Ads - (1) 300x250, or a 160x600 and 120x600 skyscraper?

Do you have a question? Post it now! No Registration Necessary.  Now with pictures!

Threaded View
I know that this will depend on a lot of variables, but I'm hoping to hear =
from others that have made a similar choice.

My site currently has a 160x600 skyscraper on the left, and a 120x600 skysc=
raper on the right (both are images, not text). The 160x600 generates about=
 $1.25 per click, while the 120x600 generates about $0.78 per click. The 16=
0x600 has more than twice the clicks as the 120x600, though, so the average=
 PPC between the two is $1.09.

I'm doing some design updates, and it has been suggested that I replace the=
se banners with a single 300x250 block on the left. This would take up abou=
t the same amount of width, but would give room underneath to showcase othe=
r site features.

What do you guys think? Is a 300x250 ad more popular with advertisers? And =
if so, is it likely to generate as much revenue as the other two banners co=
mbined? There's no real way for me to test this without building it and try=
ing, but then I risk a lot of time on a rebuild that results in less money.

Re: Ads - (1) 300x250, or a 160x600 and 120x600 skyscraper?

Jason C wrote:

Quoted text here. Click to load it

If it doesn't work out, restore your backup.

Aside:  I've been looking at the WWW since it was the youngest of
infants, and have never once clicked on anything that even remotely
looked like an "ad" - especially those that take the entire left third of
my browser window. Those usually generate a click of BackButton.

   -This space for rent, but the price is high

Re: Ads - (1) 300x250, or a 160x600 and 120x600 skyscraper?

Quoted text here. Click to load it

If only it were so easy! LOL  I would hate to spend the next 3-4 months wor=
king on a new layout and such, only to have to abandon it after losing mone=
y for a month.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Interestingly enough, I am almost the exact same way. I rarely, if ever, cl=
ick on ads.

A little over a year ago, though, I implemented AdSense on my site, though,=
 with the thought that, hey, an extra couple of hundred bucks can't hurt. B=
ut now, I bring in about $5,000 a month from it! As my company is growing, =
PPC ads have definitely become a large part of the budget plan.

Facebook's ads are 275px, but are on the right. With a 160 and 120 skyscrap=
er, with a 5px buffer on each side, I'm already using 300px of the page for=
 an ad, so I'm not sure if combining them to one column would have enough o=
f an aesthetic change to cause a loss in traffic? Something to think about,=

Re: Ads - (1) 300x250, or a 160x600 and 120x600 skyscraper?

Quoted text here. Click to load it

You mean twitter and facebook feeds, etc. The question is how much value
those give to your visitors, maybe much less than you think: /

John Bokma                                                               j3b

Blog:        Perl Consultancy:
Perl for books:

Re: Ads - (1) 300x250, or a 160x600 and 120x600 skyscraper?

On Sunday, November 20, 2011 1:17:01 PM UTC-5, John Bokma wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Well, no, definitely not Facebook and Twitter feeds! I have yet to figure o=
ut how sending people to another website is supposed to make anyone money (=
other than Facebook and Twitter, of course).

I was thinking more along the lines of following the format that's becoming=
 more common; I've read articles on websites with a large block ad on the r=
ight side, then beneath the ad, there are a series of links to other "simil=
ar" articles.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

True. But right now, the space is already being utilized 100% for an ad, so=
 my thought was that, if a shorter ad can generate the same (or better) rev=
enue, then it would leave more room to highlight other "hot topics", etc. A=
nd, with one column ad instead of two, the page might not look so ad-heavy.

But, it all boils down to money! If it's going to generate significantly le=
ss money, then it's a bad idea.

Site Timeline