With a defacto industry standard click through rate of 0.01%, are online static ad's a waste of time? Or is the industry looking at the wrong measure i.e. click through rates and associated conversions?
Traditionally, online sales have been attributed to a "last click wins" basis. This makes Internet search looks fantastic! But we should keep in mind that before anyone searches online for anything, they have already been influenced by something or a number of things. Search is a conduit. Therefore, what influenced the searcher to enter the "winning" keyword or phrase should be given a much bigger pat on the back for creating the awareness. Chances are the consumer was influenced by a number of things, and will no doubt include the various online ad's served to them.
But because we can't effectively measure the awareness impact of these ad's it leads marketing professionals to believe there must be better ways to attract attention. Enter the rich media/interactive ad's. These provide "TV" quality moving images, designed to attract the eye, and when mousing over they are able to expand and take up more real estate of the page they are being displayed on. The aim is to distract the user and entice them to click through at this point, as click through is the best measure. Right? Actually, it is wrong, and here's why:-
- - Ad's are presented in a "push" fashion (behavioural targeting may bring some context)
- - The consumer is focused on other areas of the web page
- - They are looking for something else other than the content of the ad
- - The rich media ad will most likely be a distraction (positive and negative)
- - Interactive ad's, which expand out, will most likely be an annoyance especially if the mouse drifts over the ad unintentionally
- - The advertiser's brand can be tarnished because of this
- - The site where the ad resides will have the main user focus distracted and potentially provide the user with a lower quality experience. Tarnishing the brand that owns the website.
The advancement of technology has provided marketers with the ability to offer "fancy" ad's but most probably to the detriment of the user experience. It can be likened to the old "pop-up" ad's and now "pop under" ad's. How annoying are they?!
So, is a static ad more effective, even though it may not consciously attract the eye? New research, focusing on the subconscious would say they are. Our brains subconsciously "sees" things and these images are filed away waiting to be stimulated or to stimulate brain activity when other associated images/sounds occur. Even though we don't consciously realise, such ad's can genuinely influence consumer actions e.g. Internet Searching.
As an example, take a look at the embedded video. Your task (similar to the web user's focus) is to count how many passes the team in white make to each other. Did you get it right?! If not, watch it again, and again if needs be.
