Forum Moderators: martinibuster
What about subtlety?
Anyone have any advice for implementing an effective subtle placement strategy?
Does subtlety work better for certain types of websites or certain subjects?
Does subtlety work if integrated into an overall webpage design?
Does subtle work?
How do you get it to work or why does it work in your case?
On other pages, I use a "cool spot" (on the lower right side, beneath a 120 x 600 display skyscraper).
Interestingly enough, both work well. I figured I'd be sacrificing AdSense revenue when I moved my AdSense ad unit to the lower right side on some sections of my site (which I did for a good reason), but that doesn't seem to have happened--or, if it has happened, the loss hasn't been big enough to notice.
not sure what you mean by subtle
Not featured in the eye's flight path?
Maybe more towards to last third, not the first third of the scanning grid?
Maybe placed in a way that you only get to the ads IF you actually read the content?
Maybe placed in a way that you actually have to look for them and that you don't mistake them for what they aren't - such as part of the website's internal navigation?
Maybe instead of a large text box a line of Adlinks at the end of an article, somewhat of a "more about this" line of Adlinks, if Google gets it right?
Maybe on a page that's somewhat visually quiet so that they might stand out "in relative quiet"?
I've seen some sites that will use a single ad, single ad block where the ad is distinct - since there's nothing quite like it on the page - and yet it's quiet . . discrete . . somewhat calling attention to itself but by an alluring whisper and not a celebrity-look-at-me ad.
Effective but subdued. I find that very interesting and likely to fit a few projects.
I still believe that ads do perform best ATF (above the fold).
I still believe that ads do perform best ATF (above the fold).
That may be true for display ads. Based on my own experience, I no longer believe that's always true for contextual text ads if your pages have content that people actually read. (Think about it: If, say, a reader has just finished reading a positive review of a digital camera and sees a dealer ad for that digital camera, wouldn't the reader be more likely to click on the ad than he was before he was "presold" by the review?)
if your pages have content that people actually read
Thanks for that confirmation EFV.
Placing large ad blocks above the fold is consistent with what expectation?
That people will read to the end of the article?
Maybe, but that just doesn't strike me as the inference serving as the rationale for the ad placement - above the fold.
If folks were actually expected to "read all that quality content" then wouldn't you expect the industry to encourage the placement of a chunk of ads at the end of the article?
Interesting: Heat map vs. quality content? Heat map wins?
Indeed, if the article was about helping people to make choices - such as where to stay on vacation - the transition from article to ad would strike me as being most natural at the end of the article.
Heat map = scanning behavior vs. quality content? Scanning wins?
The industry endorses placing ads at the top of the page - before the meat of the article - before the article is ever ingested.
Which all strikes me as a bit strangely inconsistent in an industry that simultaneously espouses the importance of quality content.
In a world where "quality content" is evangelized it all seems a bit contradictory that it isn't the quality content that authors are encouraged to "feature in the visual hotspots." It's the big box ads.
"Don't draw people in to you quality content by making decisions to exploit those visual hotspots in favor of pull-out quotes to draw folks into the article. No. That's where you should place ads."
I find it a bit perplexing. Build great content but feature ads in such placements that the very placement of the ads is calculated to draw attention away from the great content.
So, in the context of "great content" I'm raising the proposition: If it's the content that matters . . why feature the ads?
IF the content is actualy great - and emphasized - might not a more subtle approach to ad placement actually work better for people paying for those ads? Especially if great content is supposed to have something to do with better or more highly converting clicks?
Doesn't that make sense? If it's quality content that drives better exit-traffic then shouldn't you - the seller of ads - actually being encouraging the practice of giving the visitor, the clicking-candidate-traffic, time and encouragement to actually pause and read that great content?
Might the argument that "it's quality content that we're after" not support the proposition of a more subtle approach to ad placement?
I find the 2 propositions - "use the hotspot for ads" and "create great content that people will actually value and therefore read" - a bit difficult to reconcile.
Unless, of course, it's not really about great content and how great content actually drives better converting clicks.
Maybe it's all really about the money, first and foremost, Stupid Webwork? ;) I am! I am! I am!
Ironic, isn't it? Through and through and through.
[edited by: Webwork at 12:12 pm (utc) on July 25, 2007]
It was a disaster. CTR plummeted by 70%.
Then I put them below the content and put adlinks on the borders.. CTR back up.
The ads must be seen easily for what they are, to be clicked.
Above the fold Vs Below the content.
-------------------------------------
Sometimes I use both...
The disinterested click out quickly ..the interested 'read' and then click.
IF great content drives more highly converting clicks
THEN IS Google tracking the time between the ads loading and the click as part of their quality scoring, smart pricing algo?
I would have to think so.
I mean, really, if it's the content that actually matters then isn't it a fairly clear signal that a short latency between sending the ads out (from Google) and the ad click coming back (in record time) strongly suggests that the visitor didn't find the material on page all that compelling?
Ad-load, ad-click latency and quality content signals. Makes sense. What next? MFAs that rig their systems to delay sending the click back through their server? Sure, I would expect nothing less (if it can be done, it will).
I'd like to suggest the possibility that one signal I'd be looking for is latency between sending ads out and getting a click back. So maybe all those ads above the fold are sending all the wrong messages?
Maybe all the whining about getting smart-priced might be a self-inflicted wound? Maybe - just maybe - if you moved your ads around something might change? I mean, really, unless Google is reading your content what other data might signal crappy content as well as a short click latency?
Here's another interesting thought to crunch.
IF you run ads above the fold and ads below - say down near the bottom of the article - AND IF the quality of the content matters in making for more highly converting clicks - AND IF the ads that load second on the page are the lower PPC paying ads - THEN doesn't it make sense as an advertiser to seek lower placements on content pages if the quality of content is actually an important factor in whether ads actually convert?
You get that? Please try to. I may be crazy but . .. you get that?
Somebody give me some feedback on the last thing I just said, because I think I just said that IF you can target sites that place ads above the fold and also down low - at the end of the article AND IF the content actually matters (helps drive better converting traffic) THEN you would be wise, indeed, to target the lower paying contenxt ads on the content network, at least for those good content websites that place ads above and below the fold.
In other words, get better traffic for less money.
If quality content actually matters.
Ironic, but a real world business case analysis and strategy that just might turn $.03 clicks into some of your best converting traffic.
I do so love a quality bargain . . if I can find one. ;)
[edited by: Webwork at 12:29 pm (utc) on July 25, 2007]
With the advent of Referral ads, I have noticed that pages with mediocre content also Convert quite well...
Pre sales .. is the key to conversions.. as far as I see it. BTW, my EPC is stable and improving slightly as my referrals convert.. Coincidence.. I don't think so.
Why do you assume Quality Content drives conversions..?
Two reasons:
1) Personal experience (based on affiliate sales);
2) More than a century of advertising-industry history (advertisers and their agencies have long paid a premium for quality media and audiences, compared to weekly shoppers and the like).
As for why advertisers traditionally prefer placement "above the fold," see my earlier post about display vs. contextual text ads. (Display ads--a.k.a. branding and awareness ads--are bought by the impression, so advertisers understandably want to be sure that ads are seen by everyone, not just by those who actually read the content on a page.)
ADDENDUM: Also see my previous comments on audience. The quality of the audience is what really matters; the quality of the content helps to attract and retain readers who are likely to be interested in what advertisers have to sell. That's why a magazine like POPULAR PHOTOGRAPHY can charge more for a mail-order ad than a weekly shopper can, and it's why direct-mail vendors will pay more to rent the MODERN WIDGET Magazine or Platinum Cruise Line list than they will to rent a list from Occupant, Inc. or the drivers' license bureau.
