468x60 is dead?
February 26, 2001 10:33 AM Subscribe
468x60 is dead? IAB releases new ad standards. Too little, too late...
"greater interactivity blahblahblah"
Why don't they just come out and say that these shapes are a hell of a lot harder to tune out than the old thin-strip kind?
They're enormous, and I'm at 1024x768. Where is the actual content of the site displaying the ad supposed to go?
posted by Su at 11:14 AM on February 26, 2001
Why don't they just come out and say that these shapes are a hell of a lot harder to tune out than the old thin-strip kind?
They're enormous, and I'm at 1024x768. Where is the actual content of the site displaying the ad supposed to go?
posted by Su at 11:14 AM on February 26, 2001
I agree. Maybe they're compensating for the monstrous zdnet/cnet ads. I thought those were a joke the first time I saw them.
posted by Hankins at 11:29 AM on February 26, 2001
posted by Hankins at 11:29 AM on February 26, 2001
This has nothing to do with the correct size needed for a banner advertisement. It's all psychological. They need to get your attention. Advertisers want you to look at their ad and possibly click it, they don't want you to block it out.
We've gotten used to those long, thin banners. Our eyes ignore them without us even thinking about it, so the advertisers have to change the format and use something bigger to get our attention back. If the time comes when these new banner sizes are standard and we teach ourselves to effectively tune them out as well, another banner format will come along.
The Wired article on All Your Base touched lightly on the issue of internet advertising and capitalization. The internet is different from every other form of media. Most conventional solutions don't apply. Marketers are paid salaries to sit at a desk and think up different ways of getting our attention, like with obnoxiously large banner ads, and get nowhere. Then some choppy flash movie with a broken-english catch phrase from a decade-old video game comes along and conquers the world.
posted by tomorama at 11:40 AM on February 26, 2001
We've gotten used to those long, thin banners. Our eyes ignore them without us even thinking about it, so the advertisers have to change the format and use something bigger to get our attention back. If the time comes when these new banner sizes are standard and we teach ourselves to effectively tune them out as well, another banner format will come along.
The Wired article on All Your Base touched lightly on the issue of internet advertising and capitalization. The internet is different from every other form of media. Most conventional solutions don't apply. Marketers are paid salaries to sit at a desk and think up different ways of getting our attention, like with obnoxiously large banner ads, and get nowhere. Then some choppy flash movie with a broken-english catch phrase from a decade-old video game comes along and conquers the world.
posted by tomorama at 11:40 AM on February 26, 2001
I don't have to block it out, because I have software that blocks it out for me. Ain't automation wonderful?
posted by Steven Den Beste at 12:20 PM on February 26, 2001
posted by Steven Den Beste at 12:20 PM on February 26, 2001
Glad I have a LAN pipeline to the Internet, as it looks like I'll need it to swim through these gargantuan ads.
Still access through a modem? Thought it was slow before? Better start accessin' that page now. Maybe it'll be loaded by dinner.
posted by Dane at 12:49 PM on February 26, 2001
Still access through a modem? Thought it was slow before? Better start accessin' that page now. Maybe it'll be loaded by dinner.
posted by Dane at 12:49 PM on February 26, 2001
I understand that it's psychological. All advertising is, to a degree. But it's not that they're just making the ads bigger, that would be simple scaling; they're manipulating the geometry. Let's take this in the most basic terms:
468*60= 29160
240*400= 96000
336*280= 94080
300*250= 75000
250*250= 62500
180*150= 27000
The smallest of the new formats is still smaller than the old 468*60, yes, but its actual SHAPE is much more obtrusive in terms of sitting in someone's layout. And each size up is roughly 2, 3 and 4 times larger than THAT. The "large rectangle takes up a full fifth or so of a viewable page. Put two or three of those up at once, and there's not much room for anything else. Now make it blink and animate, and try to ignore it.
posted by Su at 2:04 PM on February 26, 2001
468*60= 29160
240*400= 96000
336*280= 94080
300*250= 75000
250*250= 62500
180*150= 27000
The smallest of the new formats is still smaller than the old 468*60, yes, but its actual SHAPE is much more obtrusive in terms of sitting in someone's layout. And each size up is roughly 2, 3 and 4 times larger than THAT. The "large rectangle takes up a full fifth or so of a viewable page. Put two or three of those up at once, and there's not much room for anything else. Now make it blink and animate, and try to ignore it.
posted by Su at 2:04 PM on February 26, 2001
How about text links?
I am not trying to put any graphic/web designers out of work but it's time to put the pixel ruler away.
330 x 450. 125 x 1000. 540 x 2. The new standards are just as arbitrary as the preceding string. At least the folks that run affiliate programs are aware that text links are viable. Google is hep to this method with their sponsored searches.
I have found a couple of sites quoting that text links have higher clickthrus than banners but no hard evidence. Anyone out there with better evidence than I?
posted by jasonshellen at 2:07 PM on February 26, 2001
I am not trying to put any graphic/web designers out of work but it's time to put the pixel ruler away.
330 x 450. 125 x 1000. 540 x 2. The new standards are just as arbitrary as the preceding string. At least the folks that run affiliate programs are aware that text links are viable. Google is hep to this method with their sponsored searches.
I have found a couple of sites quoting that text links have higher clickthrus than banners but no hard evidence. Anyone out there with better evidence than I?
posted by jasonshellen at 2:07 PM on February 26, 2001
a Reuters article about the bigger ads.
I find the whole ad thing pretty amusing when taking into account early Prodigy stuff. Back then the ad would take up 30% or so of the screen at times. (Is there an archive of early Prodigy screenshots?) People kept screaming that ads would never work/be accepted and that Prodigy was stupid. Here I am, 8 or so years later, dealing with screen ads that just keep getting bigger and bigger.
posted by gluechunk at 2:18 PM on February 26, 2001
I find the whole ad thing pretty amusing when taking into account early Prodigy stuff. Back then the ad would take up 30% or so of the screen at times. (Is there an archive of early Prodigy screenshots?) People kept screaming that ads would never work/be accepted and that Prodigy was stupid. Here I am, 8 or so years later, dealing with screen ads that just keep getting bigger and bigger.
posted by gluechunk at 2:18 PM on February 26, 2001
Interestingly, the IAB's recommended skyscraper ad size, 120x600, is actually a lot smaller than the skyscrapers on many content sites, including Economist.com (120x800), nytimes.com (140x800), and thestandard.com (150x800).
posted by werty at 7:08 AM on February 27, 2001
posted by werty at 7:08 AM on February 27, 2001
« Older CD Sales down by 39%? | Undervote Count Supports Bush Win Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
It seems these are an addition to the current (incl. 468x60).
I'm just glad I'm not developing 88x31 banners anymore. They used to be scattered throughout deja. Those were a bitch. Try advertising a computer package after rebates and still have room for branding.
posted by Hankins at 10:51 AM on February 26, 2001