Beta
← Back to glossary

Letterboxing vs. Pillarboxing in Ads

Understand when letterboxing or pillarboxing helps or hurts performance—and how to avoid it with proper ratio suites.
Brief Definition

When creative doesn't match the placement's aspect ratio, platforms add bars around the content. This can reduce impact and perceived quality.

Understanding Letterboxing vs. Pillarboxing

Letterboxing adds horizontal bars to fit wide content into tall frames, while pillarboxing adds vertical bars to fit tall content into wide frames. Both are artifacts of aspect ratio mismatch that occur when your uploaded asset doesn't match the target placement's native dimensions. While bars can be used as an intentional stylistic choice for cinematic or editorial looks, unintentional bars shrink screen share and can signal recycled or low-effort content. Native ratio variants usually perform better in social feeds by maximizing visual footprint and maintaining a native feel. Background extensions can preserve composition without obvious bars, but they require careful planning to keep key elements within safe zones.

Letterboxing vs. pillarboxing matters most in vertical social feeds where screen real estate is premium. When your 16:9 horizontal video appears in a 9:16 Reels placement, pillarboxing adds thick vertical bars that waste most of the screen. Conversely, when vertical content is forced into horizontal placements like YouTube pre-roll, letterboxing creates horizontal bars. Both reduce the effective size of your product, text, and CTA. Smart advertisers build ratio suites (9:16, 4:5, 1:1, 16:9) to match each placement natively, avoiding bars entirely. Rebuilding type sizes and CTA positions per ratio maintains legibility and impact. Test intentional bars against native fills to confirm style doesn't hurt performance—bars can work if kept on-brand and if the subject remains large enough to read on mobile.

Why Letterboxing vs. Pillarboxing matters

Letterboxing vs. pillarboxing matters because bars reduce visual footprint and can lower perceived quality. Native, full-bleed creatives typically drive higher engagement by maximizing screen share and maintaining platform-appropriate aesthetics. Ratio suites help avoid unintentional bars entirely, keeping your creative looking purposeful across every placement.

  • Full-bleed assets maximize screen share
  • Native feel improves relevance and watch time
  • Ratio suites avoid unintentional bars entirely

How Letterboxing vs. Pillarboxing works

Letterboxing vs. pillarboxing works when platforms receive creative that doesn't match the placement's native aspect ratio, forcing the platform to add padding bars to fit the content without distorting it. Letterboxing adds horizontal bars above and below wide content displayed in tall frames, common when 16:9 content appears in 9:16 placements. Pillarboxing adds vertical bars on the sides when tall content is displayed in wide frames, common when 9:16 content appears in 16:9 placements. Both reduce the active screen area your ad occupies. Export native 9:16, 4:5, 1:1, and 16:9 variants for major placements to avoid bars. Use background extension or brand-color padding when conversion between ratios is required, rebuilding type sizes and CTA positions per ratio to maintain legibility and visual hierarchy.

Related Terms
Related Blogs
No related blogs
FAQs
Do black bars always perform worse with letterboxing vs. pillarboxing?
Native full-bleed creative generally performs better than letterboxing vs. pillarboxing, but test intentional bars styled on-brand to confirm for your specific context.
How do I avoid letterboxing vs. pillarboxing?
Avoid letterboxing vs. pillarboxing by creating native aspect ratios for each placement (9:16, 4:5, 1:1, 16:9) instead of forcing one ratio everywhere.
Can I use brand-color bars instead of black for letterboxing vs. pillarboxing?
Yes—brand-color bars are better than black for letterboxing vs. pillarboxing, but native ratios without any bars typically perform best.
Does letterboxing vs. pillarboxing affect ad costs?
Yes—letterboxing vs. pillarboxing can increase CPM and lower engagement by wasting screen space and looking out of place in native feeds.
What's worse: letterboxing vs. pillarboxing?
Neither is ideal—both letterboxing vs. pillarboxing waste screen space; build native ratios for each placement to avoid both.

Are you crazy...

about catalog ads? You’re not alone. Join over 10,000 other marketers in The Catalog Cult - the world’s best newsletter about catalog ads.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.