Responsive Display Ads vs. Standard: Benefits + Pros and Cons of Each

Responsive display ads take the assets you provide and use machine learning to create effective ad combinations, while standard display ads require marketers to provide assets in specific sizes and formats. Read on to learn the difference between these ad types, plus how (and when) to use them.

With the ability to connect to over 90% of all internet users worldwide, the Google Display Network (GDN) is a pretty big deal – and so is Google Ads.

And with Google planning to include more AI-powered advertising features in the coming years (like the recently-introduced Gemini), it’s high time to get a handle on how to use them.

For this blog, we’ll dig into the pros and cons of responsive and standard display ads, their benefits, and when to use each.

The difference between the two ad types

The main differences between Responsive Display Ads (RDAs) and standard display ads have to do with control, flexibility, and the ad creation processes.

RDAs

These are dynamic ads that automatically adjust their size, format, and appearance to fit different ad spaces using assets like:

• Images
• Video
• Long headline
• Short headline
• Logo
• Business name
• Descriptions provided by the advertiser

Marketers upload their assets, and Google generates ad combinations for websites, landing pages, Gmail, apps, and YouTube.

For example, Google might show a banner ad on one site and a dynamic text ad on another. This can make managing campaigns and ad groups a whole lot easier.

For this ad type, Google may also use stock images, asset enhancements, or even AI-generated assets to help improve ad performance.

Standard display ads 

Also known as static ads or static image ads, this ad type uses text and a call to action (CTA) to attract visitors to a website. They require marketers to provide specific sizes and formats (like PNG, GIF, or JPEG).

Standard ads offer full control over design, while responsive ads offer greater reach by automatically adapting to ad specs across Google’s Display Network (GDN).

(Image: Adobe Stock)

Responsive Display Ads: Pros and cons

For busy marketers and businesses looking to reach a wide audience, responsive display ads are a great option due to their flexibility. Let’s dig into some pros and cons.

Pros

Greater flexibility and reach

As briefly mentioned above, RDAs’ ability to automatically fit across available ad spaces and formats increases their reach by accommodating different ad placements, screen sizes, and device types.

This is incredibly useful for marketers, as you don’t have to spend time uploading every ad size under the sun to reach a big audience. If your PPC campaign goals are higher conversion rates and lower cost-per-click (CPC), responsive display ads are a great choice.

Automated optimization

Responsive display ads use Google’s machine learning to test combinations of headlines, images, and descriptions, then show the most effective versions based on ad performance.

This, of course, helps improve click-through rates and conversions over time.

Reduced design and development effort

Because RDAs use that nifty machine learning to find the best combination for your ads, advertisers only need to provide a set of assets for Google to choose from.

This saves you time (and resources) on creative development, as well as improves user experience.

Cost-effective

Since responsive display ads require fewer resources to create and can improve performance through automatic optimization, they can be a more budget-friendly choice for businesses.

Cons

RDAs are self-optimizing, simple to create, and easy to monitor – sounds like a digital marketer’s dream. However, like any ad format, they also have their downsides.

Little control over appearance

Since Google’s algorithm decides which combination of assets to display, you may have less control over the exact look and feel of your ads. This could potentially lead to layouts that don’t align with brand guidelines and affect brand consistency.

Limited customization

Marketers can’t use RDAs to create highly tailored messages for specific ad placements.

Performance variability

Machine learning optimization is a great tool, but results can vary widely. Some assets may still underperform, and marketers will need to consistently monitor and update assets to ensure optimal performance.

For example, a lack of branding could result in lower conversion rates in the long run, and generic ads don’t generally help retargeting efforts.

Data dependency

Responsive display ads need quite a bit of data for Google’s machine learning to optimize effectively. That means smaller display ad campaigns with lower impressions may not benefit as much from the algorithm’s optimization capabilities.

Standard Display Ads: Pros and cons

Standard display ads are a tried-and-true favorite of marketers everywhere – and for good reason.

Pros

Creative control

A huge perk of standard display ads is that you get complete control over design, layout, and branding elements.

This can boost brand awareness and leave room for highly customized messaging and visuals.

Predictable appearance

The preset, static design of these ads means marketers know exactly how their ads will appear across placements, thus preventing issues with distorted or misaligned images.

Ideal for specific campaign goals

With full creative control, banner ads work well for display campaigns with particular aesthetics or messaging, especially for brands that prioritize a certain look and feel.

Tailored messaging

Creative control also allows you to create customized messages tailored to specific audiences, placements, and products, allowing for highly targeted campaigns.

Cons

Creation can be labor-intensive

Standard display ads require unique designs for each ad size and placement, which can be time-consuming and costly to create, especially for campaigns covering multiple formats.

Limited adaptability

Unlike responsive display ads, standard ads do not adjust automatically to fit different placements. This can limit their reach across devices and platforms, potentially reducing impressions.

No automatic optimization

You won’t get any robot help with standard display ads. Marketers therefore need to rely on A/B testing and manual adjustments to improve results, which requires ongoing monitoring.

Increased cost for broad reach

Because advertisers need to create several versions to ensure coverage across various ad sizes, standard display ads may make scaling a campaign more resource-intensive.

(Image: Adobe Stock)

How to choose which one is right for you

Standard display advertising and RDAs are both excellent options, but choosing the right one for your campaign depends on:

• Available resources
• Campaign goals
• Brand guidelines
• Amount of control you want to have over ad appearance

Here’s a quick breakdown to help you make the decision.

Do you want more creative control or more flexibility?

The first question to answer is, “How much control do I want to have over design and brand aesthetics?”

If the answer is “a lot,” then standard display ads may be the better choice since they offer consistent, predetermined visuals.

If flexibility and adaptability are more important, RDAs are ideal since they automatically adjust size, format, and layout.

What budget and resources are you working with?

Standard Google display ads require designing multiple ad variations for different placements, which can be resource-intensive.

Therefore, if you have limited budget or design resources, responsive display ads may be more cost-effective, as they require only a set of assets rather than multiple ad sizes.

What about reach and scale?

This is where responsive display ads have an advantage. For campaigns aiming to maximize reach and show up on a wide variety of placements across devices, RDAs can help ensure coverage across GDN without needing multiple ad versions.

What are your optimization needs?

Standard display ads require manual testing and monitoring in Google Ads. Key metrics to track include things like click-through rates (CTR), conversion rates, and cost per acquisition (CPA).

As briefly mentioned above, RDA campaigns rely on a certain threshold of data to properly optimize ads. If you’re running a smaller campaign with less data, standard display ads may be the better option.

How specific is your campaign?

Responsive display ads may be less precise in delivering niche or brand-specific messaging. If you’re running a campaign that requires targeted, unique messages or specific layouts, standard ads allow for tailored, brand-aligned messaging.

In short, for highly specific campaigns where visual consistency is crucial, standard display ads may be more effective. If flexibility, broad reach, and low production costs are important, responsive display ads are generally the better choice.

Keep in mind that many marketers choose to combine the two approaches, leveraging the benefits of both ad types based on campaign needs.

The takeaway

RDAs are most effective for brands that benefit from broad reach, adaptability to multiple audiences, and automated optimization.

Keep in mind that RDAs require more work upfront than standard display ads. It’s important to put the right guardrails in place on the front end to ensure the campaign runs smoothly.

Running Google Ads isn’t an exact science, and does require some expertise and finesse to run effectively. Feeling stuck? We’ve got you.

Get in touch with our marketing strategy experts today and we’ll help you create what’s next.