300x600 Ads. Have you tried them?

Forum Moderators: martinibuster

Message Too Old, No Replies

300x600 Ads. Have you tried them?

avalon37

2:48 pm on Feb 9, 2015 (gmt 0)

Just started a test of this size format on one of my clients sites. CPC is horrible; US traffic and tablets have been the majority of clicks. Terrible CPC - would have thought the opposite. I understand the advertiser pool is much lower than the most popular sizes, but come on. Google is giving away these clicks.

Anyone tested 300x600? What was your experience with CPC? In-line with other ad sizes? Better? Worse?

netmeg

3:32 pm on Feb 9, 2015 (gmt 0)

When they first came out, I tested them, but there was not enough inventory for them (and they didn't collapse, so if they showed a smaller ad, there was a lot of white space which was unacceptable to me)

Within the past two weeks I've converted a 300x250 sidebar ad to all responsive, and I notice that for desktops, Google is defaulting to showing a 300x600 in that spot. I haven't noticed any drop in EPC (getting clicks from .14 to several dollars for these ads) and they seem to have more inventory now, plus a better way to display more text ads. I'm going to leave it as is for a while and see how it does.

breeks

4:13 pm on Feb 9, 2015 (gmt 0)

Have been using for about a month in sidebar. Seems text ads don't pay too well with 10 ads per unit. But the image ads pay good. (my theory) CTR is low on this ad unit on my site.

alika

7:37 pm on Feb 9, 2015 (gmt 0)

It is our 2nd highest earning ad size, after the large rectangle in the middle of the content. We have it in the sidebar.

Yes, it changes into a skyscraper. CPC is one of the lowest relative to our other ad formats. But the fact that it is in a sitewide sidebar gives the most exposure, so raw clicks for this ad format is our highest (this is the only ad format that is sitewide). Hence, income is also one the biggest.

Try it and see how it works for you. It sure worked for us

CentennialEmpire

9:52 pm on Feb 9, 2015 (gmt 0)

They're not terrible but they're not great, either. We only have a 3x600 on one spot on the site and it doesn't generate a great deal of traffic but enough to get a sense of performance. Stick to 300x250 for which there is significantly more pricing pressure.

RedBar

11:12 am on Feb 10, 2015 (gmt 0)

Anyone tested 300x600?

What happens to this ad on a smartphone screen, is that all one sees, an ad?

breeks

3:31 pm on Feb 10, 2015 (gmt 0)

What happens to this ad on a smartphone screen, is that all one sees, an ad?

I have ad position show 300x250 or 250x250 on tiny phones. (some people still used old phones)

netmeg

6:17 pm on Feb 10, 2015 (gmt 0)

I haven't used any CSS on mine; I'm just letting Google serve it the way it wants, and it seems to be resizing down to a 300x250 on my iPhone. No big block of white space. So that's good.

paparoysan

10:22 pm on Feb 17, 2015 (gmt 0)

have been using 300x600 in the sidebar for about a year. it performs similar as 300x250 at the same place - just covers more space so, in my opinion it look better at that spot than any other..