Why not keep things simple and stick to IAB units?

I would like to have some 600 pixel width ad formats

My content area is 600 pixel width

There is nothing between 468 and 728 pixel width

Pro
Why not explore what's good for advertisers and publishers? The best metric is if it moves more product.

Google's own web pages don't conform to W3C standards, why should Google not think outside the IAB box?

Con
The non-conforming ad unit sizes will not accomodate standard banners designed by ad agencies. As a consequence there will be less competition because advertisers who compete with IAB standard image ads will be excluded from bidding on the non-standard units. Non-IAB standard ads may result in lower EPC.

Pro Part 2: Rebuttal to Con
Although less competition may result in a lower EPC, higher CTR might make up for it when non-conforming ad units are used in optimal layouts.

800 x 600 ad would be great!

Really though, I think the bases are pretty well covered by what they have. I could also use a 600 width ad but I just adjust and use the 468. No biggy.

instead of different sizes i wouldn't mean seeing some different types of ad.
i saw some good flash ones the other day that looked like the top-right hand corner of the screen peeled away when you hovered over it. that only takes up a tiny fraction of the page and the underlying image can be the same size as the normal ones they've already got.

Google's own web pages don't conform to W3C standards, why should Google not think outside the IAB box?

W3C and IAB standards are different issues entirely, and they exist for different reasons.

IAB ad units are designed to be standard plug-and-play display-ad formats that save time, money, and hassle for advertisers, ad agencies, and media. When publishers run AdSense ads in IAB sizes, Google can serve text ads or display ads interchangeably from a large pool of standard-size ads. That's going to become more important as AdSense continues to evolve from its original product (text ads, which can be poured into containers of any size) into a platform for standard display ads, expandable ads, video ads, etc.

From Google's point of view, it probably would make more sense to streamline the current range of ad sizes than to promote even more fragmentation.

Thanks for the explanation of the voluntary IAB guidelines [iab.net], for those who may not have known what they are.

I also agree with Signor-John about why non-standard ad units won't work. As I posted above:

The non-conforming ad unit sizes might not accomodate standard banners designed by ad agencies. As a consequence there will be less competition because advertisers who compete with IAB standard image ads will be excluded from bidding on the non-standard units. Non-IAB standard ads may result in lower EPC.

However I find this discussion interesting because, well, it pushes against standard ways of looking at things. Like when a painter decides to paint blue dogs and discovers there's something there that makes sense.

If we allow ourselves a little room to say, "ok, let's see what happens," what do you think will happen, if we step out of the IAB box?

• What might happen if publishers can show seven ads vertically down the left side of a page?

• What might happen if publishers could show six or seven ads horizontally?

• Are alternate layouts worth exploring?

• Should we assume alternate layouts won't work and simply not explore them?

• Should we close the door because the IAB sets standards and we must obey them?

• Will this lead the industry down a road to fragmentation, ultimately harming the industry rather than improving it?

What might happen if publishers can show seven ads vertically down the left side of a page?

That brings up an interesting thought: With text ads, why has the emphasis always been on a maximum allowable number of ad units rather than a maximum number of ads? Is having 15 ads in five small boxes inherently worse than having 15 ads in three large boxes? On some long or multi-column page layouts, would AdSense work better (both aesthetically and in terms of clickthrough rates) if the ad units were smaller but there were more of them?

i'd quite like it if they introduced hover colours as well, for when a user hovers over a link. what is the harm in introducing that?

I would like an ad that automatically clicks itself if you stare at it for 6 seconds.

This is interesting. Chitika has thirty different ad sizes [chitika.com].

I don't have an issue with the ad sizes (although it'd be nice to have something vertical between 468x60 and 728x90) But what is something of a pain is that if you specifically want image ads, they're not available in all the same sizes as the text ads are. For example, I have plenty of spots where a nice little 120x240 image ad would work quite well - can't get that from AdSense. Just text. At least some advertisers would use it if it were available (the smart advertisers are the ones who make their ads in ALL sizes - not enough do this, and Google should encourage it)

This is interesting. Chitika has thirty different ad sizes.

Could be a sign of desperation. :-)

Standards are a wonderful thing, but maybe it's time to upgrade the IAB guidelines. For one thing, screen resolutions are heading toward widescreen. Not only are mnonitors wider than they were before, but the aspect ratio is changing. It's getting to the point where 120 pixels is too thin for side panel ads. It looks weird at resolutions higher than 1024x768, and not many of my viewers are running resolutions lower than that.

Just letting you know that I've passed your feedback along to the team that works on our ad formats.

ASA

maybe it's time to upgrade the IAB guidelines. For one thing, screen resolutions are heading toward widescreen. Not only are monitors wider than they were before, but the aspect ratio is changing. It's getting to the point where 120 pixels is too thin for side panel ads.

The IAB ad unit guidelines have been updated over the years, and four sizes (medium rectangle, rectangle, leaderboard, and wide skyscraper) are included in the current "IAB Universal Ad Package."

From what I've been told, the 300 x 250 medium rectangle and 728 x 90 leaderboard are the most popular sizes with advertisers these days. (It wouldn't be surprising to see most of the old, smaller IAB sizes get retired due to lack of advertiser demand.)

As for screen resolutions increasing, that's true up to a point, but we need to remember that:

1) Browser windows aren't always full-screen (indeed, many Web sites don't look good at full screen width on a high-resolution monitor), and...

2) Netbooks are the fastest-growing segment of the computer market, and their resolution is typically 1024 x 600.

As far as AdSense is concerned, in theory it should be possible to have any number of ad sizes (including custom ad sizes) for text ads, which are just poured into the ad container, but display ads cry out for standards. Google obviously needs to think carefully before making decisions that could complicate the sales and distribution of display ads on the AdSense network.

I quite like the 550 by 250 mega unit (as they call it) that Chitika now serves.

It's been a trend for some premium sites to go with large ad sizes that aren't standard IAB sizes.

There has been a challenge with IAB standards and ad networks where sophisticated buyers find out how to buy ads on premium sites through the networks. They pay less and squeeze out the direct sales. So the direct sales countered this by creating larger ad formats (not standard IAB sizes) that can only be purchased directly.

It turns out that text ads tend to have higher CTRs when fonts are larger and fewer ads are in the box - Like the blown up text in a 728X90. As long as the conversions are good on these types of ads, we suspect you'll see more larger format ads from the text folks soon.

I would definitely like to see an image version of 125x125 button. That format, I think, is quite popular with affiliate advertising. It also provides more layout flexibility.

Thanks.