Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 23.22.220.37

Forum Moderators: incrediBILL & martinibuster

Message Too Old, No Replies

160x600 compared to 300x600

     
10:33 pm on Jun 25, 2013 (gmt 0)

Senior Member from US 

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 5+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:Jan 18, 2008
posts:823
votes: 35


Anyone have any results in testing the semi new 300x600 versus the standard 160x600? Trying to get a sense before asking my IT dept to code pages for a test.
12:47 am on June 26, 2013 (gmt 0)

New User

joined:Apr 22, 2012
posts:23
votes: 0


We've done a couple of tests of the 300x600, and it's not worked so far. CTR is slightly better than 160x600, but CPC is way down. We've not stuck with it. Others might be having different experiences, though.
12:42 pm on June 26, 2013 (gmt 0)

Senior Member from US 

WebmasterWorld Senior Member netmeg is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:Mar 30, 2005
posts:12675
votes: 142


My 160x600 did better. The 300x600 was just average, and I hated the white space left because it doesn't collapse when they don't fill it with ads (specially on an iPhone or other mobile device; it's even worse)
12:48 pm on June 26, 2013 (gmt 0)

Senior Member from US 

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 5+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:Jan 18, 2008
posts:823
votes: 35


Thanks. The white space is a major issue.
2:00 pm on June 26, 2013 (gmt 0)

Senior Member from US 

WebmasterWorld Senior Member netmeg is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:Mar 30, 2005
posts:12675
votes: 142


That's the main reason I stopped running em.