Dont they see publishers basically want images next to the ads? well I do and I would say alot more do also. Why dont they create ads with images revelant (spelling?) to the ads? It will increase their revenue so I dont know why they do not do it. Instead they have these stupid video ads now which I think will not do as good as they are expecting as the user has to watch the ad then click on the link which I dont think publishers would like. BTW there is alot of I thinks in there so its just my opinion.
There must be a good reason. My guess is that advertisers are noticing those clicks ( the ones with images next to them ) often don't convert well. There are probably a lot of "invalid" clicks on those ad units. The result then would be advertisers wouldn't spend as much on Adwords and would result in a reduced profit..for everyone.
Well I never saw it that way your probbaly right. I wish they had half banner image ads. Im off to trial image ads instead of text ads on my arcade. <- they do not look too bad and are on the correct subject just the size of image ads.
I think you should have a try for adwords(if you don't already) and allow people to put image next to your ads, This is due to advertisers, because images caught user attention to click the Ads, all credit will goes to that image, not to that title of the ad.... Sometimes Blending your text ads in a nice way can made more than image next to ads
Blending such as these is causing more invalid, unwanted clicks for advertisers, which they are having to pay out. Although google gets a cut out of these clicks, I suppose they want to server all of their customers fairly, and they feel that images are giving advertisers a bit of a raw deal.