BLOG - We Analyzed a Sample of 770 Million Newsletter Ad Impressions. Placement Beat Creative by 5.6×
We analyzed a test sample of roughly 770 million ad impressions served across newsletters from multiple publishers on our platform. We went through all of them to settle a question publishers argue about constantly: what actually drives the click? The creative? The copy? Native versus display? Measured across every publisher and every send, the biggest lever was none of those. It was where the ad sits in the email.
This is our own production data, filtered for fraud and non-human traffic before anything is counted, and our most recent 30-day window tells the same story as the rest of the sample. Newsletter ad placement moves click-through rate more than format and more than creative, and it does so by a margin most rate cards have not caught up to.
Top-of-Newsletter Ads Earn 5.6× the Clicks of Bottom Placements
Over our most recent 30 days, ads at the top of a newsletter earned 5.6 times the click-through rate of ads at the bottom, pooled across the platform. Pooled averages lean toward the largest publishers, so we also checked the typical publisher by taking the median. There, top placements still earned roughly 3× the CTR of bottom placements, according to our test.
The pattern is stubborn. It holds over 30 days, and over 90 days. It holds for native ads and display ads alike. And it holds across the engagement range: a publisher whose newsletter earns modest CTRs overall still sees its top slot beat its bottom slot by more than 2×. Nothing exotic explains it. Readers scroll less than publishers assume, and attention is spent near the top of the email before it thins out further down.
Same Audience, Same Send: A 3.5× Gap From Position Alone
The platform-wide numbers invite an obvious objection: maybe top slots just belong to better publishers with more engaged audiences, and position is riding on the audience underneath it? So we looked for a case that removes the audience variable entirely.
One B2B publisher on our platform runs both premium top-of-email slots and standard lower slots inside the same newsletters. Same sends, same subscribers, same advertisers competing for both positions. The only thing that changes between them is where the ad lands.
The top slots clicked at 2.4%.
The lower slots on the very same sends clicked at about 0.7%.
That is a 3.5× gap produced by scroll depth and nothing else.
The audience is identical, the creative pool is shared, and the email is one and the same.
The position is doing all the work.
This test is the cleanest evidence we have that the platform-wide pattern is causal, not a reflection of which publishers happen to sell top placements. Hold the audience constant, and the position still moves the click by multiples.
Position First, Format Second: Where Native and Display Land
Format still matters. Within a given position, it’s the difference between a good slot and a great one.
The strongest inventory on our platform is native ads in top positions, earning roughly 1.1% to 1.4% CTR for the typical publisher, around 110 to 140 clicks per 10,000 opens. That is the ceiling of what a newsletter slot returns.
The finding that reorders most rate cards is what happens when you cross the two variables: a display ad at the top still comfortably out-clicks a native ad at the bottom. Format cannot rescue a weak placement. Choose the slot first, then choose the format that suits it.
The native versus display comparison deserves more than a single number, and we’ve broken down how the two formats actually stack up for publishers deciding where to lean. The full data behind it, where the pooled average and the typical publisher tell opposite stories, is the subject of the next piece in this series. For placement, the rule holds across both formats: the top of the email is your premium inventory, and native is how you get the most out of it. If you are still building the units, our guide to effective email ad formats covers which formats fit which positions.
How Publishers Should Price Ad Position
The practical consequence is a pricing problem most publishers have not addressed. If your rate card charges the same for slot one and slot four, you are selling your most valuable inventory at the price of your least valuable, and a buyer who understands the CTR gap is getting your top slot at a discount. Position should carry its own price, the way size and audience already do. Our breakdown of how email CPMs are actually set is a useful starting point for reworking the card around placement.
The sequencing follows from the data. Put performance campaigns up top, where the clicks are, and sell lower slots for what they genuinely deliver, which is impressions and brand exposure rather than direct response. A bottom slot is not dead inventory. It is an awareness inventory, and priced as awareness, it sells cleanly.
None of this works without measurement, and this is where most publishers stall. You cannot price a position you cannot see, and many newsletter setups report at the campaign level with no idea which slot produced which click. Passendo serves and reports at the level of the individual slot, so every position carries its own CTR, its own fill, and its own rate. That slot-level visibility is the difference between charging for placement and giving it away, and it is the core reason to run an ad server rather than hand-placing sponsorships.
Serve and Price Every Newsletter Slot by Position
Placement is the biggest lever you have, and it is one you already own. The ads are already in your newsletter. The only question is whether you are pricing and serving them by position or leaving that value on the table.
Passendo gives publishers slot-level control over how ads are placed, priced, and reported, so your top inventory earns what it is worth, and every position pays for itself.
Get a tour and see what your own placement data looks like.
FAQ: Newsletter Ad Placement
Where should you place ads in an email newsletter?
Place your highest-value, performance-priced ads at the top of the email, where readers spend attention before it thins out further down. Lower slots still earn impressions and brand exposure, so use them for awareness campaigns rather than direct response. Across our platform, top-of-email placements are the premium inventory in every audience we measured.
Do top-of-newsletter ads perform better than bottom ones?
Yes, and by a wide margin. In our most recent 30 days, top placements earned 5.6× the click-through rate of bottom placements pooled across the platform, and roughly 3× at the typical publisher. The gap holds over 30 days, 90 days.
Does ad position matter more than ad format?
In our data, yes. Native ads in top positions are the strongest inventory, at roughly 1.1% to 1.4% CTR for the typical publisher, but a display ad at the top still out-clicks a native ad at the bottom. Choose the placement first, then choose the format that suits it.
How much do top newsletter ad slots outperform, holding the audience constant?
One B2B publisher on our platform runs premium top slots and standard lower slots inside the same sends, to the same subscribers, with the same advertisers. Top slots clicked at 2.4%, lower slots at about 0.7%. That 3.5× gap comes from scroll depth alone, which is the clearest sign that position itself drives the result.
How can publishers charge more for premium ad positions?
Price position the way you already price size and audience, then serve and report at the slot level so each position carries its own CTR, fill, and rate. You cannot charge a premium for placement you cannot measure, so slot-level reporting is the practical prerequisite for repricing your rate card around position.