Commentary
For Better or For Worse; Magazines vs. TV vs. The Web
- by Jack Loechner , Staff Writer @mp_research, April 7, 2009
Respondents, in 30 minutes with a single medium in a laboratory setting, either watched a choice of sit-coms, read a magazine they selected, or surfed the Internet at will.
At the end of the period they filled out similar surveys that, among other things, asked whether they recalled seeing 4 ads which appeared in the medium they consumed. To establish "over-claiming" they were also asked whether they recalled seeing 4 ads that had not appeared. The adjusted "net" recall resulted in these major findings:
- Within a half hour, magazines effectively delivered more than twice the number of ad impressions as TV and more than 6 times those delivered online
- Though TV doesn't deliver as many ads per half hour as do magazines, net recall of TV ads was almost twice that of magazine ads
- Magazines had ad recall almost three times that of Internet banner ads
- 85% of Internet ads served appeared on-screen and could be identified by brand
- Among web users, 63% of banner ads were not seen. Respondents' eyes passed over 37% of the Internet ads and stopped on slightly less than a third
- For Internet ads, almost all net recall could be attributed to ads that were seen
- Internet video ads appeared much less frequently than banner ads, and their exposure skewed heavily towards young men. When they did appear they were twice as likely to be seen as banner ads.
Study results, in combination with information on probability of exposure, found that:
- A full-page, 4-color magazine ad, was determined to have 83% of the value of a 30-second television commercial
- A typical Internet banner ad had 16% of the value of a 30-second television commercial
According to Scott McDonald, Senior Vice-President of Research for Condé Nast, "Because different media deliver ad impressions at... different rates... time spent with a medium does not translate into value for advertisers... (and) that magazine advertising is undervalued relative to its effectiveness."
Rebecca McPheters, CEO of McPheters & Company, noted... (though) sample sizes were not significantly robust to release results for individual ad categories... there are real differences in performance that are worthy of further exploration...."
For more information about the study and the authors, please visit here.
Jack Loechner is the Editor of The Center for Media Research's daily Research Brief. You can reach him at jack@mediapost.com.
This is excactly why advertisers should stay away from banners or other distracting display ads (they don't add value to anybody, certainly not the internet user)! We have been delivering results to our clients/advertisers with Branded or Editorial Content. Meaning, building an Online Video Ad IN the message. We have a cookingsite, www.LetsCookit.tv with hundreds of original Video content where A-Brands show their recipes to the 'viewer'. Our business model is based on the actual number of video views the videos generate. You can check the numbers on our blog: www.youviewtv.wordpress.com
Ad 'effectiveness' is a bit of a misnomer. I watched the NCAA Basketball Finals last night. There were some hilarious TV ads for products I will never buy. My eyes were riveted. I was engaged. Based on this study they were effective because I have memory and recall. Yet I will never buy the product. If I am the CFO I actually have to inflate the CPM to reflect the real audience which is the cost of the TV Spot divided by the real targeted group not the overall eyeball count.
It is a real challenge for marketers with no true solution sadly.
Secondly on the Web I use Firefox with No Script and Adblocker Plus software. So in the study group we have no idea how many actually get banner ads or ads of any type at home when they surf the web. And we all wonder why Google came out with Chrome?
I would like to see how cost of production and media buy calculates into this study. When I do see a TV ad, I am more likely to remember it than a magazine or banner ad. I suspect the cost of getting me to watch the ad is higher though.
This is also a very general study that doesn't differentiate between types of messages. The easiest lop-sided example would be testing a banner that has a click-to-purchase something vs. a TV ad that tries to get an immediate purchase by getting a person to go to store, online or in person. In that scenario, the results would most likely skew differently.
This study is fundamentally flawed because anyone who understands online marketing already knows that banner ads do not perform. When it comes to the online environment, it's text ads that generate responses. Any wonder why AOL and Yahoo, who rely on banner ads, can't compete against -- yet -- Google's simple text ads?
...Go to any usability lab (a.k.a. focus group) and watch people surf websites and you'll see real quickly people don't click on banner ads, rather, they click on text ads.
This is a poor study in my opinion because of not including text ads in the study, and by including only banner ads, it gives offline marketing a huge advantage in the study's results. Not to mention the "halo" effect associated with campaigns that include both offline and online tactics at the same time.
Jeff Martin
Sales Driven Marketing LLC
www.SalesDrivenMarketing.com
These days, how much time do any of us spend pouring over a magazine cover to cover? It's great that magazines are undervalued, but what's the real reach? Just as we don't spend time on the newspaper and get our information from other mediums, the same is true for magazines.
Study does not state if magazines were specific to a subject, ie Sports Illustrated or Cosmopolitan. Type of publication with such specfic content advertising would skew findings as reader would be more likely to view message that was of general/specific interest. For the most part, a man would not notice the eyeliner ad and a woman would pass over buck knife ad.
We need experiments like this to compare recall across media-- and it seems unfair to complain that one small experiment doesn't address all issues. The magazine vs. web findings are intriguing even if agree that banners are hardly the preferred format. Follow-up experiments should allow respondents the same opportunity to pick a preferred genre of TV show (since they were allowed to pick magazines and surf "at will") and include more online ad formats, but this is an interesting starting point.
I will recommend using <a href="http://www.emailcharger.com/"> http://EmailCharger.com</a> for all email marketing needs. Its the best desktop email marketing software I have used so far.
How did the participants choose the media? Or was it chosen for them?
I'd like to see more in depth analysis of this study. I think there are way too many variables to account for.
Also, I have to disagree with Jeff Martin. People who understand online marketing know that yes a one-time banner display won't work. Neither will any other one-time placement unless it's something more direct like an email blast. But even then each and every marketing play needs to have some kind of continuing momentum to be effective.
And the effectiveness of the banner depends on how you measure the success. Are you looking at clicks? Choose a different option. Banner ads are used for branding purposes and numerous more in depth studies have shown that repeated exposure with banner ads help in brand recognition and help to improve the success rate of other marketing components like an email blast. These studies also show that when a person is hit with three different ad types, the click-thru rate dramatically rises (i.e. banner with content, email blast, flash on web).
Text ads are great for lower cost advantages but it depends on where you place it and what type of key words you appropriate. It's sad that many marketers don't know how to use key words and if you can use them effectively great. But if you're posting text ads on a website where there is a lot of text ads or just alot of text, it's not going to get seen. Take for example the listing below the comment box. Although they're for web articles, if this was a text ad, I'd ignore it as would many folks.
The other thing about text ads- if they're listed under specific categories they work great -i.e. under whitepapers or webinars or video products etc. But the real problem with text ads that banners address is that text ads only really attract those people who are actively searching for your ad. You have to look and actively read the text versus a banner ad where it may actually illicit a "oh that's new, I've never considered that solution before" type of reaction.
One other thing about text ads, whatever you want to say in a text ad, you can say in a banner ad. So whatever dismissals banner ads face, texts ads will face but again, all these ads depend on the type of content and messaging you provide.
What this study also doesn't measure are internet ads used within social media paid on clickthrough rather than impression. If you have engaged a viewer enough to get them to click on an ad the ad is going to be more effective. If the survey just asked if they saw a banner ad on a page it is going to be flawed. Internet advertising can hold more value simply because it can be measured more accurately based on clickthrough.
So...
People don’t pay much attention to banner ads.
and
People remember video and glossy, full-page images better than small banners off to the side of a web page.
This is news?
It appears the only metrics used to determine “effectiveness” and “value” are impressions and recall. Where are cost and return in this determination? Is my 30 second spot still more valuable if it costs 100 times more than my banner? What about conversion to my desired outcome (e.g. purchase)? My magazine ad may get more impressions, but what if very few convert?
I get it. Advertisers are shifting dollars from offline to online precisely because the latter is easier to measure. But it is border-line disingenuous to attempt to stem that tide by comparing these very different mediums on metrics that are so clearly skewed. More so given that impressions and recall are not the marketer’s ultimate objective. This definition of effectiveness gives the gold medal to the runner who took the most steps, not necessarily the one who was first to the finish line. We’ve got to do better.
more here: http://bit.ly/rbCA