7 replies to this topic

[thfc1afc0]

Anybody started using these are part search strategy. What sort of CTR do you see on these compared with normal text ads. Also I guessing that the CPC is higher due to it taking up more space.

[tomsk]

If you want advise on good returns on investment and getting to the top have you thought about talking to Arsene Wenger!

[Haystack]

Not surprisingly, your CTR will largely depend on the quality of the image ads you create. It may end up being better or worse. Since it takes time to create the images, try to make them somewhat appealing and relevant to the terms you plan on pairing it with.

[thfc1afc0]

Are they more expensive CPC? as most of them take up 4 times the space I would presume on a 0.05p click they would be costing you 0.20p ???

As we don't actaully sell anything on site and we are using this purely to drive traffic to a new site. I'm keen to keep the costs down to a very small CPC.

I understand what you are saying about the type of ad, don't think that will be too much of a problem, the best performing ones are for pictures of Usher, Justin Timberlake and Orlando Bloom. And to think that us men get accused of using the internet to look at scantly clad women, the women are doing exactly the same I have have the 9% CTR to prove it

[Haystack]

Interesting question. I do know that you can get clicks for as little as 5 cents, but I don't have any hard data about head to head battles on competitive terms. My guess is that Google tries to automatically display whatever is making them the most money, so if an image ad is generating more revenue than a skyscraper of text ads, the image ad will be displayed.

While it may take up 4 times the space, it doesn't take away 4 potential clicks since most people would click on 1 or maybe 2 ads at most.

[Martin C]

Are they more expensive CPC? as most of them take up 4 times the space I would presume on a 0.05p click they would be costing you 0.20p ???

They don't cost any different to the standard Adword.

I ran them for a while and they didn't seem to do any harm, it took a while before they started to appear so I put that down to them having to be manually approved before being amade live.

I stopped using them only because I turned off the Google Ad Network content sites which must be set to on for them to be displayed.

Unlike the standard google ads where you can easily see what they look like because the image ads are only displayed on the network sites, and then only at Google's discretion, I couldn't see a way to see what they looked like when displayed.

[thfc1afc0]

Sounds good, same price as a normal ad placement. I'll have to get some ads knocked up. Although you wonder if even though they are content related whether you will get a poorer CTR just simply because of people's perception of this type of ad.

[Mort]

I have an image ad running concurrently with text ads. This month the image ad was served less than 1% of the time. Generally speaking, the CTR was about the same. The image CPC was about 20% cheaper than the text.

It may be worth a test, depending on your industry. But I'm hard pressed to add any more image ads that only show up less than 1% of the time.