30.05.2009 - Schöner Webmasterworld-Post, der eigentlich alles zusammenfasst. Problem: Google hat die Advertiser inzwischen so an die inadequaten Niedrigpreise für grafische Werbung gewöhnt und ihnen die Freerider-Mentalität sozusagen eingeimpft, dass höhere Preise in diesem Bereich kaum noch durchzusetzen sind. So kann man sein eigenes Business natürlich auch kaputt machen. Und die Jungs in Mountain View wundern sich bestimmt heute noch, warum Doubleclick mit Adsense weniger durchschlägt als vor der Akquise als eigenständiges Network. Zu viele Techies, zu wenige Marketing-Fachleute im Googleplex.While we're at it: Isn't it astounding that automatically only the good old text ads and not the image ads come to our mind when we think about Adsense? A fact that Google - at least since the Doubleclick banner network acquisition - would certainly like to see revised.Indeed, we have to strongly differentiate between image and text ads. The key to impove the image banner experience is to reflect the different capabilities of the two advertising types in the pricing models.Let's see: as mentioned above, internet advertisers will always want to optimize their earnings - because unlike in the other media, the internet gives them the right instruments. So we have the text ads: as a matter of fact image branding with text ads is more or less ruled out. They mostly exist only to generate clicks. Evidently pay per click is the right accounting method here.Secondly, we have the image ads that are capable of generating clicks *and* visual impact. Now if you only charge for impressions, advertisers will bring out these ugly spammy ads with annoying call to action. Most of us hate them, we don't want this kind of trashy advertising on our websites. On the other side, if you only charge for clicks on image banners, savvy advertisers will do branding, free of cost without the intention of hunting clicks. In both cases, the advertiser gets a free ride one way or another (clicks, branding) and the publisher gets paid inadequately low for image banners. IMO that's the "secret" why they perform so badly.Resolution? Different purpose - different pricing model. Google has to adjust the pricing for image banners, as this advertising form generates clicks *plus* visual impact. it's simply a different business. To solve this, image/video ads have to be seperated completely from the present auction model, where all ad forms (text, image/video) are thrown together competing for the same ad slots in the same bidding process. It doesn't work out.I'm afraid, but advertisers will have to pay a premium on graphical ads to reflect the larger capabilities of this ad type. Again: it's a different business. Different businesses require different accounting methods. There's no other way to get decent graphical ads with good performance for both sides. The current handling with ads that can be reviewed by the publishers in their control panel is nicely intended but impracticable. No one does this. It's time consuming and it doesn't tackle the actual problem.ASA, maybe take this to your content network team for discussion. I know you at the plex like image ads to perform better just as many publishers would like to show other ads than text ads once in a while.