My colleagues at Dynamic Logic just held a 4As webinar titled “Online Creative Best Practices.” Over 300 people logged in to the webinar and the feedback was very positive. When I looked through the presentation, I was struck by the fact that there are both similarities and differences in what works for online and what works for other media. Here is my take on the tips from the presentation. Please feel free to add your thoughts.
1. Brand impact is only as strong as your brand presence — show the brand prominently on all frames of the creative.
OMG, did we really say this? It smacks of the “brand early and often” mantra of some of our TV pretesting competitors, which we typically dismiss as mistaken. We find no evidence for this mechanistic branding approach delivering better results for TV commercials.
But this rule is different for online. When people are online, their attention is not directed at a screen several feet away showing a sequential flow of content. Rather they are actively searching a small screen in front of them that may contain many items of interest. Though there is no guarantee that viewers will attend to an ad even in the context of sequential content (providing great creative and relevant content is the only way to ensure this), media like TV and radio have the advantage that the channel content is not competing for attention with the ad.
This basic difference has important ramifications leading to the following tips:
2. Each frame of an ad should stand on its own.
3. Be mindful when using “reveal” ads.
In other words, do not expect people to pay attention for the full duration of the ad. They may start and stop anywhere. Unless an ad’s relevance is immediately apparent, people will move on.
The next two tips highlight a similarity between online and other media:
4. Keep the messaging very simple.
5. Don’t make people work for your message.
Few people consume media in order to look at the ads. They are not going to expend any effort working out what you are trying to tell them.
6. If your goal is persuasion, be careful not to annoy the site visitor.
It has become very popular to talk about the interruptive experience of TV advertising. But on TV, commercial breaks are familiar and expected. How much more interruptive is it to shove an ad in front of the content that someone wants to look at? The more interruptive an ad is in the online environment, the more likely it is to provoke a negative response to the advertiser. (Click here for more thoughts on this topic).
7. Inclusion of product shot & human presence
The fact that human presence improves attention has been a key learning since the very earliest days of banner ads. People are interested in people. I would be willing to bet that ads that feature close-ups – particularly eyes looking out from an ad – would be even more effective.
8. Integrate online creative concepts with offline.
This finding is testimony to the synergy that comes from a multimedia campaign. The use of multiple channels not only extends reach but also magnifies the potential impact of individual media.
9. Seek to use ads that do not frame site content.
Again, this finding is a golden oldie. People are online to look at the channel content, not the ads. (Data from early Internet days suggested that if people found the channel content very interesting, they were only a third as likely to notice the advertising than if the channel content was not interesting.)
10. Coupons/free trial offers did not differentiate performance on awareness/persuasion among top categories.
This finding is really intruiging. I am not sure that we know how well these types of appeals perform in other media, but I suspect the impact of such offers depends on how many active shoppers see the ad (and how worthwhile the offer might be to them).
There is a lot more interesting information contained in the “Online Creative Best Practices” presentation that can be found here, but overall it confirms that different media require different creative approaches. You have to take the consumer’s mindset into account and, judging by the wide range of success reported in this study, all too often advertisers don’t.
So what are your thoughts on these tips? What would you add? What strikes you as odd? Please let us know.
(4 votes, average: 4.25 out of 5)
Loading ...
Email This Post
November 18th, 2009 at 8:41 am
I’d probably add one more to this list: The promise of hits does not an impact make.
How many times are ads shown as pop-ups as a consequence of clicking to an intended web destination? Many times they are quickly closed having virtually no impact. Simple internet ads get about 3 seconds to make their point, unless there’s something about them that engages people. Just because an ad generates click through, doesn’t mean it has much impact. Ads generating click through with under 2 seconds duration probably won’t do anything and might even generate negative reaction, that is, if people even read the brand name.
Based on what I’ve seen thus far. I don’t see that many internet ads which have generated even short term effects on core brand metrics, let alone long term advantages - even on well funded campaigns generating lots of hits. My follow-up question is: Are our current metrics set-up to handle what can be a very short term impact, with perhaps only subtle effects being felt later if there is other media synergy?