - > Default
Then again, the selling point is that even the image will be targeted so I guess in the case of not being able to show any text ads it will go to default.
The thing is in beta anyway so no sense on being overly critical for now.
Unfortunately I don't expect many advertisers to go that route. The reason I'm down on images is that they will probably look like conventional banner ads and get ignored.
Not game to take the wager, EFV?
I don't gamble (I'm the kind of person who finds casinos and lotteries boring), so my unwillingness to take your bet has nothing to do with a lack of conviction. :-)
The great thing about AdSense is that you can easily see for yourself what works or doesn't work, and you can use or not use image ads as you see fit. As for the question of whether image ads will or won't be successful for publishers (and for Google), that's something we won't know for quite a while yet.
Some of the factors include:
1) How well the ad is targeted to the page(s) where it appears.
2) The quality of the ad. (Creating effective graphic ads is not the same as writing copy for text ads, just as creating effective magazine ads, billboards, or TV commercials isn't the same as writing catalog copy.)
3) The nature of the product or service being sold. (A graphic ad for home mortgages or mutual funds probably won't be any more effective than a text ads, but a graphic ad for a cruise line, a destination, or Victoria's Secret might be. IMHO, a good rule of thumb is to ask yourself what display ads for your product or service look like in newspapers or magazines: If established advertisers in your field are using all-text ads in print, then it's reasonable to assume that text will be more effective on the Web.)
FWIW, I suspect that many of the people who are pooh-poohing "image ads" are the same people who have questioned the value of "content ads" as opposed to search ads. Such advertisers, who represent the AdWords installed base, aren't the target market for graphic ads. Google image ads are directed at a larger and potentially more lucrative market: mainstream advertising agencies, direct-response firms, and advertisers who have big budgets and are used to paying more than the typical AdWords/AdSense advertiser pays for leads.
[Edited to add:]
You mentioned branding. Certainly that's one reason to run graphic ads, and it's a reason why larger advertisers may be willing to bid more for graphic ads. (A higher rate per click may be justified by the branding benefits derived from the ads that don't get clicked on.)
However, it's important to remember that brand identity works both ways: Graphic ads don't just create brand identity--they can also invite clicks by leveraging a respected brand in ways that a text ad can't.
A good example would be the ads that I'm seeing on my site for a British airline. As a text advertiser, the airline is competing on the same level as MomAndPop.com. As a graphic advertiser, that airline can make its usual offer ($50 off a transatlantic fare or whatever) while taking advantage of the credibility that it's built up through its reputation and its advertising in traditional media. Because prospects recognize the brand, they may be more inclined to notice the ad and respond to the offer by clicking.
The key to making graphic ads effective for publishers and Google (not just for advertisers) is to tie placement to performance. We know this, and we can assume that Google does, too.
[edited by: europeforvisitors at 1:36 pm (utc) on May 21, 2004]
