Study: banner ads all but useless
Don Day August 23rd, 2007
Jakob Nielsen’s latest column confirms what we pretty much know already: users are ignoring banner ads. Don’t see ‘em. Look the other way. Avert their eyes.
Eyetrack results make it plain as day - folks are looking for content, not ads. Very few eye fixations land on ads - instead people focus on the meat of the page. There are ways around this. Ads that are designed to be an integral part of the page, with a matching tone and style can succeed in getting attention. Nielsen notes that those remnant campaigns and ad networks aren’t always the best way to buy an ad:
Ultimately, the fact that online ads get viewed more when they match surrounding content is a strike against the tendency to build advertising networks. If advertising spots are simply auctioned off, then you can’t design an optimized ad for each placement.
When you advertise through an advertising network, your ads will get fewer fixations than if you contract directly with the publisher for a specific placement and design your creative to fit that spot. As a result, you should bid less for network ads than for customized ads that you place yourself.
7 Comments Add your own
1. Gerald | August 24th, 2007 at 6:40 am
I could have told you this years ago. I was looking for a particular piece of research on the Mediacenter.com website, and I couldn’t find it. After a while I finally called them to ask when they were going to post it, and they told me it was already posted. It was linked from a tile on the right side of the page, and because it looked like an ad, I couldn’t see it.
2. Safran | August 24th, 2007 at 8:37 am
The problem is that the advertisers still want ‘em.
3. Chris B. | August 24th, 2007 at 9:57 am
The problem is not that advertisers still want them. In fact, there is no problem at all. Look at the amount of spending that continues still today, in the midst of a mortgage meltdown, by advertisers like LowerMyBills, NexTag, Lending Tree, etc… These advertisers still reap huge benefit from their banner ad CPM advertising. Why? Not only because consumers click-through, but because they also convert on the other end by submitting that form or making that phone call. And with the Internet taking on more and more TV-like properties, the amount of big-brand advertising on a CPM basis will continue to grow.
4. Randy Hoffman | August 24th, 2007 at 11:44 am
It’s speaks to an argument I have made for some time: Relevance is more valuable than reach. The problem is, most media buyers and advertisers don’t see it that way. At least not yet.
5. Alyssa | August 24th, 2007 at 12:28 pm
How many of us are likely to just give up on a page that has too many ads or ads that cover the text (and then won’t go away)?
6. phil | August 24th, 2007 at 8:31 pm
Demand for local, IAB standard, quality inventory is increasing dramatically. A lot of the growth is coming from big brand advertisers. This is the base revenue stream that supports the content model. It’s important, and it has significant value locally, regionally, nationally.
The last part of that quote is great and bodes well for local, with ad networks representing a big threat to local revenue. Unfortunately, many agencies still can only handle standard ad units.
CPM advertising will definitely continue to grow.
7. VK | August 27th, 2007 at 1:11 am
Are there any similar studies on ads in print magazines? Because I know I don’t look at ads there either (unless, I suppose, they’re truly scandalous), but I have no idea if it’s just me.
I didn’t think it was just me ignoring the banners either, though!
Leave a Comment
(Please keep URLs out of the comment body or the spam filter will block you.)Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed