Text v Graphics in Adsense

Posted by Imam Larh on Thursday, 24 May 2018

Graphics in Adsense
Graphics in Adsense
WEAccounting - Google Adsense gives advertisers and publishers the opportunity to place ads in text and graphics formats.

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.

« Prev Post

Related Posts



Post a Comment