Should I start CPB?

[programmer2k]

One dollar for every billion banner impression
:)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
jokes

[Czar]

hehe.

It's getting a bit like that, but I'm confident that you'll see the market climb back slowly throughout the second half of 2001. When that happens, you'll be stuck with yet another useless abbreviated buzzword to add to the pile created by VCs last year...;)

[Cheap Bastard]

Originally posted by Czar
... but I'm confident that you'll see the market climb back slowly throughout the second half of 2001. When that happens, ...

When that happens,
... what if it doesn't :(

[Czar]

Then panic... ;)

I'm sure it will. Not only are more traditional advertisers moving larger portions of their (substantial) budgets online, but ad agencies will roll-out support for the large new ad sizes approved by the IAB last week, and will offer greater targeting abilities (geotargeting, domain targeting, etc).

In addition to this, many mid-range publishers will either go out of business, employ a subscription-based model or experiment with donations and micropayments - all of which will free up ad inventory for the rest of us.

At present, advertisers are funding the vast majority of the Web. This has created a highly unbalanced supply and demand ratio, which partially explains the pitiful CPM rates and network exclusions that we're seeing right now. As more publishers become self-sufficient, generating revenue from their users, or by selling products and services, quality advertising space will become increasingly scarce and will thus be more highly valued.

[Haze]

whats the new ad size?

[Cheap Bastard]

back to the original post... I think it's a great idea...

we should do CPB for publishers (cost per billion) and CPI for advertisers (cost per I, the roman numeral for 1)

[Czar]

evilhaze, the seven new ad sizes that have been approved are: a 120 x 600 "skyscraper," a 160 x 600 "wide skyscraper," a 180 x 150 "rectangle", a 300 x 250 "medium rectangle", a 336 x 280 "large rectangle", a 240 x 400 "vertical rectangle" and a 250 x 250 "square pop-up" ad. The adoption of the new sizes will be voluntary, but many ad networks are expected to roll-out support for these in the coming months.

[}:8) Supermoo]

I've been waiting for skyscrapers for sooo long! And finaly they've become standard! Yee Haa! :)

[LastActionHero]

Originally posted by Czar
evilhaze, the seven new ad sizes that have been approved are: a 120 x 600 "skyscraper," a 160 x 600 "wide skyscraper," a 180 x 150 "rectangle", a 300 x 250 "medium rectangle", a 336 x 280 "large rectangle", a 240 x 400 "vertical rectangle" and a 250 x 250 "square pop-up" ad. The adoption of the new sizes will be voluntary, but many ad networks are expected to roll-out support for these in the coming months.

who approves these ad sizes? ad agencies?

[Czar]

The IAB (http://www.iab.net) (Internet Advertising Bureau) established the standards for online advertising after consulting with several key industry figures.

In this case, executives CNET, DoubleClick, Disney and several other leaders led to fight for these larger sizes to be adopted as standard.

[Cheap Bastard]

why are all the new sizes skyscrapes, vertical rectangles or squares?

[}:8) Supermoo]

Probaly because we already have 468x60 (Full Banners), 234x60 (Half Banners), 120x60 (Micro Banners), 120x90 (Buttons banners), 400x40 (Link Banners) and a hybrid 700x60 (Long Banners).

I think we've got enough of them, and they've finally realised that people like diffent sized ads, if they're all the same or similar. People will ignore them. :(

I'm hoping cj.com accepts the stanards soon so we see their affiliates create in the new banners.

Czar:
Did they say anything about format changes in advertsing, eg full screen framed ads, flash ads and or XML ads?

Thanks,

[Czar]

Supermoo, the new ad sizes are also supposed to usher in a new future for rich media. The 250x250 size is designed exclusively for Java-based popups. Many of the others, while accepting GIF animations, are to rely heavily upon Flash and similar technologies that allow interaction within the ad space, rather than requiring users to click through in order to receive more information.

If you've seen the new ads on internet.com or CNET's News.com, you'll have some idea as to where the IAB is going with this.

[Cheap Bastard]

i've not seen one single 700*60 banner... Also, i was referring to why not create a 600*100 banner? (for example).

[Czar]

Cheap Bastard, I'm sure they considered creating a larger horizontal banner space, but most of the debate surrounding the effectiveness of banners surrounded the fact that such shapes were easy to ignore, as they weren't adecquately integrated within a site's contents. The rectangles and skyscrapers effectively "surround" the content, and are better suited to the way we use the Web (ie, scrolling down to read articles).

Also, as Supermoo said, they've long supported 468x60, 400x40 and the largely unused 700x60 horizontal banners. The unpopularity of the latter two sizes, and the ineffectiveness of the first in some regards explains why they have branched out. Networks and advertisers will also, of course, be retaining the 468x60 space.

[LastActionHero]

Why are the skyscrapers more effective? i don't see any advantage in them.

[Cheap Bastard]

I just don't see how i could incorporate a skyscraper that's all... I mean, i've already got a 160 pixel wide navigation, so there's only about 600 left for the content (on 800*600, still most popular). If you make me take off another 130 (120+some border...), there's only 470 left for content... And that's pretty small!

[Czar]

In that case, maybe the square sizes will work best for you. CNET seems to fit them quite efficiently within the narrow table utilized by the new News.com - and the standard sizes are slightly smaller than CNET's.

Undoubtedly, though, this is going to be the biggest issue surrounding the new sizes - integrating them into your design, while still catering for 800x600 or (gasp!) 640x480 window sizes.

[}:8) Supermoo]

lol, wide skyscrapers fit perfectley... the difference between the viewable space on a 640x480 screen (600) and and 800x600 screen (760) leaves this amazing gap for a sky scraper or a wide skyscraper. :)

[Cheap Bastard]

my pages are made for 800*600 or bigger without a skyscraper... I figured the 1-2% that do still use 640*480 would just have to scroll... So i don't have that 160 pixels free, Supermoo.

Maybe i can put some squares below the navigation...

[}:8) Supermoo]

Argh well, it's all a matter of design. As soon as the banners start fitting in again, they'll be ignored and we'll have to find new ones... ah well... such are the circles of life. :)

[Cheap Bastard]

Originally posted by }:8) Supermoo
... and we'll have to find new ones ...

Okay, so now we've got horizontal banners, and they just added squares and vertical banners... What are they gonna invent, diagonal banners?

[}:8) Supermoo]

I was thinking more along the lines of "commercial" adverts consisting of a full-screen ad. MmMmMmMm... how much would they pay? ;)

[Cheap Bastard]

... don't you mean interstitials?
Already have those