banner ads

Native Mobile Ad Formats Seeing Strong Engagement Rates

source: http://www.marketingcharts.com/wp/online/native-mobile-ad-formats-seeing-strong-engagement-rates-36301/?utm_campaign=rssfeed&utm_source=mc&utm_medium=textlink

Celtra-Mobile-Native-Ad-Formats-Performance-in-Q2-Aug2013An analysis of mobile expandable banner ad performance indicates that native mobile ad formats delivered an average expansion rate/click-through rate of 1.37% during the second quarter of this year, according to the latest quarterly report from Celtra. That compares favorably with benchmarks from other studies, which put the average click-through rate for standard mobile banner ads at 0.35% (Opera), desktop rich media ads at 0.14%, and standard desktop banner ads at 0.1% (MediaMind).

According to Celtra’s study, which was based on more than 100 mobile rich media campaigns running across a mix of different suppliers, native ad formats enjoyed an ad engagement rate of 39.1%, while social rich media ad formats sported an even higher engagement rate, of 55.2%.

Expansion rates for standard rich media ads appeared to grow alongside the quality of the media, rising from 0.36% for standard ad networks to 0.57% for premium ad networks and 0.73% for data-driven premium ad networks. Ad engagement rates did not follow the same pattern, though, highest on premium ad networks (162%) and lowest on data-driven networks (12.1%).

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Thursday, August 29th, 2013 news No Comments

Pharma’s Online Marketing Efforts Continue to Pay Off

source: http://www.marketingcharts.com/wp/direct/pharmas-online-marketing-efforts-continue-to-pay-off-30734/?utm_campaign=rssfeed&utm_source=mc&utm_medium=textlink

comScore-Online-Pharma-Mktg-Effectiveness-June2013Online pharmaceutical marketing continues to produce results, reports comScore [download page] in a new study. The 7th annual “Online Marketing Effectiveness Benchmarks for the Pharmaceutical Industry” study details the successes of online direct-to-consumer (DTC) marketing, showing some brand awareness and favorability lifts from exposure to online banner ads, but greater impact from branded website visits. Additionally, site visitation tends to provide a significant lift in Rx conversion rates.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Monday, July 1st, 2013 news No Comments

Native Ads Seen Outperforming Banner Ads Across Several Measures

IPGSharethrough-Native-and-Banner-Ads-Compared-May2013
A study pitting native ads against banner ads has found the former attracting more attention and generating more lift. The study, conducted by IPG Media Lab and Sharethrough, leveraged both eye tracking technology and surveys to come to its conclusions, using leading brands across travel, CPG and entertainment verticals as test cases. Among the findings, consumers were 25% more likely to see native ads than banner ads (25% vs. 20%), looking at the native ads 52% more frequently (4.1 times per session, compared to 2.7). Notably, consumers looked at native ads at a slightly higher rate than the original editorial content, spending almost the same amount of time doing so.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Monday, May 6th, 2013 news No Comments

Native Ads Seen Outperforming Banner Ads Across Several Measures

Source: http://www.marketingcharts.com/wp/topics/branding/native-ads-seen-outperforming-banner-ads-across-several-measures-29298/

A study pitting native ads against banner ads has found the former attracting more attention and generating more lift. The study, conducted by IPG Media Lab and Sharethrough, leveraged both eye tracking technology and surveys to come to its conclusions, using leading brands across travel, CPG and entertainment verticals as test cases. Among the findings, […]

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Monday, May 6th, 2013 news No Comments

Search Ads versus Display Ads

UPDATED:  April 10, 2012

AdSafe study shows that a quarter of display ads are never in view on publishers’ websites. And it gets worse from there — 41% never in view for content networks and 46% never in view for ad exchanges. Users are there to view content, not ads. And they are conditioned to avoid the top, right side, and bottoms of web pages (see eye tracking at the bottom of this post).

Image Source: http://www.emarketer.com/Article.aspx?id=1008965

Cumulative Time that Digital Display Ads Worldwide Are In-View, by Platform, Q4 2011 (% of total)

ORIGINAL POST:  March 25, 2011

Hands down, search ads beat display ads in click through rates (CTRs).  In every one of the examples below and the several dozen more that I did not screen shot, search is more effective than display because the ads are brought up when the user types in the search term and are looking for something, vs display which is served up alongside content.

search advertising versus display advertising display ads vs search ads CTRs search CTRs vs display CTRs search ads display ads

Facebook display advertising click through rates are even sadder (i.e. worse) as you can see from the chart below — like an order of magnitude

lower (0.024%)
facebook ad click through rate

display ad spending search ad spending emarketer

search ads vs display ads

digital display vs search ads

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Eye tracking studies show that most users are already conditioned to avoid looking at the top and right side of web pages because they know that is where banner ads or display ads go.

 

 

 

 

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Friday, March 25th, 2011 analytics 1 Comment

The generalization that TV ads are more “helpful” than internet ads is simply false and irresponsible

In the following study published by Harris Interactive and Adweek Media, they show a chart which seemingly shows that TV ads are “most helpful” in making a purchase decision. If you were give the following list of choices —  TV ads, newspaper ads, search engine ads, radio ads, banner ads, and none — and asked to select which was most helpful to your purchase decision; which would you choose? And would you choose that because it was more familiar to you (e.g. TV), seen more frequently, etc. Or is it that banner ads are generally known to be ignored (eye tracking studies show that most users know not to look at the top and right sides of a web page, knowing that banner ads typcially go there).

for new products
where the missing link is simply awareness
TV is very effective
in driving an initial burst of sales
starting pt is zero sales
so if you make people aware
some will buy
11:04 PM in the case of new products
online ads are not great
but you have to break online ads into 2 types
banner ads (push) versus search ads (pull)
search ads are not useful here
because it is a new product and people
wont know to search for it
11:05 PM banner ads may work
because they are for awareness
and they are displayed on pages where people are looking at content
but compared to TV advertising
people have accepted ads as part of the “price” of TV
on the contrary
people have always expected itnernet content to be free
and they have devloped habits to
11:06 PM avoid lokoing at top of page and right side
so banner ads are pretty damn bad at
generating awareness
because people simply dont look
so of the 3
tv ads, banner ads and search ads
tv ads are better in the case of new products where the missing link is awareness
11:07 PM when you get to more established products
the balance changes
the missing link is not awareness
the missing links are further down the funnel
e.g. consideration
modern consumers need more info
they dont just trust an advertiser
and TV ads give them too little info to be useful
11:08 PM banner ads are still ignored just as much as before
but search ads become more important
by looking at what people are searching for
yu know what part of the purch funnel they are at
and what missing link they are trying to solve
so in summary
11:09 PM making the generalization that TV ads are more effective than internet ads is simply false and irresponsible; we must take into account dozens more parameters that impact purchase
decisions


Source: http://www.marketingcharts.com/television/tv-ads-most-helpful-web-banners-most-ignored-9645/


More than one-third of Americans (37%) say that TV ads are most helpful to them in making a purchase decision, while nearly half say they ignore internet banner ads, according to (pdf) a poll from AdWeekMedia and Harris Interactive.

In terms of the helpfulness of ads in other media, newspapers rank second behind TV, with 17% reporting that newspaper ads are most helpful, while 14% say the same about internet search-engine ads:

harris-poll-adweek-media-most-helpful-ads-june-2009.jpg

At the other end of the spectrum, Radio ads (3%) and internet banner ads (1%) are not considered helpful by many people. The poll found also that more than one fourth (28%) of Americans say that none of these types of advertisements are helpful to them in the purchase-decision-making process.

Not surprisingly, the types of ads Americans find helpful vary by age and, slightly, by region:

  • 50% of people ages 18-34 find TV ads most helpful.
  • 31% of those ages 55+ say newspaper ads are most helpful.
  • 40% of Southerners find TV ads most helpful, while only one-third (33%) of Midwesterners feel the same.

Banner Ads Most Ignored
Almost half of Americans (46%) say they ignore internet banner ads, according to the study. Much further down the list of ignored items are internet search engine ads (17% of people ignore), television ads (13%), radio ads (9%), and newspaper ads (6%):

harris-poll-adweek-media-most-helpful-ads-june-20091.jpg

One in ten Americans (9%) say they do not ignore any of these types of ads.

Age and regional differences:

  • 50% of those ages 35-44 and 51% of Midwesterners say they ignore Internet banner ads compared with 43% of 18-34 year olds as well as Easterners and Southerners.
  • 20% of Americans 18-34 years old (20%) say they ignore Internet search engine ads while 20% of those ages 55+ ignore TV ads.

Harris Interactive suggestes that these findings are important because, despite online video and the ability to use a DVR to shift live programming, TV ads remain most helpful to consumers. Conversely, while an internet strategy is essential for a comprehensive ad campaign, banner ads are only considered helpful by a few and are ignored the most, the polling fiirm said.

About the survey: The AdweekMedia/The Harris Poll was conducted online in the US from June 4-8, 2009 among 2,521 adults (ages 18+). Figures for age, sex, race/ethnicity, education, region and household income were weighted where necessary to bring them into line with their actual proportions in the population. Propensity score weighting was also used to adjust for respondents’ propensity to be online.


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Tuesday, July 28th, 2009 digital No Comments

the economics of advertising sucks, but it will suck a lot more soon

it’s a simple matter of supply and demand. Let’s do a thought exercise.

1.  eMarketer forecasts that retail e-commerce will grow roughly 10% per year for the next few years. This means that the total “pie” of people spending online will only grow by an average of 10% per year. Note that sales is (or should be) the goal of advertising. So that’s why we are looking at e-commerce sales and comparing it to online advertising because both are completed in the same medium and we can eliminate cross-media uncertainties and breakdown of tracking.

e-commerce

2. online advertising is still exploding with trillions of pageviews per month, thanks to social networks which throw off ungodly numbers of pageviews when people socialize with others. The Compete chart below shows the top social networks which rely on banner advertising (impression-based advertising) to make revenues. Notice that just Facebook and Myspace alone generate 115 BILLION pageviews a month. And if you consider that Facebook shows 3 ads per page, that would be 250+ BILLION impressions per month served by Facebook alone. Furthermore, the rate at which pageviews grow is 250% – 1,000% per year, depending on the site in question.

pageviews

3. In the online medium, we have end-to-end tracking from the advertising (banner impression) through to the sale (e-commerce). The banner is served (impressions); a percent of users click on it to go to a site (click through rate – CTR); a percent of those make their way through the site and end up completing a purchase online (conversion rate). Those users who are looking for something and who are considering buying something will be online searching and researching. Those are the ones who are likely to click on banner ads, compared to others who are online to do something else, like write email, socialize with friends, etc.  And if the purchase is their ultimate end-goal (to make a purchase) we have a farily reliable indicator of the growth in not only such interest but also the completion of the task — namely, e-commerce, which grows at 10%.

4. Now, if the number of people who will click grows that 10%, but the number of advertising impressions grows at a slow 250%, the ratio of clicks to impressions drops dramatically because the denominator is growing 25X faster than the numerator. Serving more ads simply will not get the amount of e-commerce to grow significantly faster. The point of diminishing returns has been reached and passed, so incremental ad impressions are ignored and useless. The number of people who will end up buying will not increase significantly faster. And given the tough economic climate the amount of sales may actually decline before it goes up again.

5. If we generalize this back to all retail commerce, it grows at an EVEN slower pace than ecommerce. When you compare this to the dramatic increase in ad impressions and the shift from traditional channels (TV, print, radio – whose impressions and audience sizes are dwindling) to online channels (portals, news sites, social networks – whose impressions and audience sizes are skyrocketing) again the ratio of sales to available advertising drops dramatically. This is a measure of the effectiveness of advertising (sales  divided by advertising spend). It was already small — it sucked — and it will get dramatically smaller soon — it’ll suck more soon.

A way to mitigate this “sucking” is to peg advertising expenditures on a success metric which is an indicator of user intent — cost per click — versus a traditional indicator of reach and frequency — ad impressions served — which from the above is NOT an indicator of consumers’ intent to purchase.  This way, advertisers only pay when someone clicks. Those “someones” click when they are looking for something and are more likely to complete a purchase than those who don’t click.

“CPC banner advertising” anyone?

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Sunday, March 15th, 2009 digital No Comments

Dr. Augustine Fou is Digital Consigliere to marketing executives, advising them on digital strategy and Unified Marketing(tm). Dr Fou has over 17 years of in-the-trenches, hands-on experience, which enables him to provide objective, in-depth assessments of their current marketing programs and recommendations for improving business impact and ROI using digital insights.

Augustine Fou portrait
http://twitter.com/acfou
Send Tips: tips@go-digital.net
Digital Strategy Consulting
Dr. Augustine Fou LinkedIn Bio
Digital Marketing Slideshares
The Grand Unified Theory of Marketing