...instead of text or picture. Would that bump revenue up? Now I was just looking at my index page which has two square 336x280 side by side and at the bottom it has a 728x90 ad. 99% of the time those boxes show text ads only. Well, this just make the ads look like ads. Who wants to click on them? Once in a while I see picture ads that look like little news snippets but but have graphics and text in them. And a little double arrow >> thingy that says 'read more'. Now thats a well designed ad. And its a picture ad. The text ads seem like lower quality junk that someone put together in 30 seconds when they were trying to spend their $50 adwords coupon or something. So it got me thinking is there any way to force google to just display picture ads so that more people actually click on them? I mean I know google pays decently per click and all but don't better designed ads make webmasters more money? Obviously I am not sure that google has enough of this higher quality graphical ads to go around. Or perhaps they just don't pass those kinds of ads out to cheesier 'fly by night' newb websites like mine?
Login to Adsense and create new ad codes for your site - select the option 'Image Ads Only', and that's what you'll get. Or you can just alter the code you already have on your site, change the part : google_ad_type = "text_image"; Code (markup): to : google_ad_type = "image"; Code (markup): But I have found that people still click text ads much more, even when the image ads look good and are relevant. Changing to image-only decreased my revenue. Probably there are some people getting good revenue from image-only ads, but I think CTR on text ads is generally better.
I feel that dictating any specific restriction to AdSense should lower the revenue. The Google algorithm is designed to maximize their (and hence your) revenue.
Exactly! text ads may not look pretty, but opting for both will maximize the income! On the other hand, I feel people are more ad blind towards images.
Come on guys don't be so overly optimistic. Look at the facts. *Google gets paid money to display ads. *Google does not EVER refuse advertisements from anyone based on the ad being so ridiculous that nobody wants to click it. They take everything in. No quality control. *Google does not have any way of improving the quality or the clickability of text or graphic ads. Their business is not design, their business is just to take whats given to them and throw it out wherever they can put the ads. * The quality of ads produced by all advertisers in google's client base must vary from the most shoddy up to masterpieces of marketing and aesthetics. I know that and you know that. Conclusion: Google ends up with quite a big bunch of garbage ads all the time which arent really worth putting on the net simply because 1) They were written by someone anxious to burn their $50 coupon. 2) They were written by someone who is just learning how to advertise effectively and doesnt have much of a budget either. 3) They were written by a fly by night business destined to fail in the next few months. Not much of a midas touch behind that campaign either. Now, to me it doesnt take a lot of thought to accept that the vast majority of the badly written ads will be the tiny text ones. Not the elaborate $500 graphical masterpieces of larger companies. I must be very out of tune with advertising to have everyone disagree with me completely.
What you've said may be true in some cases, but it doesn't take into account the most important thing : CTR affects the position of the results. In other words, an ad comes up high because people are clicking on it. It doesn't always work perfectly, and there are other factors influencing the rankings, but this alone is a reason to be 'optimistic' about letting Google choose what type of ads to show.