You can't base performance on one day's results. And this makes no sense at all: They are telling you to change to another unit and offer no suggestions at all?
I can confirm that today (so far) the CTR is around 22% higher than what it was 2 days ago (= last day when I used 250x250). That combined with 20% increase in CTR yesterday amounts to 21% average CTR increase, so perhaps my previous 20% estimation was too low. Furthermore, in my eyes, even a one day increase is indicative of changes done if it's SIGNIFICANT = deviates by MUCH from standard CTR rate fluctuation. And since I have a lot of logs to compare this with I was able to see that I've never had CTR as high as this. Lastly I have to note that I had no significant increase/decrease in traffic and traffic sources during these two days, hence I believe it was a 100% valid experiment that was done over a NETWORK of different sites amounting for ~30,000 pageviews a day. As for suggestions, they actually gave a link for that too, I just forgot to include it, sorry. Here it is: http://adsense.blogspot.com/2008/11/optimisation-essentials-part-i.html (that was the link for one of "our other top performing units")
I was also pondering about that. And I think you are right about "a lot of image inventory that fits into the 300x250 size". I've got a few sites that use 336x280 ad format in some odd places and I NEVER see image ads there... only text. So I think maybe the format is undertargeted by advertisers for image ads (after all they have to create the image ads, so maybe they do not do it for the less popular formats). Oh, and one thing I need to note... I started seeing MUCH MORE image ads after I increased the ads size from 250x250 to 300x250... Before the change image ads used to appear on maybe 5 pages out of 10, now it's more like 9 out of 10.... I guess this amounts for the increase in clicks, right? I mean, from my experience I personally click more on image/rich media-based ads than a 4-text ad unit (mostly because image based/animated ads just look more appealing and give more info about the actual product).
Some image ads has a better CTR then text ads, but it really depend on your niche and visitor demographic. I tried enabling strictly image ads on one of my niche site, come to find out there's only 2-3 advertiser displaying image ad which drop my CTR tremendously because of ad blindness (seeing the same 3 ads over and over again) Nonetheless, I'm pretty surprised Google provide you with the tip...that's very nice of them! I<3GOOGLE
Through trial and error, I always found the larger rectangle ads performed better...mainly 336x280. In a week or so, you may want to try some even larger and compare.
I was considering that. I actually might once I have enough statistical data from 300x250.... I do use it atm, but only in very odd (end of the page) locations and only on a few sites. I do wonder about images availability for 336x280 though... Is there as much image ads inventory as for 300x250 from your experience? In my experience there's much less image ads for that ads format (more in my previous post - above ^^).
You said your CTR increased 20+%. Can you share with us what overall average CTR you have now... You can also send me PM if you don't want to share with others.
I don't have a problem sharing this with everyone. My "new" combined CTR for today and yesterday (=since I've made the change) is 1.79%. Used to be 1.48% for the week before I changed ads. It's an especially big increase considering that most of my sites are tech related and as most of us know tech readers in general are ads blind.
I've used the 336x280 ads a lot, on niche sites that target "buyer keywords" I find that the image and text ads work best, (the image and text ad setting that is, so that google choses what's best), and on blogs that are more about news/stories/general information image ads work better. Would definitely be interesting hearing about anyone that has done testing with 336x280 vs 300x250. Of course you can if you have a lot of impression, 20% increase in CTR over a 30k sample is significant. It doesn't matter if it is one day or not, unless you for some reason think people are more likely to click ads on Mondays than on Tuesdays.
It's nice to see that google sends personalized tips. I think you have a really powerful site, since they took the time to send you an email.
Well, you have to take into account placement as well. If your site is geared for 728x90, I would first decide whether changing the whole thing around to fit the new size is worth it. It is heard a lot that the 300x250 is best. Remember, these tips are not one size fits all. Look at DP for as example of not using the 300x250 and having to change things around and radically change the look and feel of this forum to incorporate them. They have obviously decided what size works best for the site. If the 300x250 can slide into your content and site, go for it. Stephen C
Yup, that's the same setting I have for ads - either image or text according to Google's liking. But for some reason much more image ads started appearing after I switched to 300x250, even from advertisers I did not see before. And hmm.... I'll probably test 336x280 vs 300x250 in a few weeks. Will keep y'all posted (might be a new post though).
Thanks for the info. That sounds like an email template with your details shoved in there. You understand they're just asking you to display more ads. If you have extra padding around the ads you're not using, go for it. Otherwise, think twice before redesigning your site, and if so, test it in a controlled environment first. GL
Well, here the exact recommendation was to change from 250x250 format to 300x250 format, so very little changes needed to be done. I only had to extend the width of my sites somewhat. Really it's a 5 minute job per site if you know what you're doing.
Wow thanks! I've got loads of 250x250 and will be sure to try out 300x250. Interested to see the results