As you might expect, there is more to the story than just a bunch of numbers. Exciting as the findings are in terms of offering numeric proof that online branding actually does work, some jaded skeptics are already labeling the studies a desperate move to justify Internet advertising in the midst of a horrendous downturn. Some have also called the releases nothing more than a "strong tactical move" to enhance the medium by proving its branding ability.
I have to disagree. The industry may be getting desperate, but the results of these studies - even in the humble opinion of this habitual skeptic - are very valuable if only because branding metrics are a language traditional advertisers - who will ultimately be responsible for the survival or the demise of this medium - understand. That, and the results are based on the responses of nearly 170,000 people - a very sufficient sample.
Not to mention the fact that all three research teams didn't really discover anything we didn't know before - bigger ads work better than smaller ads; interactivity is more eye- catching; and intrusive ads (pop-ups, interstitials, etc.) are better attention grabbers. The studies were really aimed at those of us who can't live without quantifiable proof.
If I had to find fault, I'd pick on the fact that all three studies tested participants immediately after those saw the ads, which says almost nothing about long-term brand recall (effects of messages days and weeks after being seen).
But overall, these researchers should be commended - they've finally stood up to the challenge of providing the online ad industry with the first installment of the kind of research every panelist at every online ad conference has asked for in the past two years.
I, personally, see no reason for skepticism here. Do you?