29 replies to this topic

[lorenbaker]

Google, the monster of both Internet search and search engine advertising, is adding something to their AdWords system that not many expected - banners, or image advertisements. According to the Google AdWords site, it is not clear as to where the ads will be shown, however, it seems that they will be integrated into the AdSense contextual advertising system. From Google: Google image ads are matched to a webpage's content by the same proven targeting technology that drives AdWords text ads. Because of this targeting, image ads are highly pertinent to the interests of a person browsing a particular content site.

[Alan Perkins]

See Adwords Support : Image Ads for more details.

[Scottie]

Hmnn... Adsense publishers must opt in for graphic ads to be shown. Think I'll wait and see how that goes...

[Haystack]

Good find, lorenbaker.

It was a VERY wise choice by Google to make advertisers upload their graphics rather than letting them serve them off their own sites. That could have caused a TON of issues.

[Scottie]

Just got the opt-in invitation from Google...

[qwerty]

Me too. I'll try it out for a week or two, but I have my doubts. I thought the whole idea of targeted text ads was that they were obviously relevant, and they're different from banners, which everyone everywhere had learned to ignore.

[bobsledbob]

Me too. I'll try it out for a week or two, but I have my doubts. I thought the whole idea of targeted text ads was that they were obviously relevant, and they're different from banners, which everyone everywhere had learned to ignore.

Not only that, they're not as obnoxious. Because people tolerate them, they might actually stick around on your site longer.

Whereas a site with bright poke-you-in-the-eye colors eminating from banner ads will likely turn a few heads. At least I tend to quickly find the back button.

[SearchRank]

Could this be the first sign that Google is starting to bow to future investor/stockholder pressuring? I mean aren't banner ads all but dead? I do not click on them period! It doesn't matter if they are relevant or not, I just ignore them.

It is amazing to me that Google, a company that has created the most successful revenue earning advertising model for a search engine, would now go after a strategy that has failed time and time again in the past.

I guess we will have to wait and see if Google can make it work. maybe they have the Midas touch ... I don't know.

[BobetteKyle]

I agree, we'll see. I went ahead and opted into serving both text and image ads on my sites because - at the end of the day - I have faith in Google's programs. To me at this point, though, looks/feels uncomfortably similar to banner advertising.

I have noticed, however, that WSJ.com and groups.yahoo.com (in the Web based messages) have been running these types of ads for a while. So, there may be something to it.

Personally, I have had some click through success using images on Web, but the imagery supplements text copy (Could just be Karon's magic words, though ).

Gotta admit I don't really understand how these new ads will increase click throughs. It will be interesting when the image stats start coming in.

[Jbrookins]

I wouldn't say that banner ads are dead. They still work in the proper time and place. When THAT is though is up for debate. (;

That said, we'll see..I think it might give you some success if your competitors are using text while you're using an image to stick out from the crowd. However, it'll lose even that once your competitors catch on.

This of course is completely reliant on adsense suddenly seeming profitable, which is debatable as well....high CTR on potentially unqualified traffic isn't exactly a good thing.

[BobetteKyle]

Could this be the first sign that Google is starting to bow to future investor/stockholder pressuring? I mean aren't banner ads all but dead?

Hmmm.

From the advertiser's standpoint image ads can be much better branding tools than text ads (and an ad's size/shape can affect awareness).

I.e. if the primary advertising goal is building brand awareness, rather than driving traffic directly to a Web site, image ads are likely preferred. I think there is something to the old saying "a picture is worth a thousand words"...kind of like commercials. We rarely immediately rush out and buy something seen in a commercial, but over time commercials do have an impact on our purchasing decisions.

If it's the case that Google wants to become more attractive to stockholders by offering better branding tools for advertisers, I don't think it is going to work out by serving low click, brand building ads through AdSense publishers. We won't go for it (obviously) because we are being paid on a per click basis.

Edited by BobetteKyle, 13 May 2004 - 01:04 PM.

[Vertster]

While its true that banner ads have historically performed rather poorly, I think the big news is that Google may be able to deliver higher targeted banner ads on a broad scale. Something which has not been done yet. Of couse adsense clickthrough rates are not as good as adwords, nor is the targeting "perfect." So, we will just have to wait and see.

[SearchRank]

Branding? That is true. Take classmates.com. How many times have we all seen those ads over and over again and then you finally say, "Dangit, I'm going to see if I can find my old schoolmates." How about the X10 camera?

They might work for branding but one will have to have a good sized pocketbook. One might think that because banners don't get clicked on that much that they might get many, many impressions without having to pay click thru fees but because Google serves ads up not only on the price that is bid but by click thru ratio as well, that may not be the case.

[LeftoverJoe]

I know this is a relatively small example, but the video game industry, which is projected to hit sales of 18 billion by the end of this year, is a very visual medium. There are ads for new games everywhere in traditional media. If one were to advertise on the net it would be very advantageous to be able to show off your fancy new game rather than just describe it with a simple text link. I for one would always gravitate towards an interesting image link rather than text. Not to say that I like banners per se, but I think many people have become aware of the typical banners that advertise things that aren't really relevant, no matter where you are. IMO Google has a better chance at placing the most relevant image ads in front of the most interested groups of people most of the time. Let's hope this is true...it would be a bummer though if the banner farms came back en masse.

[Jill]

Seems like a step backwards to me.

Why would we want to go back to banners? Way to make people start ignoring ads again Google!

Which actually works out nicely for regular old SEOs like me!

Jill