Online ad metrics and the shifting goal posts
The other day Comscore released a report to bolster the online display ad industry – “whither the click.”
The message, which this econsultancy article by Meghan Keane neatly summarises goes something like “let’s forget about this business with low click through rates, online ads have a lot of value simply by people seeing them .”
Not surprisingly I take a very different point of view. That – clicks or no clicks – in most cases (not every case), putting your online marketing budget is not a good use of your money.
Sure, I am biased here. I don’t like most display ads very much, they strike me as another example of an offline template being brought online. And from a self interest point of view, I’d of course like nothing better than to get my fingers on the money that’s going into online display and put it into online PR and brand communications.
Having said all that, below are some of the facts that have been published that point to different conclusions.
People are more likely to click on an advertiser’s website weeks after seeing display ads..but are the ads responsible?
One of Comscore’s main arguments can be seen in this chart showing that people are more likely to visit an advertiser’s website in the weeks after seeing display advertising.
But surely the display ads aren’t there in isolation? I mean, I take it Mr/s Consumer is also being bombarded by other marketing messages as part of an integrated campaign and so would be more likely to search for a brand anyway.
Banner blindness – do people even notice?
Last October at the Boston Web Experience Forum, Internet usability expert Jakob Nielsen talked about ‘banner blindness’, something he’s been discussing for a few years. Based on a study of 3000 web users, Nielsen found “Ads might as well not exist as far as users are concerned, except for search ads.”
According to analyst group GigaOm, which reported his comments, “The findings are no secret to web usability professionals gathered here, who obsess over how consumers use the web. But they’re often ignored by ad buyers.”
Nielsen says that the reason that is because: “People still have this old media thinking: They think of the web being similar to TV because it’s on the screen and visual.”
The annoyance factor – don’t interrupt me
Nielsen’s point, that we have different expectations when looking at ads online as we do when watching telly (when we perceive it as normal), is worth looking into a bit more.
According to a Burst Media study that we talked about a few months ago, 30% of adults will instantly leave a website filled with ads and 3/4 will ignore the ads completely.
And while Comscore’s study has stats all about how people will go and buy at some point in the future after being exposed to your online ad, Burst Media had a different take, showing that 56% of women and 48% of men think negatively about the actual advertiser – note the brand got the negative pick-up not the site owner.
Online advertising is skewed towards lower income demographics
Nothing wrong with that per se, but it’s worth noting. Comscore, produced another report last year showing that 6% of the online population accounted for 50% of ad clicks. These aren’t super nerds, but rather people at home with time on their hands who have a high tendency to visit jobs and gambling sites.
The whole point of this latest Comscore report is of course to move people away from thinking about clicks but another study by Addvantage Media for YouGov found that only 12% of UK visitors to “large” mainstream websites paid attention to online ads, with ABC1s being less likely to pay attention than C2DEs (source – Paidcontent.org)
Specialist sites the exception
The rest of that YouGov report is worth citing, namely that when it came to special interest (ie carefully targeted) sites, online display did work with 73% paying attention. Go to a fishing site and people’s minds will be on fishing and so they may be in the mood to think about new gear.
Go to CNN.com and advertise a soft drink and you may be wasting your time as visitors are unlikely to be in a ‘buy’ frame of mind.
The shifting goal post?
Comscore’s conclusion is that “there are indeed latency effects and branding effects even when click rates are minimal.” And on that point, I can’t help but wonder whether it’s a case of shifting the goal posts.
Those of us working below the line are forever hammered with the message ‘where’s the ROI?’ Whether it’s a valid reason or not, using the answer of “awareness” often doesn’t wash. Why should it suddenly be different in this instance?
Related Posts
Tags
Share This
Search ads have their place but they do little to create differentiation. It is branding that will create the click even if the ad is the fifth of five on the right. The lure of the click as a measurement of ROI has created a blind following and as one commentator said the “crutch of the lazy marketer.” Search is at the point of need, whether it is for research or purchase, the user is on a hunt. The Internet is so much more than that. It is push and pull, it is interest and community. It provides an environment for interaction, debate and other types of discussion. These moments are as important as search. It is during these times the PR & advertising professional have the opportunity to communicate their clients brand messaging which has the ability to influence buyer behavior. No matter what the search engine you ask, they will all admit in a weak moment that even if you are four or five on an organic search result you are more likely to be clicked on than one, two or three if the user knows who you are and has a favorable perception. Search advertising is often too late to create that type of preference.
thanks so much for taking the time to comment Paul.
Yes I have an ulterior motive in that I compete against ad budgets but at the same time – really I also want online advertising to work.
If it doesn't, I will have to pay through the nose for all that content I read, just like Murdoch and co have in mind!
I guess the point is it doesn't work very well – yet – as with so many other things it's an industry in its infancy.
The keys seem to be targeting and appropriateness and at the moment all too often online ads are still taking a carpet bombing approach. So we have the stat that ads on social networks leaves 96% cold (http://bit.ly/3wNLg8)
Yet at the same time there is also evidence that vertical advertising works – getting people when they are actually in the frame of mind to buy your stuff.
After all, search ads, the most effective form of online advertising so far, works on exactly that principle.
The challenge is that we seem to want to prove what we do is better than what they do. PR versus advertising is perennial argument between PR types and advertising types. It is getting old and shows a narrowness of vision. Most level headed proactive types see both as essential. Example, your statement "But surely the display ads aren’t there in isolation?" in reaction to Comscore’s chart showing that people are more likely to visit an advertiser’s website in the weeks after seeing display advertising, The control group is an example of those exposed, bombarded, inundated with other marketing messages. The test group shows the lift from online advertising.
I run a web site that evangelizes both online PR and online display advertising as a way to build brand and its benefits and ultimately grow business. I will leave the site anonymous so that this does not become self-serving. We do about 700K to 800K unique visitors per month. Our site and our users’ interaction with the content and advertising have shown the power of both and the need for integration in the marketing approach.
Public relations is essential and so is online display advertising. People say they are blind to ads in every format, print, TV, radio and now Internet. Yet, you can see the number of company name searches grow during display ad campaigns.
Keep balance in your marketing efforts and you will see a return on investment.