Posts
Text v Graphic on Adsense
Text v Graphic on Adsense
Text v Graphic on Adsense -
Google Adsense provides advertisers and publishers with the opportunity
to place adverts in both text and graphic format.
As advertisers decide to put adsense into their website over banner advertising, the question still remains. Which is the best for advertisers and which is the best for publishers?
On one hand advertisers may feel that image adverts are more responsive yet less likely to stimulate a sale. On the other hand text adverts may convert more, whilst being less visible to the consumer.
As advertisers decide to put adsense into their website over banner advertising, the question still remains. Which is the best for advertisers and which is the best for publishers?
On one hand advertisers may feel that image adverts are more responsive yet less likely to stimulate a sale. On the other hand text adverts may convert more, whilst being less visible to the consumer.
Text v Graphic on Adsense
Text
based adverts are considered the least intrusive of the two formats.
However does that mean that Graphic advertising is better? Consumers are
used to graphic advertising from signing into free email accounts, and
from using other web based services. Through being used to graphic
advertising they have almost programmed their selves to ignore it.
Through the adverts being untargeted, the consumer is used to brand
advertising which they feel is generally less purposeful. This may cause
the consumer to ignore the graphic advert from the assumption that it
will be the same.
Text adverts are not forced upon surfers. Through being less obvious some people will not see them at all, however those who do see them, and read them are significantly more likely to click on them. This is for a number of reasons, but the first is that they provide more information. Generally, someone who is reading text on a page is not going to be fully satisfied by what they read, and if they check adsense adverts they will most likely read something which will further supplement whatever their intention is next. With an image advert, it is far more of a gamble for the surfer.
Graphic advertising is often paid per impression. This is because the advertiser may be trying to promote their brand, instead of promoting a specifically useful service. They therefore are assumed to have worse conversion rates, and with this text adverts are in the consumers eyes more effective. However, if the text contained within an advert was placed in graphic format, which would be the most effective? Well firstly it can assumed that the surfer will be more likely to view it, however if their were multiple image adverts appearing next to each other they may feel overwhelmed.
Graphic adverts are also harder to regulate. Let's consider Google allowing adverts to be changed frequently and without regulation. The advertiser could claim affiliation from the website they are advertising on, and contain keywords such as "ipod" which cannot be contained within a text advert. Although more regulation and quality control could be in place, a pornographic image for example could be made to appear in an advertiser's adverts unknowingly.
Text adverts also have a broader market appeal, as advertisers don't generally have the in house resources to create an image advert, but do have the in house resources to write a text advert. This could mean that a wider array of advertisers find text advertising accessible, through text adverts being less burden on the advertiser, and being easy to change.
Text adverts are also cheaper for the advertiser to create, where as a graphically designed advert may cost in excess of $200. Through removing this fixed cost advertisers may be willing to allot a higher rate to advertising itself; thus benefiting the advertiser and the publisher.
Text advertising appears to be the preference of the advertiser. They pay a CTR (click through rate) and only receive targeted traffic. This removes risks from businesses that previously had to worry that adverts were not only seen, but clicked on and stimulating sales. As CPC (Cost Per Click) is more relevant to text adverts, advertisers are able to gain exposure without needing a high click through rate to be effective.
The big brands are willing to advertise in both formats however the broad market appeal of text inevitably makes it the winner. As flash websites disappear with image adverts, it is becoming clear that text and information is the preference of the website users.
Text adverts are not forced upon surfers. Through being less obvious some people will not see them at all, however those who do see them, and read them are significantly more likely to click on them. This is for a number of reasons, but the first is that they provide more information. Generally, someone who is reading text on a page is not going to be fully satisfied by what they read, and if they check adsense adverts they will most likely read something which will further supplement whatever their intention is next. With an image advert, it is far more of a gamble for the surfer.
Graphic advertising is often paid per impression. This is because the advertiser may be trying to promote their brand, instead of promoting a specifically useful service. They therefore are assumed to have worse conversion rates, and with this text adverts are in the consumers eyes more effective. However, if the text contained within an advert was placed in graphic format, which would be the most effective? Well firstly it can assumed that the surfer will be more likely to view it, however if their were multiple image adverts appearing next to each other they may feel overwhelmed.
Graphic adverts are also harder to regulate. Let's consider Google allowing adverts to be changed frequently and without regulation. The advertiser could claim affiliation from the website they are advertising on, and contain keywords such as "ipod" which cannot be contained within a text advert. Although more regulation and quality control could be in place, a pornographic image for example could be made to appear in an advertiser's adverts unknowingly.
Text adverts also have a broader market appeal, as advertisers don't generally have the in house resources to create an image advert, but do have the in house resources to write a text advert. This could mean that a wider array of advertisers find text advertising accessible, through text adverts being less burden on the advertiser, and being easy to change.
Text adverts are also cheaper for the advertiser to create, where as a graphically designed advert may cost in excess of $200. Through removing this fixed cost advertisers may be willing to allot a higher rate to advertising itself; thus benefiting the advertiser and the publisher.
Text advertising appears to be the preference of the advertiser. They pay a CTR (click through rate) and only receive targeted traffic. This removes risks from businesses that previously had to worry that adverts were not only seen, but clicked on and stimulating sales. As CPC (Cost Per Click) is more relevant to text adverts, advertisers are able to gain exposure without needing a high click through rate to be effective.
The big brands are willing to advertise in both formats however the broad market appeal of text inevitably makes it the winner. As flash websites disappear with image adverts, it is becoming clear that text and information is the preference of the website users.
Text v Graphics in Adsense
When an advertiser decides to place Adsense into their website through a banner ad, the question remains. Which is best for advertisers and which is best for publishers?
On the one hand, advertisers may feel that image ads are more responsive but are less likely to drive sales. On the other hand, text ads can convert more, while less noticeable to consumers.
Text-based ads are considered least disruptive of both formats. But does that mean that Graphic ads are better? Consumers are used for graphical advertising from log-in to free email accounts, and from using other web-based services. Through being used for graphical advertising they almost programmed themselves to ignore it.
Through untargeted ads, consumers are used to branding ads that they feel are generally less directional. This can cause consumers to ignore graphical ads from the assumption that it will be the same.
Text ads are not forced on surfers. With less obvious, some people will not see them at all, but those who see it, and read it are significantly more likely to click on them. This is for a number of reasons, but the first is that they provide more information.
Generally, someone who reads text on a page will not be completely satisfied with what they read, and if they check their Adsense ads will most likely read something that will further complement whatever their next intentions are. With image ads, it's much more than a gamble for surfers.
Graphic ads are often paid per impression. This is because advertisers may be trying to promote their brand, rather than promoting useful, specialized services. They are therefore assumed to have a worse conversion rate, and with these text ads being in the eyes of consumers more effectively.
However, if the text contained in the ad is placed in a graphical format, which one is most effective? Well firstly it can be assumed that the surfer will be more likely to see it, but if they are some image ads that appear next to each other, they may feel overwhelmed.
Graphical ads are also more difficult to organize. Let's assume Google allows ads to be frequently replaced and without rules. Advertisers can claim affiliates from websites where they advertise, and contain keywords like "iPod" that can not be loaded in-text ads. While more rules and quality controls can be applied, pornographic images, for example, can be made to appear in advertiser ads unknowingly.
Text ads also have wider market appeal, because advertisers generally do not have the internal resources to create image ads, but have internal resources for writing text ads. This could mean that more advertisers find accessible text ads, through text ads to less burdening advertisers, and easy to change.
Text ads are also cheaper to create by advertisers, whereas graphically designed ads can cost more than $ 200. By removing advertisers this flat fee may be willing to share higher rates for the ads themselves; thus benefiting advertisers and publishers.
Text ads seem to be an advertiser preference. They pay CTR (click through rate) and only receive targeted traffic. This eliminates the risk of a business that previously had to worry that the ads were not only seen but clicked and stimulated sales. Because CPC (Cost Per Click) is more relevant to text ads, advertisers can gain exposure without the need for high clickthrough rates to be effective.
Big brands are willing to advertise in both formats but the broad market appeal of the text definitely makes it a winner. Since flash websites are lost with image ads, it becomes clear that text and information are the preferences of website users.