Comments on: Top Brands Introduce Extra Large Ads

By: Ryan

Ryan — Thu, 03 Mar 2011 00:09:14 +0000

936 x 648 is nothing. My advert is way bigger than that.

By: Jared Lyvers

Jared Lyvers — Fri, 12 Nov 2010 22:36:01 +0000

Most of these ads require user interaction. This means that the initial banner that loads to the page will only be in the 30-80k range. Once a user interacts with the banner the rest of the content is loaded. Because of this the load time to the page should not be effected. This does not mean that the Flash file wouldn’t slow down your browser. We all know that Flash can be a CPU hog.

All that aside, I really dislike the large banners as well.

By: Tinh

Tinh — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 02:42:50 +0000

Large banner is eyecatching and maybe get more attention from readers but it is not good for small publishers as it increases loading time and decrease space for contents

By: Wallace

Wallace — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 00:43:55 +0000

The larger banner will increase the time of page loading and for me it’s not working whatever how large the ad it is if you have no interesting on it.

By: Chris

Chris — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 23:09:21 +0000

1. I never click on ads. If I visit the New York Times website or one of the others you mentioned, I am looking for news and articles and nothing else.

2. If a site has too many ads, and especially too many animated or Flash ads, I often stop visiting that site.

Advertisers should take note. There are many more internet users like me who are fed up with seeing websites cluttered with ads. If I want to look at really big ads, I’ll go stand in front of a billboard for an hour. Online, I can manage quite well without them, thanks very much.