Commentary

More On Buying Banners = Burning Money: The Guarantee

My column two weeks ago, "Buying Banners = Burning Money," has generated a lot of conversations, both public and private. Most people would concede that "reach" without impact is not truly reach, but rather defend the impact of impressions. As I said two weeks ago, some impressions are valuable, but most are not, and it's in the ability to tell the difference where the problem lies.

I realize that this is an issue I am very close to, so it always helps to read other people's perspectives, which is why I appreciate the comments and tweets. It was also particularly refreshing to read "Attention Economics in Online Advertising" by Matt Shanahan, senior vice president of strategy for Scout Analytics. He does an excellent job of framing the issue with digital display advertising, especially his vision of how television advertising would look if it was sold and measured on digital metrics.

advertisement

advertisement

The issue seems to be the industrywide perception that while there may be a variance in quality of impressions, enough quantity can make up for it. What I am saying is that even an infinite number of meaningless impressions will deliver meaningless results. It is not the fault of any one point in the advertising value chain.

Marketers hold agencies accountable more often for "reaching" (look, I know the  whole "quotes" thing is getting old, but the word reach is so commonly misused in digital marketing today that I can't bring myself to write it in this context without quotes -- a pixel loading on a page is not reach) target demographics metrics rather than impacting target demographics. Agencies RFP publishers based on delivering pixels to pages. Publishers in turn design systems to maximize the number of pixel loads (again, I love Shanahan's description of television if advertising had evolved this way). And for their part, consumers do their best to avoid all of it.

But there is a better way. So here is the deal: I am willing to guarantee that 1 million consumer engagements will have a greater impact on awareness, preference, purchase intent and sales than whatever ludicrous number of banner impressions could be bought with the same funds. I know this because we have seen that designing and bringing consumers into richer brand experiences is worth many multiples the typical massive pixel load plan.

Think of it this way. If one million people engage with a brand experience, 24 hours later nearly 900,000 will recall that interaction. How many people do you think can/will recall a banner 24 hours later if they don't click on it, even if they're served it multiple times? How many banners can you recall right now of all the banners ever served to you?  I am seriously willing to follow through on this guarantee, and would love to do a study and post the results right here on MediaPost. If you are a brand that wants to see if the emperor is wearing any clothes, contact me and we can discuss.

A lot of the discussion I hear about banners and clicks is that banners served in context will generate clicks of those interested in the product or service, like a camera banner on a photography website. That is simply DR and bottom-of-funnel marketing. I think we have known that for a long time; Google does a pretty good job with that technique. Why is it when I am watching "House" on television, all the commercials aren't medically themed? Because relevance for brand advertising is not about the context, it's about connecting to the consumer. It requires different thinking.

Okay, have at it in the comments. I really do want to keep this conversation going. Also, keep up with the latest rants and random events as I tweet from www.twitter.com/joemarchese.

7 comments about "More On Buying Banners = Burning Money: The Guarantee".
Check to receive email when comments are posted.
  1. Mark Burrell from Tongal, July 13, 2010 at 2:26 p.m.

    I could not agree more!!!! Need to be actual engagement, immersion and targeting to be meaningful. The impression is an absurd claim in my opinion.

  2. Matthew Greene from Blue Ribbon Digital, July 13, 2010 at 2:36 p.m.

    Joe, oh Joe...

    I can recall exactly the same amount of TV spots I've viewed, which is 0. And the only difference is, TV is far more expensive to deliver one's message, plus, targeting via TV is inferior to online. And when it comes to accountability -- online wins hands down!

    And, an action, click, and stuff is all nice and good to have, but absolutely NOT the key indicator for a successful campaign, unless you are a Direct marketer.

    Really, it's 2010, I would nave hoped that since I began in this business in 1998, we could have out that old canard to bed already, circa 2004.

  3. Mike Einstein from the Brothers Einstein, July 13, 2010 at 3:05 p.m.

    Matthew, oh Mthew,

    You've truly overdosed on your own Kool Aid. Proclaiming that you can't recall any ads on either TV or the Internet, isn't exactly a ringing endorsement for either; made even more foolish sounding when you listen to yourself: "...plus, targeting via TV is inferior to online." I'm confused, which of the zero ads you recall online were properly targeted?

    All I can say is you'd better hope your clients don't read your posts!

  4. Mike Einstein from the Brothers Einstein, July 13, 2010 at 3:19 p.m.

    One more thought...

    It occurs to me that what you're describing here is the sober reality of an on-demand media world, in which no one demands more advertising, period.

    The only thing any brand wants from a mass medium is scalable audience reach. But you can't scale what you don't reach, and you can't reach anyone with a product - ads - that no one wants and which everyone is equipped and inclined to avoid.

    The fact that I can buy online "impressions" by the boat load for less than a buck per thousand out to tell us something...they're virtually worthless.

  5. Joe Marchese, July 13, 2010 at 3:33 p.m.

    @paula - I admit the House example is tounge in cheek, but if toothpaste companies are limited to advertising on pages about oral hygiene, they are going to have very limited consumer reach. Yes, there is a limited amount of engagement time, but that's the point isn't it. People have limited time, and advertisers will pay a premium for it.

    @Mike - thanks for that. My response was just going to be "really, you can't remember ONE television ad?" I mean I can recall five or six off the top of my head, and I have a TiVo (get ads during sports)

    @Mark thanks.

  6. Chuan jer Lim from Yahoo! Southeast Asia Pte Ltd, July 13, 2010 at 7:57 p.m.

    Joe,

    I like reading your insights but this particular one, I just can't stomach it.
    We all know banners have limited effect, especially the ones that are rushed out without proper considtation on how it can intrigue readers, but by no means are they totally worthless.

    Today's marketing had evolved with more channels popping out. Given the context of your post, we should be looking at the entire industry of 'static' ads (think newspapers ads, magazine ads, radio ads, TV ads etc). Which of these give you that much needed engagement?

    In my opinion, Takeaway should be that of banners will only be effective and have a higher chance of soliciting engagement if and only if the creative aspect is given fair share of attention and thought through.

    Thx! Welcome to feel otherwise. :-)

  7. Chris Gale from Datapop, July 14, 2010 at 7:14 p.m.

    Joe,
    Though i think you're pushing the truth a little bit for affect, totally agree with the concept! Plugged your article on our company blog -- god stuff!
    http://wp.me/pXOK5-1u

Next story loading loading..