Forum Moderators: martinibuster
Here is the quote, "Google will soon be expanding its image ad program to include a wider variety of creative formats. We'll be accepting animated GIFs from a small test group of advertisers, and you'll be able to display these ads on your pages!"
I'd be interested in how many of you use image ads and whether this expanding of Google’s image ad program will cause you to reevaluate your current position.
Animated GIFs are another story and if they do come to be, then I'll definitely turn image ads OFF. I don't like any ads that move or blink.
I've been permitting image ads to show for some time now, though they seem to rarely make an appearance.
Ditto. I saw a few in the early days of image ads, but I haven't seen any in quite a while.
Animated GIFs are another story and if they do come to be, then I'll definitely turn image ads OFF. I don't like any ads that move or blink.
For me, it depends on what Google considers to be an acceptable animated GIF. A bit of movement (as in a tagline appearing after the initial ad) is okay, but I draw the line at blinking banners. I'll probably wait to see what others report (or what I find on my site) before deciding whether to turn image ads off, though.
I haven't heard good things about image ads generally and haven't experimented with them. And don't think there are in any the subject areas covered by my web site.
Even if they, say, DOUBLED your CTR?
On top of that, We have a page which gets a graphic ad pretty frquently. I've been trying to figure out the payout ratio of when GAd puts on a single graphic ad vs. 4 text ads. It appears to be around about 2:1. (i.e. payout for the graphic = 2x the average of the top 4 ads.)
Even if they, say, DOUBLED your CTR?
LOL, I'd probably never know. But if I did know, yes, I'd probably still turn them off.
I tend to agree with what EFV said, if they were very simple animations I might go for that. But unless Google let me see the ads in advance, and be able to select only those I felt comfortable with, there is not much chance of them appearing on my site.
And I have no expaectation that Google will give publishers that level of choice any time soon.
I should also indicate that the quality of the image ads appearing on our site has been excellent and only from major national US brand names firms.
Even if they, say, DOUBLED your CTR?
Not likely, but you can bet I’d have to re-evaluate my current position on not using them.
Yes, even if it animation tripled my CTR. You can make a lot of money spamming, too. Money isn't my bottom line. *First* I try to give the user a good experience, and *then* I see how I can monetize their visit, without infringing too much on their experience. Everyone draws the line in difference places; animation crosses the line for me.
The real scandal here is why Google doesn't give us the option of accepting static banners but not animated ones. My guess is that they didn't bother to do five minutes of market research before rolling this out. If they had they would have seen that a healthy percentage of their publishers are going to be turning image ads off now, as evidenced in five minutes in this forum.
If they had they would have seen that a healthy percentage of their publishers are going to be turning image ads off now, as evidenced in five minutes in this forum.
They probably know from experience that very few publishers will bother to change their accounts' default settings.
They probably know from experience that very few publishers will bother to change their accounts' default settings.
Yeah, I even forgot I had image ads turned on. And like many folks here I've never seen or happened to notice one on any sites,let alone my own.
I think the default is actually turned ON for advertiser (at least used to be).
>I've been permitting image ads to show for some time now, though they seem to rarely make an appearance.
Seems like the CPC for Google is most likely generally lower also since there are far fewer advertisers utilizing the image ads. This is of course speculation, but from an advertiser standpoint our image ads have generally been lower priced than text based content ads. Perhaps G is paying a higher percentage AT THIS POINT to promote the image ads?
Has anyone here ever succeeded in shooting the duck? ;)
My pages are almost entirely text, mostly 1-3k in size, the up to one second lag until the Adsense ads display is already very noticeable. Graphic ads up to 50k in size would mostly be ignored if they arrived many seconds later.
Ads by
Ads by G
Ads by Goo
Ads by Gooooooo
Ads by Goooooooooooooooooooog
Ads by Goooooooooooooooooooooooooogle
;) I think Google is finally moving away from its "one size fits all approach" I was surprised when they went for image ads in the first place, animated ads will bring a lot more advertisers onboard - although I think that Google should set their limit at under 50k. Just my 2 cents.
As a CPC campaign manager, I think I would not use the ads based on the conversation here. Why would I want to use an ad that a lot of websites would [probably] block? Besides, we are a high end IM provider. When we sell an ad for a client on a partner's site, we craft our ad to fit the look at feel of their site. I can't imagine how I'd create an animation that would be universal and not terribly annoying. Images might be useful for brand recognition, but could be VERY annoying if they were animated!
As a CPC campaign manager, I think I would not use the ads based on the conversation here. Why would I want to use an ad that a lot of websites would [probably] block?
Don't forget that a majority of AdSense publishers don't participate in this forum (or any other). A lot of publishers may not care one way or the other about image ads--whether they remember them or not.
For what it's worth, the image ads that I've seen on my site have all been for high-profile travel vendors. I think the appeal of image ads will mainly be to the kinds of advertisers and ad agencies that turn up their noses at anything resembling a classified ad. :-)
