banner

Here’s The REAL Error Rate For ‘Fat Finger’ Clicks

Source: http://www.businessinsider.com/error-rate-for-mobile-ad-fat-finger-clicks-2012-10

3d iphone

Up to 50% of the impressions served on a static mobile banner ads are from accidental clicks or “fat finger” taps, according to GoldSpot Media‘s “Fat Finger Report.”

Accidental clicks or “fat finger” clicks are taps on mobile banner ads that happen after less than two seconds of engagement. That is, if a user closes the app or website within two seconds of clicking the ad then it is considered accidental.

GoldSpot Media, a digital ad management platform for online and mobile advertising, aggregated this data by analyzing millions of static and rich media banner impressions for campaigns delivered in Q3 2012, which used the GoldSpot ad platform.

GoldSpot also found that “fat fingers” are three times more likely to accidentally tap static banner ads than they are to click rich media banners. This is because static banner ads “appear to be part of the content, and may be tapped by the user unintentionally.” Whereas the 3D and animated qualities of Rich media are easier to differentiate from the app or website content.

Accidental Clicks on Rich Media Banner Ads vs. Static Banner Ads

Accidental Clicks on Mobile Ads

 

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

Friday, October 26th, 2012 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

Lift in search volume indicates that customers …

… saw the ad, recalled it, and thought it relevant enough at the time to make the effort to take action — search for more information about it (beyond the tidbit of info contained in the 30 second ad, print ad, radio spot, or banner ad).

But traditional ads are still very very costly and inefficient due to the extremely large media cost.

For example, at the extreme cost of a Superbowl ad, the following advertisers were able to drive fleeting (short-lived) lift in search volume: godaddy, etrade, sobe lifewater, dennys.

godaddy-search-volume

etrade-baby-search-volume

sobe-lifewater-search-volume

dennys-superbowl-search-volume

related: http://go-digital.net/blog/2009/03/lift-in-search-due-to-paid-tv-advertising/

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

Wednesday, July 15th, 2009 digital 1 Comment

I know I am wasting my ad dollars…

I know I am wasting half of my ad dollars; I just don’t know which half — is more like “I know I am wasting 99% of my ad dollars and I know which 99%”  — banner ad click through rates are generously at 1%, which means the other 99% is known to be wasted — no more guessing necessary.

Digital advertising is more efficient than traditional advertising and is more measurable (despite being called “unmeasured” media by traditional measurement purveyors — you know who you are). In traditional advertising the advertiser pays for 100% of the media costs (e.g. pay to air the ad on TV, pay to print the ad in magazines, pay for banner ad impressions). If banner ad click through rates are an indication of what percent of targeted users actually like the ad, then only 1% like the ad or the message. So the other 99% either didn’t like it, didn’t see it, or didn’t think it was relevant at the time.

Google changed the game by charging advertisers only for the 1% that clicked (pay per click) not for how many times the ad was aired (impressions, pay per thousand). If advertisers are paying only for the click and not for the 99% other impressions that did not get any clicks, then the 99% of waste is eliminated — making the entire system more efficient.

Now that advertisers have a way to pay for ONLY the “audience” that wants what they are advertising (they show this interest by clicking) there is no need to re-aggregate audiences. When a user searches for something, that is when they are interested or are researching. That is the only time advertisers need to show ads. Any other time, it would be wasted. Large audiences were useful in the “olden ages” of television, print, radio, and banner ad advertising. Large audiences are no longer necessary because advertisers should only care about the 1% that may be interested anyway. Advertisers can save the 99% of media cost that is known to be wasted — good for the advertiser, bad for the media companies.

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

Monday, July 13th, 2009 digital No Comments

Notes from the Field: Made Up Words; Digital Jargonisms

web potato – the new couch potato

digital natives – the kids who dont know what newspapers are or what linear TV is

digital immigrants – old(er) ad execs who arrived on the island of digital, praying someone would save them from it help them figure it out

professional malpractice – preaching about digital when you’ve never tweeted or facebooked

obd – obsessive branding disorder

twinterns – interns who were hired to twitter

timeshifting – watching TV at whatever-the-hell-time they want

placeshifting – watching TV at whatever-the-hell-place they want

addressable audience – old(er) ad execs thinking digital gives them more tools to target (address) individual consumers with unwanted ad messages

niche-busters – blockbusters but for smaller (niche) audiences

analog dollars for digital dimes – with the greater efficiency and measurability of advertising in digital mediums, for every dollar taken out of analog mediums, only dimes need to be put back into digital to achieve similar or greater effect

I know I am wasting half of my ad dollars; I just don’t know which half — is more like “I know I am wasting 99% of my ad dollars” (banner ad click through rates are generously at 1%, which means the other 99% is known to be, for sure, wasted — no more guessing necessary).

measured media = TV, print, radio — which equals not really measurable at all

(old) branding – the process of systematically duping customers into buying inferior products by mis-information, dis-information, and lying

(new) branding – consistently delivering on the promise of superior products through rapid, customer-driven innovation

re-intermediation – re-insertion of a digital middleman whose job it is to filter, prioritize, and deliver only what is relevant and timely

click farms – banks of low-wage workers who click google ads to earn a living rather than do farming

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

Saturday, June 27th, 2009 digital 1 Comment

so, you think you’re viral? here’s how to find out…

1. post your “viral” video, banner ad, etc.
2. tweet about it
3. see if any one of your followers re-tweets it
4. check twitt(url)y to see “twitter intensity” around you asset

this is a quick way to tell if what you think is viral is viral. If even your own circle of followers don’t retweet it, it probably isn’t viral.  What you think is cool may actually not be that cool.  And sticking it on YouTube and supporting it with a lot of paid media, doesn’t make it viral!

Agree with me?  Or tell me I’m stupid @acfou

using twitter intensity to determine if something is viral (or not).

twitturly2

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

Friday, March 20th, 2009 analytics, digital, marketing 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

in-banner commerce

reducing the number of clicks between the inspiration and the action (purchase) usually helps reduce the precipitous drop off of people not completing the desired end-action. in-banner commerce means you can sell the item right in the banner. The user may already be registered with Amazon.com and have their card on file. This can be 1-click purchase in the banner itself — to take advantage of impulse purchases. This works especially well for low cost and low consideration products.

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

Tuesday, March 10th, 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