Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 22.214.171.124
"best CTR comes from Graphic Ads"
It suprised me, but this is also true for the content ads I run.
On average, my image ads are roughly 2x-3x above the text ads in CTR and conversion % is about the same.
The thread, titled "Content network usual CTR," is at:
despite what google says about only displaying them when they pay more than contextual ads for that page given the nature of clicks for that page etc, i think that is bul*sh*t, they can't even get their algorhythms right for suitable contextual advertising, search engine positions or smart pricing so i don't see how they can individually analise every page of every webmaster's account and work it out.
after many experiments over many months, i know that for me, image ads suck and always result in a dip in earnings compared to the text only option.
I did my part and tried to give image ads a shot when they were first introduced and went back to "text ads only" rather quickly. It's my impression that because few advertisers bother to create graphic ads that the bidding on graphic ads is not as competitive.
If I'm wrong and things have changed (ummm, if some of you are having better success with running both type of ads) then I have no problem kicking the tires again.
For some publishers, image ads will increase earnings; for others, they may decrease earnings. The only way to make an educated guess is to test--and even then, it's probably a crapshoot, because there are so many other variables that can influence the results.
In my opinion, it call comes down to what you think will work best for you. For me, the decision was easy: I already have display ads from another source, so I turned Google's image ads off to minimize visual clutter and protect my existing display advertisers. But if I didn't have display ads from another source, I'd probably leave Google image ads turned on just because Google is in a better position than I am to determine what's likely to yield the most revenue from the "Ads by Google" box.
I have a screen grab of an ad that was running on my site that is a regular 160x600 virticle ad that had a "Gold Egg" in the top section of the ad. The "Gold Egg" took the place of the top text ad, the rest of the ad block was regular text ads.
I have a screen grab of an ad that was running on my site that is a regular 160x600 virticle ad that had a "Gold Egg" in the top section of the ad
The golden egg is probably not an ad. Google has been putting an image in some of its ads, presumably to combat ad blindness. I believe they are experimenting with it, so you won't see it a whole lot.
If you think about how image ads work on the adwords side, it's pretty unlikely that the egg is an ad.
I never wrote that it was an "Image Ad" I only wrote that it was an "image". I agree that it was probably not an "Image Ad". I think it was there just to attract attention to the ad, which is against the TOS by the way.
which is against the TOS by the way
Against the tos for WHO? (or is that whom).
Maybe you can help out. Can you direct me to the specific part of the TOS that says that "google may not direct attention to the ads"?