Text vs Graphic on AdSense

Google AdSense provides advertisers and publishers with the opportunity to advertise in both text and graphic formats.

As advertisers have decided to put AdSense in their website over banner ads, the question still remains. Which is best for advertisers and which is best for publishers?

On the one hand advertisers may find that image ads are more responsive but less likely to stimulate sales. Text ads, on the other hand, can be more convertible, while being less visible to the consumer.

Text-based ads are considered the least intrusive of the two formats. But does this mean that graphic advertising is better? Consumers are used to graphic advertising by signing into free email accounts and using other web-based

services. Being used to graphic advertising, he has almost programmed himself to ignore it. As the ads are not targeted, the consumer is used to brand advertising, which they feel is generally less objective. This allows the consumer to ignore the graphic ad with the assumption that it will be the same.

The surfers of text ads are not coerced. Some people won't see them at all because they are less obvious, although those who see them, and read them, are much more likely to click on them. This is for several reasons, but the first is that they provide more information. Generally, someone who is reading the text on a page is not completely satisfied with what they read, and if they check AdSense ads, they will read something that complements their intention further. With an image ad, it is much more than a gamble for the surfer.

Graphic advertising is often paid per impression. This is because the advertiser may be trying to promote their brand rather than promoting a specific useful service. That's why they are considered to have poor conversion rates, and with that text ads are more effective in the eyes of consumers. However, if the text contained in an advertisement is placed in a graphic format, which one will be most effective? Well, at first it can be assumed that surfers would be more likely to see it, however they might feel overwhelmed if they had multiple image ads displayed next to each other.

Graphic ads are also difficult to regulate. Let's consider that Google allows ads to be changed frequently and without any regulation. Advertisers may claim affiliation with the website they are advertising on, and include keywords such as "iPod", which cannot be included in a text ad. Although there may be more regulation and quality control, for example a pornographic image may be made to appear inadvertently in an advertiser's advertisements.

Text ads also have broad market appeal, as advertisers typically do not have the internal resources to create image ads, but they do have internal resources

to write text ads. This could mean that a wider range of advertisers find text advertising accessible, less burdensome to the advertiser through text ads, and easier to convert.

It is also cheaper for the advertiser to create a text ad, while a graphically designed ad can cost more than $200. By removing this fixed cost advertisers may be willing to allocate a higher rate to the advertising themselves; Thus, the advertiser and the publisher benefit.

Text ads seem to be the priority of the advertiser. They pay CTR (Click Through Rate) and get only targeted traffic. This removes the risks for businesses that previously had to worry that ads were not only viewed, but clicked on and stimulated by sales. Because CPC (cost per click) is more relevant to text ads, advertisers are able to gain exposure without needing a higher clickthrough rate to be effective.

Big brands are willing to advertise in both formats, though Text's broad market appeal essentially makes it a winner. As Flash websites with image ads disappear, it is becoming clear that text and information are the priority of website users.