Like many people, I started my search for a new camera on the web at CNet. Interested in the new Nikon D50, I clicked on the video to see the review. Before I learnt anything new about the D50, however, I was treated to a 15-second ad for Best Buy. I know it was 15 seconds because I went back and timed it later. At the time, it felt more like a minute. This exemplifies a fundamental difference between online and TV that advertisers are going to have to get to grips with if their broadband video ads are to be successful.
As broadband video becomes more popular, a debate has started in the media over “how long is long?” The answer, according to Eric Picard in The Importance of the :05 Video Ad, is, “not long.”
Eric, a senior product planner at Microsoft’s MSN Monetization and Ad Planning Group, reports, “One of our strongest findings is consumer tolerance for ads lasts five to seven seconds then immediately turns to annoyance.” That certainly fits with my experience.
Is it just the length of the ad that matters? Maybe people just don’t like pre-roll ads.
By now we should all know that the web is an active, “lean-forward” medium. People are actively looking for items of interest, and they want to be in control of what they see. TV may be shifting in that direction with the advent of DVRs, but for today, most people still watch TV in a passive, couch potato mode. More often than not, the ads on TV are viewed and the ad break is only a passing annoyance. The interruption is expected and accepted. Online video ads are currently an exception, not a rule, and that makes a big difference.
The problem with the video pre-roll I’ve described is that the ad really is an intrusion. It is unexpected, it is not what the person asked for, and, often as not, it is irrelevant to the focus of interest. The person feels like they have lost control.
Academic research tells us it takes about two to three seconds for someone to assimilate what is being shown to them in a TV commercial. (This explains why fast cuts often dilute effective communication.) So in reality, the elapsed time between someone realizing that the pre-roll is not what they asked for and the resulting feeling of annoyance is probably only two to three seconds. And the longer the ad lasts the more the annoyance is likely to build.
“So people don’t like them,” you might think. “They’ll get used to them.”
Based on Millward Brown’s testing and tracking of advertising, we know that an active negative response to the creative, whether it’s irritation, distress or rejection, will create a long-lasting memory of the ad. It seems reasonable to assume that annoyance due to ad placement could also drive memorability, but that does not mean it will drive a positive response to the brand. In fact, an active, negative response to an ad detracts from its ability to persuade. Since many pre-roll ads are intended to drive immediate response, a negative reaction on behalf of viewers could seriously undermine their efficacy.
To my mind, this suggests that if you are going to use the pre-roll format online or on mobile phones, you better make sure that you keep it short - 5 seconds - and are executing the basics of good advertising.
So how should you use the 5 seconds?
First, use the time to say something compelling and relevant to the target audience.
• Don’t let the creative dominate the message, and don’t try to communicate everything at once. Position a single brand benefit directly against a specific need.
• Failing a short, relevant message, why not leverage enjoyable scenes from your TV advertising to create saliency and trigger memories of a positive response to the longer ad. Research shows that peoples’ brains are capable of filling in the rest of the ad, provided that they have had prior exposure.
• Ideally, combine the two approaches. A one-second TV ad was aired by Master Lock in 1998. It was a version of its “Tough Under Fire” ads showing a lock surviving a gunshot. The visuals were familiar to most U.S. viewers from previous full length ads, and they needed no further explanation to get the message.
Second, find ways to place your video so that it is not an intrusion, or that it is, at least, an expected intrusion.
• On TV, :05 ads have come at the end of commercial pods to take advantage of people rewinding their DVR to the beginning of the program. Provided that the ad can hold attention from the start, the post-roll position may be more beneficial to online advertisers as well.
• Even a position part-way through the requested content may be more positively received if it is positioned as “And now for a word from our sponsor.”
Given the active nature of the online medium, interruptive advertising is going to be even less welcome there than it is on TV. Advertisers need to learn to work within this constraint if they are to be successful, rather than simply forcing people to view irrelevant content that they do not want to see. In many cases, I am willing to bet that a simple, full-screen statement of what a brand offers, aired for five seconds, will yield more positive results than a 15 second pre-roll ad.
Do you agree that the pre-roll spot is a risky placement? What do you think would make it more compelling? What do you think are the best alternatives? Please let me know.
(23 votes, average: 3.35 out of 5)
Loading ...
September 14th, 2006 at 10:28 am
The interesting point also within this, while the this is indeed annoying the advert displayed was actually irrelevant for anyone outside the US.
I am surprised they are not serving country relevant sponsorship and purchasing options especially as there is a high probability of a transaction due to the very nature of your query ( being very specific in nature ).
I am not even going to suggest they would be using previous browsing history to profile me and make my experience more interactive and suggestive……
September 14th, 2006 at 11:41 am
I wonder if the 5 second philosophy still applies to full TV programs streamed online. The ABC/NBC approach to their streaming programming builds in 2-3 :15 sec breaks for ads that can’t be fast forwarded. To Nigel’s point that we accept commerical interruptions on TV as just passing annoyances, does that translate online? Or do we become more active viewers with streaming content and therefore less tolerant of ad messages?
I tend to think that the idea of free TV programming streamed online is attractive and new enough that consumers will forgive a couple short commercial interruptions. I doubt, though, that this remains the case when (if?) streaming longform content is more widely adopted.
September 18th, 2006 at 5:25 am
Passing annoyances yes, every single one of them, but what, ten years (or even months, weeks?) down the line, am I buying? Better the passing annoyance you know…
September 19th, 2006 at 6:49 am
Thanks for the comments.
Trevor, I have received the same ad when viewing content on CNet both in the US and UK so I am sure you are right that the targeting is not localized.
I for one would not mind advertisers taking better advantage of the targeting possibilities of the web. Provided my browsing record is divorced from personal data that I may enter online do I care that weather.com can figure out that I am interested in weather conditions in Vermont and that my frequency of requests increases in winter? If they use that info to show me ads for ski equipment I would appreciate the relevance (in contrast to the interminable ads for low mortgage rates).
Tim, to your point, I think we may be more forgiving of ads that that are embedded in longer content because it is a more familiar format. There is less sense of lost control than with the pre-roll ad.
Anyone else want to venture an opinion?
September 26th, 2006 at 10:03 am
For another angle on this topic, check out today’s Online Media Daily. (As far as my opinion - unless it’s a site I’ve been to before, and I KNOW I want to go there - if it throws up a pre-roll at me that lasts more than three seconds, I’m gone.)
November 8th, 2006 at 4:38 am
The real problem with intervening ads is their relevance. If you, say, were offered to watch a 15-sec ad for the camera we’re about to buy, I suppose there’d be no irritation - it’d look like an introduction of the product. If it were an other brand’s camera - well, it differs from person to person, but you’re probably open to options as long as the purchase is still in consideration. At the same time shop’s ad is off here, while ads for different products are even worse.
Some planners think that the ads need to be shoved down consumers’ collective throat, no matter what they actually think about it. What you get with this approach is irritation, ‘ok but make it quick’ attitude at best, severely limiting the ads’ effectiveness. What’s needed here is careful planning, cookies or history logs analysis etc. - consumers won’t mind disclosing some of their personal information if it helps them obtain more information. Consumers need advertising, but it should be relevant, engaging and compelling.