Apparently the Beefeater Yeoman is hiding in my city. Well, apart from the fact that I do not live in a city, one thing is for sure. If I find that Yeoman, I am going to beat him black and blue with his own his halberd. The pop-up ads for Beefeater I’ve recently encountered online make a complete mockery of Madison’s Avenue "don’t interrupt" mantra, and suggest that both Beefeater and The New York Times have little respect for their customers.
On Saturday, as I was attempting to read the online edition of The New York Times, I was interrupted three times in the space of a few minutes by this annoying ad for Beefeater popping up on top of the articles. I guess it proves that a frequency of three is enough—enough to be really annoying. I had at least hoped that the ad’s frequency was capped at three, but apparently not. This morning it was back in my face again, obscuring what I was trying to read.
No wonder people say they hate advertising! In a lean-forward medium like online, there are few worse intrusions than disrupting someone’s train of thought when they are focused on something else.
No, I am not naïve. I fully realize that it is advertising that allows me to read The Times online. I don’t complain about the ads inserted in and around the content—some of them are even relevant and interesting. I’m usually willing to sit through the print equivalent of the pre-roll. But stick the ad in front of my face when I am already reading? That’s just plain offensive. (Click here for my colleague Dede Fitch’s take on in-your-face ads.)
While many advertisers and their agencies have espoused the "new" model of advertising—engage, don’t interrupt—apparently some still have not got the message. Maybe that’s because no one tattooed that message on their foreheads so they would be reminded every time they looked in the mirror. The sad thing is that the same inconsiderate people who implemented this campaign are probably congratulating themselves on an above-average click-through rate, while completely ignoring the wider damage done to their brand.
I have little doubt that the $25,000 mentioned in the ad will be enough to get some people to click on it. (Clicking on the ad will provide you with the unique code you need to enter the sweepstakes. These codes can also be found in printed material at Beefeater-sponsored events.) But will those who participate in the contest online be gin drinkers, or just inveterate clickers looking for some easy money?
A study released in February by Starcom, TACODA, and comScore found that just 6 percent of the online population makes 50 percent of all clicks on online display ads. These heavy clickers are not representative of the online population; they are more likely to be between the ages of 25 and 44, live in households with an income under $40,000, and frequent auction and gambling sites. Will those people buy Beefeater gin?
As Starcom USA Director of Connections Research and Analytics Grant Prentice says in the Tacoda press release, “Natural Born Clickers shows us that we can’t count on click-through rate as our primary success metric for display ads; Starcom is more reliant on shifts in brand attitude metrics and analytics tying on-line exposure to sales as the true measures of online advertising efficacy.”
Well, Beefeater and its agencies don’t have to measure shifts in my brand attitude. They don’t have to guess at my emotional response to their ad. They annoyed me so much they guaranteed that I would remember and respond to it. Now, I wonder how many other gin drinkers they managed to piss off in order to get this sort of feedback.
The trouble is, even if Beefeater does measure attitudes toward their brand, if they don’t pick up enough of the people who saw this specific execution, they many not realize the harm it does. I have little doubt that the whole sweepstake could be positioned as an "experiment." I can hear it now, "We’ll just throw it out there and see what happens." Of course, maybe neither the client nor their creative agency know how their ads are being delivered. If that’s the case, maybe they should pay attention to the delivery as well as the execution.
I have focused my attention on Beefeater but they are not alone. So many marketers today fail to understand the damage that can be done by ill-considered media placements like this one. But I should also point out that The New York Times did not do itself any favors by allowing this type of advertising on its site. Do they want me to read The Wall Street Journal? If so, they only need keep this up and I will happily pay for the privilege.
So what do you think? Do I need to stop whining and get used to marketers who think it is OK to shove ads in our faces? Or do marketers like these need to wise up before their brand gets completely undermined? Please don’t hold back. Have your say. Meanwhile I think I will fix myself a nice Tanqueray and tonic.
(10 votes, average: 3.8 out of 5)
Loading ...
April 7th, 2008 at 3:19 pm
I spend thirty minutes or more a day on the NYT site. I don’t use a pop-up blocker on the site because I do not find their ad implementation invasive. And many of their multimedia news features are worth watching.
But are you ever correct about the Beefeater pop-ups. Aside from just plain cheesy, they’re as annoying as any I’ve encountered.
Tomorrow I’ll read the ‘paper’ - and if they’re still there, I’m clicking ‘hide all pop-ups’ on my browser for the NYT domain. And - I’ll probably never remember that I’ve done so - and I’ll never see an ad there again.
April 7th, 2008 at 8:01 pm
[…] to this: tell someone something 5 times, and they will begin to get a little sick of you. Check out Nigel’s rant about Gin. We get sick of things we hear more than three times. So why on earth do they play them […]
April 8th, 2008 at 12:59 pm
Chuck - I hate to dissapoint you, but hiding pop-ups won’t help you. This type of ad uses a roll-over technology - not a pop-up code and is (in theory) unblockable. There is the option when coding roll-over ads to show the ad to each visitor one ever or once a day (based on IP address).
Responding to the article - yes I agree, the roll-over advert is enfuriating. As soon as they appear I disengage with the entire media (content and advert). What is far more effective is a flash banner which on roll-over becomes dynamic or interactive - it still has the opportunity to engage - but only if I give it permission.
April 8th, 2008 at 1:10 pm
Hi Chuck and Gideon,
Glad to hear I am not the only one who dislikes this type of approach. Gideon, as you say, permission based is the way to go.
Cheers,
Nigel
April 10th, 2008 at 7:14 am
I haven’t seen the beefeater ad, but I was online the other day reading an article I was very interested in. When I clicked through to the second page, suddenly what can only be described as a big black ink blot on fire splashed all over the content I was trying to read. It was this type of ad for an action movie (I don’t remember which one - so much for it’s branding value). To make it even more annoying it had some loud soundtrack to it. I had been listening to music on my Mac, so I had to mute everything.
Interesting what you say about click through rates because in my attempts to make it go I did click through to it’s page — which I immediately back buttoned out of. None of their content registered as my attention was solely focused on making it go away. At least the Beefeater ad has an easily identifyable close button. I searched and searched for the close button but could not find it on this the ad - eventually driving me to abandon the article all together.
Which brings to mind another website I used to visit frequently… but which insisted on playing annoying banner ads that flashed at me with audio. Eventually I abandoned that site all together and get my information elsewhere. It’s not just the marketers that need to wise up, but the sites that agree to host them risk losing their audience as well.
April 10th, 2008 at 12:29 pm
It seems to be ubiquitous nowadays on websites that should actually encourage undisturbed reading, ie online newspapers and the likes
Now as far as I’m concerned it has no effect on me, if anything it detters me from buying the product if the advert is noticed in the first place, I normally close them as soon as they appear on the screen.
Aggressive advertising won’t improve any company’s brand image.
As to beefeater marketing campaign, well…. they won’t have any money left for it if they carry on like this
April 10th, 2008 at 2:27 pm
Hi Holly and Marius, welcome to the blog.
Holly, as you say, it is the sites that need to wise up too. That’s why I wonder if Beefeater actually knows how these specific ads are being delivered.
Marius, yes, you can close these ads when they appear but it really does disrupt the site experience. A definite lose, lose, lose in my opinion.
Nigel
April 14th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
Hello Millward Brown friends,
I agree completely: the pop ups interrupt the site experience.
But I believe that exactly equal the TV ads interrupt the experience to see my favourite film, program…
I think we are more critics with online ads, but we are accepting all type offline ads.
And more, when you can choose close the pop ups… but you can’t choose in offline world…
I hope that a respect by the consumer extends to both worlds of the people experience.
Congratulations by your blog,
Greetings from Spain!
April 22nd, 2008 at 8:18 am
Hi David, I think the essential difference between TV and this form of online ad is that viewing is sequential, i.e. the program ends and the ad starts, whereas here the ad literally interrupts what you are doing. Add to that the difference in attention, passive versus active, and I believe it adds up to these ads being one of the most intrusive and annoying forms of advertising out there.
This is just the sort of advertising that is undermining peoples’ willingness to look at any ad.
Nigel