James.Cridland.net

James Cridland's blog

Where radio and new platforms collide. With beer.

« Please please Mr Postman | Blog index | My National Trust Blog »

RIP 468 x 60 ad banners. Please.

Posted on Tuesday, October 17th, 2006 at 9:53pm. #

The first ever ad banner is twelve years old this month. On October 25th 1994, HotWired published the first ever banner ad. The creative wasn’t particularly great, and didn’t even have the logo of the client (phone company AT&T), but did contain ‘You Will’, the company’s advertising slogan at the time. Interestingly, the rest of the advertising campaign on television and in the press promoted where the future was going - including IPTV, video on demand, and RFID; part of the campaign, narrated by Tom Selleck, went: “Have you ever sent a fax from the beach? Someday, YOU WILL. And the company that will bring it to you is AT&T.”

The size apparently wasn’t just plucked out of the air. Most users at the time were using 640×480 screens, and 468 pixel wide ads enabled them to fit inside the page while leaving plenty of space for scrollbars and borders of the web browser. 468 and 60 are divisible by six, which web designers tell me is how you should lay out your web pages - in grids of six pixels square.

We’ve moved on from a 640×480 screen. Doing some work on, cough, a large consumer website, over 90% of all users are now using a 1024×768 screen or larger. Most software and websites are now impossible to use on a 640×480 screen; and while the BBC’s websites are still designed for an 800×600 screensize, many others have moved on. The Guardian’s “Comment is Free” was one of the first main-market sites I remember seeing which displays within a fixed 1000-pixel-wide screen (though it, like the one I work on, are designed in such a way that the comment occupies less than 800 pixels wide, so is easy to read on a smaller screen).

Curious, then, that many websites still use 468×60 ad banner spaces within them.

As a space within a website, larger screens mean they’re now almost four times smaller than they used to be. In addition, the wide use of broadband negates any issue of speed of loading - as long as the ad’s underlying code loads quickly, of course.

Some websites are using larger displays - leaderboards and MPUs, for example - but many are still sticking to the 468×60. I’d really like to work out why. Do those tiny things still work (for the publishers and for the advertisers)?

One comment

Frankie Roberto said at October 17th, 2006 at 11:04pm

Hmm, speaking as someone who works on a website with 468 x 60 banners (only on two pages, for internal adverts only) - ours are mostly, I think, just a hang up from the fact that our web design is so old (much older than the length of time I’ve been working there).

Thankfully, we’ll soon be launching a new design, with no ‘ad banners’ at all.

And if you ask me, it’s not just 468×60 banners, but ALL ad banners that need to be RIPed…

Leave a comment

This website's Gravatar enabled (that's the pictures on the right)

To prove you're human, type the two words below into the box provided.