The results are very clean cut, and they provide excellent background information on just how they obtained the numbers. It is all here, http://www.webreference.com/dev/banners/ .

Does any one else have access to another unbiased study?

[This message has been edited by Gemdealers (edited 06-20-2001).]

We have been reported to spamcop.net, and have received a notice from spamcop.net. These are from people who have subscribed to spamcop to protect them.

So... they ask for newsletter info, or company updates, and spamcop intercepts the message and puts us in the spam file on their database. That's kinda weird.

We asked them why, and they said that "we had a remove line on the bottom of the email, as well, we used spam like words in the subject and body." We put a remove line on as an extra courtesy. Some people can't remember where they subscribed to, so we don't want to upset them.

We're doing the things the right way, which are usually the long and hard way, and we're still getting penalized.

Has anybody else had the same experience?

Zeus is supposely a link directory builder and promises to generate a lot of traffic

If you use ensim as your control panel, and any of your users use spam cop - spamcop will incorrectly parse the header and report the person's own server as the spam source!

The user doesn't notice because most boxes have multiple domains on them and spamcop doesn't have a decent reverse lookup to verify across multiple domains. We have had multiple boxes listed as spam sources by them, just because our users reported their own box.

We have mailed them explaining the issue, explaining how big ensim is and how this will hurt their system. Their response has been uniformly - so? that is your problem.

They ignore compliance and create an artificial spamcop compliant mail - which is what seems to have trapped you. Since you are small, you do not have enough mail to outweigh one or two idiots who list you, you get listed as spam.

It stinks, they reward large sites that allow spam and punish small sites that do everything they can (and succeed) at stopping and preventing spam.

Sorry for the rant, but i am with you - I hate spamcop and suggest all our users stay clear.

Chet

Thanks for resource.

I recall reading for few years ago something similar on I-Advertising mailing list.

Its possible to implement the recommendations of the said report successfully if there is a menu column on the right side of pages. Within that column one can insert a small banner, button or even a text link at the bottom right of the first screen.

on almost all my pages I have such a menu column (some on right side and others on left side). After reading the report, I intend to move all my menu column to right side and then inserting small odd size banners/buttons and keep an eye on my stats to see whether I get a better CTR % .

As to other resources of the kind, unfortunately there isn't much published on www. I think that the reason might be that research/marketing companies usually sell such info and just don't give it away for free.

[This message has been edited by Dane (edited 01-26-2000).]

Look for the link near the bottom left, near the word "webmasters"

-Maury

My guess would be that the content of the ad would be slightly more important, but that placement would come a close second.

I searched around a bit, and didn't see any other studies that were public. I did find quite a few sites offering to SELL me that information. Hmm.

Perhaps we should conduct a study...

How did I find this out? One day my software stopped. I logged into the support page and found the other people with the same problem a few days prior. After talking to Peter (Owner I'm assuming) he said that someone has stolen some serial codes and mine was one so their server disabled my code...

My concern is if they go out of business where does this leave the owners of Zeus? I've seen many Shareware packages go out of business and the owner is screwed. I've voiced my opinion to Zeus and they aren't not interested in my concerns...

I was also upset that they didn't disclose this information to me before I purchased the software.

In some of my testing, I did excellently placing a 468 pixel frame at the bottom, and putting a full-sized banner right-aligned there. Much higher click-thru rate then a few other placements on the same site. This method seems to be particularly suited to sites that are long and scrolling which normally have lower click-thru rates because at many times the ad is not visible or not prominently visible when someone scrolls.

That said, on the humor site that i tried this on, most visitors did not like it, and also did not return. My drop in repeat visitors was a lot less when I added a number of banners per page, as compared to this frame tactic.

On a chat site of mine, the effect was opposite, and there was almost no drop in repeat traffic to the chat site with the frame. I think it had more community and thus peoples willingness to come back was less affected by the addition.

Sorry I don't have hard numbers, but this was a few motnhs ago, that i did most of this testing. Basically it told me on the humor site it was better to add a few extra banners then to try the frame, on the highly community chat site i could do pretty much anyithng i wanted and the visitors would never stop coming back.

Hope it helps!

[Signature deleted]

[This message has been edited by Janet Berg (edited 01-26-2000).]

They seem to have some pretty good design comparisons, CTR comparisons, etc. (Check out what ads have the highest click through rates on 1999 - on the left side bar. It amazed me.)

Then, http://nielsen-netratings.com/hot_off.htm

They have stats on ads run, biggest sites, etc. (Just FYI... it's kind of interesting.)

Owen

I have some few observations regarding banners placement.

Until recently, I had standard banners 468x60 installed either just above- or just under the text of the pages in addition to Daughter windows (pop-up) on close.

I have noticed that, in my case, there was no effect on number of clicks regarding the placement of the standard banners. I.e whether they were just over-or just under the text.

Then I installed odd sized banners of 234x60 (in addition to the already installed standard banners and daughter windows). I had tried placements just over- and just under the text with no significant effect on number of clicks.

I thought why not trying those small banners within the text and I did. To my surprise the number of clicks increased.

Now, I can't present hard facts and figures because the ad network doesn't provide stats of each type of banners and have no idea whether those small banners are CPC or CPM ones.

I do hope that some of you try the same and give us feedback here on this thread.