somnamblst

Joe Midi, the dynamic sheets have columns for everything, so if copy needs to differ from one version to the next, it is the sheet that actually controls it, so there is a data column where you can tweak your copy to fit, and HTML tags do work in the feed. Google also has a bunch of sample feed Excel files, though you really should use Google Sheets.

I did notice that the Dynamic HTML5 templates that used to be in the template database have been removed. I have the original files from before they removed them. PM me if you would like to see them. You don't have to use GWD, but you need a Rich Media vendor like Google to serve your Dynamic ads. Google Studio has great Live Chat for anything you run into, that is confusing, or not working.

You don't have to use GWD. The Template Gallery has starter HTML and js files for HTML5 dynamic ads. You will need to create a Google sheet, which you share with Studio, with your data. I recommend following the build guides for HTML5 dynamic. https://support.google.com/richmedia/answer/3526354?hl=en

So one thing I have been mandated to do recently, that felt like it was wrong based on the sequence of the animated messaging, was to have the CTA present from the first frame. I also do not have my animation begin immediately, based on my own experience of seeing my ads mid page in articles, where the animation had finished. I also pushed back on copywriters who thought animation was a chance to say something, have that copy go away, and then say something additionally at the end. Even worse was the Spanish language agency that thought animation should be one long run on sentence, spread across four of what they like to call frames. Are animated banners performing worse because of copywriters?

I always enjoyed building HTML ads before HTML5 was a thing. Like units that pulled a Twitter or Facebook feed, or a Google map in a high impact unit, but working for a publisher where my ad building was a carrot to land $$$$ from advertisers, none of my "look what I can do experiments" ended up being utilized, because either sales people did not try to sell them, or advertisers just did not want to spend the money. Hard to know which.

The only way to be sure is an A/B test where the same ad, is served randomly, 50/50. Half of the impressions are the static back up, and half of the versions are the animated one. I have not found anything that shows that this isn't just blanket supposition. When I worked for a publisher, the hearing aid industry was a sector targeted for ad buying. As I had created quite a few, I was intrigued when I saw a NY Times article about a hearing aid manufacturer, learning something they had not suspected using A/B testing. The untargeted ads outperformed the targeted ones. Turned out they were being clicked on, by women in their 50s. And the targeted ads being served to older people, were not. Turns out the hearing impaired are not frustrated by their hearing loss. It is their daughters who have to yell to be heard. Obviously a lot of factors outside of our control, effect performance. And I think being left out of the reporting metrics loop, leaves us blind.

Something that occured to me, from ohem's post asking about the health of the banner creation job market, caused me to ponder what I am hearing argued where I work. That static banner ads perform better than animated. I find that counterintuitive, but could it be explained by bad design decisions, things like the CTA not being present on frame 1, or animation used to convey more than one message, or being too resource intensive and lagging. Another point I am unsure of is, do ad platforms charge more per CPM to run HTML5 banner ads. Back in the SWF days, I worked for a piblisher, and I know what they charged advertisers was not determined by whether the banner was a SWF, JPG or GIF, but back then everything was limited to 40K. ...when it comes to animated website banner conversion, businesses need to know HTML5/Flash ads feature a much lower click through rate. The rate is 71 percent less for these ads than those that are static according to Google’s display benchmarks. The reason for this may lie in the fact that it takes too long for the HTML5 ad to announce the call to action. Furthermore, Time reports the average user spends 66 percent of their time below the fold, thus the static ad is quickly seen and acted upon, while the animated ad may be glanced at and forgotten." https://getdigitallyfit.com/website-banners/ ...The campaign started with the client’s static ad creative. This creative showcased an image of the game layout and some of its characters. In a glance, users were able to understand the theme of the game and how it’s played. We made some iterations with the current creative to improve the campaign performance. We added a simple animation by showing one power-up, and then crafted another HTML5 animated creative by combining multiple power-ups. The final HTML5 animated ad outperformed all the other iterations"... https://www.aarki.com/blog/a-comparison-of-display-ad-formats-html5-animated-vs.-static

Is the animated banner work slowing down because of static ads? I have heard some claims of static outperforming animated in the last year. I was doing Dynamic, and had complaints about the added cost of rich media impressions, and my last three dynamic campaigns, they ended up running my static backups. What I thought I knew about impression fees is from the Flash days working for a Publisher using DFP, and at that time, the cost for running static or SWF was the same. Does anyone know if there is a cost per impression difference between an animated creative versus a static in the post SWF days? Obviously we are no longer producing 40kb ads.

I have made banner ad sandwiches that have video on top (default) or underneath, that use either the Youtube API or HTML5 video tag. Things to be aware of. If you go the Youtube API route, clicking on the video will take viewers to that video page on Youtube. The rest of your ad will go to where you want it to. If you use Doubleclick Studio you have a place to serve your video from. Doubleclick does have something called polymer video. https://support.google.com/richmedia/answer/6232836?hl=en Chrome did pause all video that auto played last spring, so how you mute is important. Older examples with auto play video are all paused. <video autoplay class='video' loop muted width='320'> <source src='bg_video.mp4' type='video/mp4'> <source src='bg_video.ogv' type='video/ogg'> </video>

When I wonder what other people may have figured out, I sometimes just search Codepen, to see if anything strikes my fancy. https://codepen.io/search/pens?q=svg blur&page=1&order=popularity&depth=everything

I am being bad today. I have a 110k and 138K TinyPnged PNGs in my 300x600.

Curious as to the extra restrictive standards of this particular publisher. We are supposed to be judged by the size of our zip files, and the js files compress nicely, or I would never have Animate authored banner ads that are only 20K zipped. I just compressed my Animate authored beverage ad, that has an extra large image of the cocktail with holiday trappings, that ends zoomed out, and did have a transparent png created from that frost on a window vector from Shutterstock, and my zipped file for a 300x250 is 135K. Hardly a K weight monster in 2019. My 2 bitmaps, a JPG and a TinyPNGed PNG, were 38K and 60K.

So why not use a blurred version of your bitmap on a layer above, in Animate and fade that out. Or a semi transparent overlay that makes the underlying image appear to be blurry? I did a semi transparent frost on a window overlay reveal for a holiday beverage ad, that was a vector from Shutterstock.

Do we have ourselves to blame, somewhat, post 40K SWF? Having spent so many years as a K weight Scrooge, I can't not care. However, I know I have coworkers who don't crop bitmaps, or who created an animated cartoon in a banner ad, using bitmaps, that crawled live. Once the 40K limit was lifted, some view the limit as so what, and don't optimize. I on the other hand love to brag about my 20K zipped banners.

Doubleclick used to be creating templates for Rich Media HTML5. They stopped, when they turned to pushing GWD, and have even removed a lot of HTML5 Rich Media templates from the template database. Pretty telling that their Dynamic templates are from 2014. And all the Study Guides that used to be available for the Certification programs, are no longer available for DL.

I still have not tried GWD. I knew we were moving towards Dynamic because Metro Codes determine who gets what. And Google was definitely pushing us to use GWD, offering White Glove support for our first Dynamic campaign built in GWD. So even though Doubleclick offers zero support for anything that involves Flanimate* (Animate CC), I was able to use one of their 2014 HTML5 Dynamic templates to make an Animate sandwich that does Dynamic with your usual enabler.js stuff. Animate just provides the eye candy. I just wish they didn't put so much emphasis on GWD. That being said, Studio support chat is great.

Ads with specific vendor names are usually proprietary, so your Sizmek modified files may have needed to be uploaded to Sizmek, and a tag generated for whatever platform, said there was an error. Sizmek used to be called EyeBlaster. And bought out Pointroll. Here is a Sizmek specific validator https://support.sizmek.com/hc/en-us/articles/200721189-Preview-and-Debug-Your-HTML5-Ad https://adexchanger.com/ad-exchange-news/tracing-timeline-sizmek-ad-tech-rollup-duopoly-alternative/

It look's like the Animate prerelease that publishes for AMP may have dropped. Just posted on the Adobe forum "I tested the new tool and I do a lot of HTML5 banners for Google Ads for clients... Now I have to switch to AMPHTML clients can't load HTML5 ads anymore ? The conversion from HTML5 or from FLA works good but the publish do not work with symbols...just Images... and it does not work with Shapes. I would like to add script like HTML5 like stop timeline or interactivity like a focused exit button would that be good ?"

Am I being rude when I say I am not impressed by any of the examples, or components.

I don't know what they are trying to do. They made a premature announcement in early Feb., that the prerelease would have AMP functionality and they had to walk it back, saying not until it is stable, on Feb. 20. Still no update. Maybe it will be a new publish mode. I don't think it is just getting creatjs white listed.

I just have not cared for the GWD components. Nor heard anyone saying they love GWD. There may be some GWD gurus who could prove me wrong. As far as living on Google servers, don't ad files live on Google Servers if they are in DCM or DFP, and use Google CDN hosted GSAP?

The fact that Adobe is working on making Animate able to compete with GWD on AMP compliant ads, makes me think it is something that could change how we work., just via popularity of faster loading. Not sure why they are claiming AMP is more secure as a selling point.

Yeah, I had seen the video. My concern is that Google owns the ad serving platform. And that they push creators towards their way, GWD.

Is anyone hearing about Google pushing AMPhtml, no javascript allowed ads? I noticed the ask on the Animate Forum, and that there will be a pre release Animate product that addresses this, and that currently GWD is AMP production capable. https://forums.adobe.com/thread/2514134 Feb 20, 2019 6:00 AM (in response to nzb17299) It is still in development and needs to get to a stable state to be shared with the pre-release. Google Serves 11X More AMPHTML Ads Compared to Last Year https://www.searchenginejournal.com/google-serves-11x-more-amphtml-ads-compared-to-last-year/294519/

Wow! I am especially interested in Intersection Observer. Would you be willing to share your Publish template?