| What
goes up must come down, except for banners ads, I suppose. Youd think
that banners would be the 8-track of the online advertising industry
with their "poor" performance and high cost. Well this dinosaur
refuses to die. The fact is, the industry continues to grow with leaps
and bounds, and banners still account for 55 percent of all online
advertising revenue. How can such an ineffective form of advertising
endure? The answer is it may not, at least not until it is understood.
The
simple reality of banner ads is that they are an anomaly in the
advertising space. The ads are similar to their offline sister,
billboards, yet they are held to a different standard when judging
their effectiveness. If judged on similar criteria, banners have
been shown to be as or more effective than offline advertising.
The problem is that advertisers dont understand the medium.
According to recent research by Dynamic Logic, banner campaigns
were able to increase brand awareness by six percent. In another
study by AdRelevance, viewers that actually click on a banner are
LESS likely to participate in conversion events. According to the
same study, consumers are 33 percent more likely to participate
in conversion events if they view an ad and visit the site at their
own convenience.
Due
to the relative infancy of the Web as an advertising medium, early
attempts to sell and measure banners were based on impressions and
click-through rates. Industry research shows banner click-through
rates have declined from an average of 2.5 percent in 1995 to .34
percent in March 2000. Unlike billboards, banner effectiveness can
be tracked in many ways; whether by impression (number of views)
or by the number of times a viewer clicks on it. While these metrics
can be highly effective at measuring frequency and reach, they are
not appropriate for rating performance or ROI.
How
many advertisers rate a billboard by the number of people that pull
over and write down the URL or phone number? Typically print or
offline advertising effectiveness is measured indirectly by sales
or better yet, market research. Why would banners be held to a different
standard?
The
confusion is simple, yet understandable. Measuring the effectiveness
of banners by tracking click-through is no different than tracking
the response rate of a direct mail piece. That is because its direct
marketing. Unfortunately, banners are one of the most inefficient
and ineffective forms of direct response media based on cost per
thousand (CPM).
If
you want to drive customers or sales, use direct marketing, whether
print or email-based. Its fairly cost effective, and can generate
a high ROI. The advantage of online marketing is the ability to
track the response real-time.
If
you want to drive branding and awareness, banner may be part of
an effective integrated or online-only campaign. Just dont expect
to measure the effectiveness of a branding campaign with direct
marketing metrics like click-through rates. Measure it like any
other branding initiative, with qualitative and quantitative research.
Use focus groups or Web-based surveys to test customer recall.
Regardless
of how online advertising evolves, basic marketing principles will
remain unchanged. Measure success with the appropriate metrics,
and make sure they are tied with a relevant marketing initiative.
Until interactive marketers are able to understand the subtle differences
in media, the online advertising industry will continue to grow
at a much slower rate.
|