Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 18.104.22.168
As far as who got invites, my first guess (and it's just a guess) was that the video ad solicitations were volume-based, i.e., sites with high impressions got contacted and low-volume ones didn't
...I suspect that they [AdSense] don't always realize that we as publishers have to think about return visitors, bookmarks, getting unsolicited links from government and educational sites to help maintain long term rankings, etc. which are all a lot easier to accomplish for a site when it doesn't have big, commercial, in your face picture ads.
That's one of the more perceptive observations that I've read here in a while. Publishers whose sites would have a reason to exist without AdSense ought to tape that remark to their refrigerators and memorize it as insurance against letting the tail wag (and weaken) the dog.
I don't think video ads necessarily make a site look like trash. Still, like you, I tend to be conservative when it comes to using the ad format du jour, whether it's popups and popunders (the preferred "annoy the reader" format of a few years ago) or the Pointroll, Eyeblaster, etc. stuff that the big corporate sites happily use today. If I thought that Google could supply video ads related to my topic (travel), I might be interested, but I don't think that's likely to happen soon--at least not on a regular basis.
Got the invite, too, and share the above sentiments. I refuse all Adsense ads except text links, so I'm certainly not inclined to add video ads. I haven't seen the research data on video ads online, but I personally find them very annoying, and usually leave a site with them or scroll down the page. If you're trying to read text in an article, for example, anything flashing (gif) or moving (video) is annoying. If you're on the page just to scan info, not so annoying, but for articles, it's ridiculous.
My main site will not allow the rectangle block ads and maintain a good design, so I'm not going to change anything. I'd heard that ad unit size was successful for many, but didn't change from another size I've been using successfully above the fold.
I don't believe for a second anyone at Google who reviewed our sites (if indeed they were reviewed) took the layout or page design format into consideration. These issues are unique to each site.
Furthermore, the email I received never even addressed the significant issue of whether the big advertisers who want the rectangle ad units are businesses in the same industry. I'm not going to set up video ads for firms that are irrelevant or offtopic. Since video ads are fairly new, it's unlikely many firms have even made them yet. Presumably just the production of the ads is not cheap.
Yesterday I was coincidentally looking into joining the program of Advertising.com, which seems to do video ads. The first question I wanted to ask them before signing up was whether they served any relevant video ads for my industry.
I think it's disrespectful or unprofessional of Google not to show more thought and consideration before sending out the email offer. We are supposed to make changes which could take hours or days if each page on sites with hundreds of pages has to be changed manually just because it might work, because advertisers might be relevant to the site, or may stop advertising after a week or less, because there may be enough firms with video ads ready to stream, and visitors may like video ads?
I am very sceptical about what video ads would be shown. Google wants us to trust them with blind faith that they will be relevant--this from the company that lets MFAs litter cyberspace with irrelevant junk ads. Let's see the list of companies which want to use their new CPPP.
This offer seems like a new idea that should be tested for months in Beta first, but Google is skipping a very important step which could waste a lot of people's time and money. If anyone wants to test it, don't forget to save copy of your original pages, so you can revert back if necessary. There's a good chance you'll want to return to your original work.
[edited by: potentialgeek at 3:38 pm (utc) on Jan. 27, 2007]
The 300x250 is becoming the de facto standard for display and video ads and certainly seems best suited to video, so it makes sense for G to go with that unit size.
BTW, we have a ton of video ads from other ad networks on our site and, personally, I think they look great. I sometimes have trouble understanding the anti-ad bias in this forum. Advertising makes the world go round, at least the publishing world.
Furthermore, the email I received never even addressed the significant issue of whether the big advertisers who want the rectangle ad units are businesses in the same industry. I'm not going to set up video ads for firms that are irrelevant or offtopic.
Whether it's a significant issue probably depends on your site, your audience, and where or how the ads are used.
On a newspaper, portal, or other general-interest site, for example, ads for "irrelevant or offtopic" businesses are more likely to be the rule than the exception. That makes sense, because (to use an extreme example) a video ad for GMC trucks or H-P computers is likely to be more useful and acceptable next to a story about a roadside bomb explosion in Iraq than an ad for bombs or body armor would be.
Things are a bit different for a trade or enthusiast site, where ads would normally be expected to tie in with the site's general topic or theme (though not necessarily with the topic of a specific article or page). Still, even then, ads that fit the site's demographic might be appropriate despite seeming "off-topic." (Magazines like CONDE NAST TRAVELER and TRAVEL + LEISURE carry ads for expensive cars, jewelry, perfumes, etc., so why shouldn't luxury-travel-for-millionaires.com?)
Yesterday CTR went down 23%, eCPM down 31% and earnings down 37%.
The program is brand-new. It could be several months (or more) before anyone can measure the Custom Placement Packs program's success or failure.
If you don't want to risk a little blood, stay away from the bleeding edge. :-)
...don't always realize that we as publishers have to think about return visitors
Adsense/Yahoo ads taken as a whole, have zero class associated with them. They detract from the asthetics of web design and they contribute to the notion that the internet is merely a place for finding "cheap stuff." They reduce a company marketing $10 million dollar ocean-front condos to the level of a guy selling a used lawn-mower in the classified section in one of those free weekly newspapers you see laying on the sidewalk.
The biggest hurdle I've had is in trying to work Adsense's lame ad formats and appearance into something that doesn't look like a third-rate game site reject.
It would certainly be nice if their "largest brand advertisers" whose gluteus I am proceeding to kiss with these 300X250's, was something with a little design forethought associated with it.
Adsense/Yahoo ads taken as a whole, have zero class associated with them. They detract from the asthetics of web design and they contribute to the notion that the internet is merely a place for finding "cheap stuff."
Tell that to THE WASHINGTON POST, THE NEW YORK TIMES, and the other "big media" sites that use AdSense ads.
AdSense ads can add value for the reader, just as "endemic advertising" in trade and enthusiast magazines adds value for the reader. A perfect example would be an ad for a specialized cruise travel agency on a review of an Elbonian Waterways Barge Line cruise. The reader's interest has been whetted by the review, the reader wants to check cabin availbility and prices, and the travel agency's ad offers a way to fulfill the reader's need.
To change to the new format required a little individual work on each page so progress was slow. Over yesterday and today I have converted 30% of the ads on one site. Hey presto! Looking at the stats over the last 24 hours my revenue has tripled, not doubled, tripled. The CTR is astronomical compared to before as is the CPM. Truly astonishing. I suspect this has absolutely nothing to do with the Google program, just the change to the ad format and where it has been placed on the page.
No longer will I be the shrinking violet on my pages, hard, brash and big obviously work better. Thanks Google, I have learnt the lesson!
@jk3210 is absolutely right. Google need to change the way the ads look like. You should be able to do that yourself. Bigger companies like Washingtom Post and other that have Adsense are special publishers with special code and what we get is just the "left overs"
I use the 300x250 adblock on at least 1,200 pages of my approximately 1,500 page site.
According to Google Analytics over 80% of my visitors have their monitors set at a 1024x768 or higher resoultion.
So unless they are using a shortened height window most of them can see at least most of a 300x250 adblock. Apparently the "rect review" wasn't much of a review. I wonder if the even looked at the sites them or just at adsense stats.
At any rate it seems to me that editing settings for 20 or so channels so they include the placement data is all I'd have to do. But I'm not doing that at the moment anyhow.
I got that email only for my BIGGEST website with LARGEST traffic.
Note: since the site involved is a forum, it typically has a very low CTR (.20%), so I imagine running cpm ads has a large positive impact.
I got that email only for my BIGGEST website with LARGEST traffic.
If they did it based on website traffic they probably also looked at the numbers from Google Analytics because the website invited for this program was only using AdSense on just about 5% of its pages and I removed AdSense ads completely about a week ago. I guess it is automatically generated email sent to most of the publishers and they are just trying to build network for future image and video ads.
I think when we sign up with AdSense Custom Placement Packs it says to wait 48 hours for the ads to begin showing. Also Google may have not yet began featuring some of (y)our sites in more of their advertiser packages. Still, 24 hours after placing 300x250 ad, my homepage often gets only one or two text ads on that space leaving the space above and below it/them blank and makea my site look like trash. You may ask how my Competitive Ad Filter is doing, well I have about 10 sites maximum in there, that's all. Also those skyscraper ads have only one ad most of the time so the first fold often has blank space on the google ad. Still, the earnings did not go dow much 24 hours after I placed three 300x250 boxes on 3 different pages, but the ugly look definitely not going to stay there if Google does not fill up the space soon, something else will or will have to redesign the site again to get rid of the 300x250 or to move it to the bottom or below the first fold as the least.
one thing to think about ..in the travel sector ..( specifically thinking about ads selling cruises )..presumably one might get videos of moving sea ( on pages that are not about cruises ..but are about countries to which one can arrive by ship, amongst other forms of transport ..European countries with mediteranean coasts come to mind ) ..I know at least 3 people personally who feel physically ill if they watch moving sea on TV ..
similar phobias may well be "tripped" by other video ads ..spiders come to mind ..but phobias are many and varied and some are very very obscure ..surfers may well not appreciate coming face to screen with theirs due to sloppy targeting ..or just "no-one would have thought of the phobia" ..
this used to be something we did allow for and try to avoid in print advertising way back in the 70's ..specially spiders and other multi legged critters ..such as photos of crabs and lobsters not being in the foreground in articles on restaurants ..
BTW mods or admins might want to add the missing "p" in the word after "messy" in neonriders post #:3233700 ..and thus prevent WebmasterWorld turning up for unwanted keyword searches ;-)( surprised it got past the bad word filter even though obviously inadvertant ) ..and then remove my reference to it from this post ..to save confusion ..
edited typos and for clarity
[edited by: Leosghost at 12:09 am (utc) on Jan. 28, 2007]
I knew this would happen. The only reason I changed the whole thing was because I thought I was really chosen from a select few. Now I realize that this the case, so I won't ever bother with it.
But first I need your opinion guys. Is moving back to 336x280 worth it? What do I have to gain from all this?
[edited by: Visit_Thailand at 3:53 am (utc) on Jan. 28, 2007]