Friday
The Banner's Comeback?
Rich media companies battle endlessly to increase their share of the interactive market. Nearly a year ago, Eyeblaster unveiled a new ad unit cleverly dubbed the 100k Polite Banner. It may seem bizarre for a rich media firm known for eye-catching ads to christen one of its formats "polite." But, no question, it was genius. With so much contempt directed at invasive ad units, a polite alternative is a breath of fresh air.
How can a 100k banner supporting audio and video be considered polite? Unlike standard banner units, the Polite Banner loads in stages. This appears seamless to onlookers, but in reality it loads a frame or two, pauses for page content to catch up, then loads to completion.
Banner file size is usually limited to 20k. That limits creative. The Polite Banner accommodates file sizes about 300 percent larger. Visitors get a rich online ad experience without slowed load times, an improvement over larger file sizes that leave consumers fuming at advertisers and publishers.
Countless publishers, including AOL, ABC, Boston.com, and Disney, have offered this unit for some time. To date, knowledge of the Polite Banner was limited. It wasn't until Yahoo! agreed to accept the technology and Eyeblaster launched an associated promotional ad campaign, the industry's ears perked up.
Yahoo hopes Eyeblaster's format will attract media buyers who pass on more standard banner placements. It's also banking on higher CPM rates it can justify charging (though word is the publisher is waiving the usual technology fee associated with rich media buys). According to Eyeblaster, Yahoo is prepared to serve Polite Banners in the place of any standard banner units, including the good old 468 x 60.
With publicity like this and Eyeblaster's efforts to improve its structure, the banner ad is poised for a comeback. Could the Polite Banner improve the online landscape in the process?
We know banners haven't produced satisfactory results. Plenty of banner ads are still served, but smart buyers only invest in them on a CPC basis to guarantee results. It's significantly larger formats: free-form rich media ads and performance-oriented units, such as paid search ads and pop-ups, that advertisers have been relying on lately.
Despite the many available inventive and effective online formats, the Internet is rife with lurid and pushy ads that slow load times and block content from frustrated users. Many advertisers who employ these ads do so to get the eyeballs, leads, and conversions they feel banners, with their limited file sizes, can no longer supply.
By combining coveted rich media technology with existing standard banner sizes, Eyeblaster is breathing new life into a format currently considered little more than a bonus placement, no expectations attached. With the Polite Banner on the table, advertisers can opt for a less intrusive unit without relinquishing needed interactive features and creative freedom. Publishers can appease clients by offering larger file sizes, and not irritate their users in the process.
Finally, media buyers can kiss goodbye those arguments with sales reps over maximum file sizes. Never again must we negotiate functionality and creative styling with clients in an impossible effort to conserve space.
Eyeblaster's Polite Banner has the potential to be as flashy, noisy, and distracting as most any other ad. But its value lies in its ability to draw deserters back to the stationary banner, and maybe to turn the Web into a slightly better place.
How can a 100k banner supporting audio and video be considered polite? Unlike standard banner units, the Polite Banner loads in stages. This appears seamless to onlookers, but in reality it loads a frame or two, pauses for page content to catch up, then loads to completion.
Banner file size is usually limited to 20k. That limits creative. The Polite Banner accommodates file sizes about 300 percent larger. Visitors get a rich online ad experience without slowed load times, an improvement over larger file sizes that leave consumers fuming at advertisers and publishers.
Countless publishers, including AOL, ABC, Boston.com, and Disney, have offered this unit for some time. To date, knowledge of the Polite Banner was limited. It wasn't until Yahoo! agreed to accept the technology and Eyeblaster launched an associated promotional ad campaign, the industry's ears perked up.
Yahoo hopes Eyeblaster's format will attract media buyers who pass on more standard banner placements. It's also banking on higher CPM rates it can justify charging (though word is the publisher is waiving the usual technology fee associated with rich media buys). According to Eyeblaster, Yahoo is prepared to serve Polite Banners in the place of any standard banner units, including the good old 468 x 60.
With publicity like this and Eyeblaster's efforts to improve its structure, the banner ad is poised for a comeback. Could the Polite Banner improve the online landscape in the process?
We know banners haven't produced satisfactory results. Plenty of banner ads are still served, but smart buyers only invest in them on a CPC basis to guarantee results. It's significantly larger formats: free-form rich media ads and performance-oriented units, such as paid search ads and pop-ups, that advertisers have been relying on lately.
Despite the many available inventive and effective online formats, the Internet is rife with lurid and pushy ads that slow load times and block content from frustrated users. Many advertisers who employ these ads do so to get the eyeballs, leads, and conversions they feel banners, with their limited file sizes, can no longer supply.
By combining coveted rich media technology with existing standard banner sizes, Eyeblaster is breathing new life into a format currently considered little more than a bonus placement, no expectations attached. With the Polite Banner on the table, advertisers can opt for a less intrusive unit without relinquishing needed interactive features and creative freedom. Publishers can appease clients by offering larger file sizes, and not irritate their users in the process.
Finally, media buyers can kiss goodbye those arguments with sales reps over maximum file sizes. Never again must we negotiate functionality and creative styling with clients in an impossible effort to conserve space.
Eyeblaster's Polite Banner has the potential to be as flashy, noisy, and distracting as most any other ad. But its value lies in its ability to draw deserters back to the stationary banner, and maybe to turn the Web into a slightly better place.
Wednesday
Beyond Pop-Ups
The once-ubiquitous pop-up may have all but vanished from the news over the past year, but hardly a day goes by when I don't hear from a marketer desperate to incorporate the format into his campaign. Consumer usage of pop-up blocking software is increasing. So are the number of ISPs and browsers offering the feature. Yet that's not enough to dissuade marketers from gravitating to the format.
Many advertisers cite other marketers' success as providing the impetus for their resolve. We can't criticize them for that. Countless brands have been plucked from obscurity and transformed into household names solely via pop-up advertising. Once advertisers couldn't afford not to engage the annoying but successful format. Just a year ago, Advertising.com released a study that showed pop-up ads produce a CTR 13 times higher than a standard banner. The average conversion rate was over 14 times better than that of a 468 x 60 banner.
Pop-ups are the obvious choice when increasing brand exposure is a concern, too. Not only are they noticeable, they're usually cheap. Some say buyers are astute to employ the format when they're responsible for accounts pitted against competitors with hefty online budgets (in light of statistical evidence, perhaps they really are astute).
Several new studies on consumer perception of the format may reveal all this praise as premature. It could result in a rude awakening for residual pop-up fans. Forrester Research released a report indicating 64 percent of Internet users still find pop-ups "irritating." Sound reminiscent of the avalanche of studies we saw in 2002?
There's more.
According to a similar report commissioned by Web behavior firm Bunnyfoot Universality, annoying consumers isn't pop-ups' only potential consequence. The ads renowned for capturing eyeballs aren't even being viewed. The Bunnyfoot report states the average time it takes for a pop-up to display a company's logo (never mind the call to action) is 8.2 seconds. The average user shuts the window in 2.5 seconds.
Worse, the study reveals 60 percent of Web users mistrust "any company that uses -- or even hosts -- pop-ups." "Brands undoubtedly committing commercial suicide by insisting on using pop-ups," the company's director of business behavior said in a statement. "Pop-ups are therefore not just a huge waste of money; they are also extremely negative for a brand."
If that isn't a kick in the pants to pop-up buyers, I don't know what is. We all know the importance of trust to a brand in establishing a consumer base, driving sales, and increasing brand loyalty over time. Once your target market loses trust in your brand, no amount of damage control is likely to save it from a quick and quiet death.
If you think the data I've cited so far is contradictory (how could consumers loathe pop-ups, yet continue to click?), you're right. But pop-ups aren't the only form of advertising that comes saddled with inconsistent research results.
Consider telemarketing and spam, the most reviled forms of marketing of them all. Ask a consumer her opinion of these, and she'll launch into a diatribe about how they disrupt her life. Ask the "marketers" who call and spam consumers about their results. They'll say they make money hand over fist. If these marketing techniques didn't work, they'd disappear. The fact is, someone out there is responding.
That doesn't make it right... or smart. Pop-up ads work. They get consumers' attention. They deliver results. But if you wouldn't consider spamming your customers or calling them at home ad nauseam for fear of what it might do to your brand, pop-ups are not your format. These marketing techniques simply aren't known for building consumer confidence in the products they peddle. If you value the public's perception of your brand, consider seeking new ad formats.
An obstinate few will continue to use pop-ups, despite the warnings. Maybe some will even get the results they seek. But when you've got the option of going with another form of advertising that's proven to work without besmirching your brand, I can't imagine why you'd take the risk.
Many advertisers cite other marketers' success as providing the impetus for their resolve. We can't criticize them for that. Countless brands have been plucked from obscurity and transformed into household names solely via pop-up advertising. Once advertisers couldn't afford not to engage the annoying but successful format. Just a year ago, Advertising.com released a study that showed pop-up ads produce a CTR 13 times higher than a standard banner. The average conversion rate was over 14 times better than that of a 468 x 60 banner.
Pop-ups are the obvious choice when increasing brand exposure is a concern, too. Not only are they noticeable, they're usually cheap. Some say buyers are astute to employ the format when they're responsible for accounts pitted against competitors with hefty online budgets (in light of statistical evidence, perhaps they really are astute).
Several new studies on consumer perception of the format may reveal all this praise as premature. It could result in a rude awakening for residual pop-up fans. Forrester Research released a report indicating 64 percent of Internet users still find pop-ups "irritating." Sound reminiscent of the avalanche of studies we saw in 2002?
There's more.
According to a similar report commissioned by Web behavior firm Bunnyfoot Universality, annoying consumers isn't pop-ups' only potential consequence. The ads renowned for capturing eyeballs aren't even being viewed. The Bunnyfoot report states the average time it takes for a pop-up to display a company's logo (never mind the call to action) is 8.2 seconds. The average user shuts the window in 2.5 seconds.
Worse, the study reveals 60 percent of Web users mistrust "any company that uses -- or even hosts -- pop-ups." "Brands undoubtedly committing commercial suicide by insisting on using pop-ups," the company's director of business behavior said in a statement. "Pop-ups are therefore not just a huge waste of money; they are also extremely negative for a brand."
If that isn't a kick in the pants to pop-up buyers, I don't know what is. We all know the importance of trust to a brand in establishing a consumer base, driving sales, and increasing brand loyalty over time. Once your target market loses trust in your brand, no amount of damage control is likely to save it from a quick and quiet death.
If you think the data I've cited so far is contradictory (how could consumers loathe pop-ups, yet continue to click?), you're right. But pop-ups aren't the only form of advertising that comes saddled with inconsistent research results.
Consider telemarketing and spam, the most reviled forms of marketing of them all. Ask a consumer her opinion of these, and she'll launch into a diatribe about how they disrupt her life. Ask the "marketers" who call and spam consumers about their results. They'll say they make money hand over fist. If these marketing techniques didn't work, they'd disappear. The fact is, someone out there is responding.
That doesn't make it right... or smart. Pop-up ads work. They get consumers' attention. They deliver results. But if you wouldn't consider spamming your customers or calling them at home ad nauseam for fear of what it might do to your brand, pop-ups are not your format. These marketing techniques simply aren't known for building consumer confidence in the products they peddle. If you value the public's perception of your brand, consider seeking new ad formats.
An obstinate few will continue to use pop-ups, despite the warnings. Maybe some will even get the results they seek. But when you've got the option of going with another form of advertising that's proven to work without besmirching your brand, I can't imagine why you'd take the risk.
Sunday
Pop-Up Alternatives
Last week's piece cited recent news pop-ups cause consumers to mistrust associated brands. A number of marketers says they don't see a way around using the format in their campaigns. "Our clients demand the format," they insist. "It's cheap, proven to generate leads, and produces solid ROI repeatedly."
Their case is a simple one: Pop-ups outperform every other online ad format. They realize associating their clients with pop-ups could damage the brands. But when a format works, you'd be surprised how many marketers and advertisers are willing to take that risk.
Listening, one realizes there are two types of media buyers. There are those who represent Fortune 500 firms. Their duty is to promote trusted brand names online. Some may say these marketers have it easy. On the one hand, failure to meet the elevated standards of these clients (whose business single-handedly supports a good many agencies) could result in being blacklisted from this elite community. On the other, working with familiar and trusted brands vastly increases the likelihood of marketing success.
Then there are those who represent the hundreds of independent advertisers promoting products online. The majority of online media buyers fall into this category. These marketers can attract big budgets, too. They plan and buy for online travel services, casinos, office supply companies, and the like. But unlike their counterparts, they don't have the luxury of promoting established brands. These planners and buyers aren't often asked to develop branding campaigns. Their decisions and actions are entirely driven by sales, and their clients can't easily absorb campaign blunders.
It's the latter group that continues to be drawn to pop-ups, a format heavily relied on to buttress campaigns and used to fall back on should they somehow hit the skids. When representing clients less concerned with brand image, these individuals are more inclined to blanket the Web with millions of untargeted, uncapped ads -- a bad habit that's loathed by all.
To these media buyers and marketers, pop-ups are an addiction. What advocates need is an alternative that produces results without the inherent risks (and without irritating the rest of the online community in the process). These marketers have fruitfully used pop-ups for so long, few believe such an option exists. Here's what some of the top ad networks recommend to these die-hards.
Skyscrapers
In the infamous Advertising.com study that named pop-ups 14 times more effective at generating conversions than standard banners, one format was found to produce even more stellar results: skyscraper ads. According to the study, skyscrapers boasted a CTR 60 percent higher than banners and a 20 percent better conversion rate. Part of the Interactive Advertising Bureau's (IAB's) Universal Ad Package, skyscrapers are carried by virtually all major sites and ad networks. Many publishers offer them on a cost-per-action basis, making them a cost-effective option for marketers with limited budgets.
Pop-Unders
The less-intrusive cousin of the pop-up, the pop-under is still touted as an "incredibly effective format" when used responsibly. It's one of the eight formats offered by Fastclick (pop-ups didn't make the cut). According to Jeff Hirsch, the network's chief revenue officer and IAB Task Force member, it's experiencing "unprecedented demand."
The price at which Fastclick offers pop-unders -- rate card cost of $7 CPM -- is higher than the average pop-up. Hirsch says it's known to produce good return on investment (ROI). The secret is strict quality control. Fastclick only delivers one pop-under per user per browser session. They try to introduce new creative to users every week. This effort to avoid inundating consumers with ads is what Hirsch believes makes the format work. "There is some association between pop-ups and pop-unders, and some concern about negative brand association," he says. "Then again, some of the largest brands became that way by using pop-under ads."
Word is the IAB plans to release a new set of standards for both pop-under and pop-up ads in upcoming months.
Customized Combination
When asked about replacing pop-ups, Colin Petrie-Norris, director of product with Advertising.com, admits "there's no silver bullet that can replace pop-ups that we know about." His network has come up with the next best thing. When approached by a client who wants results without pop-ups, Advertising.com recommends a combination of formats customized to each advertiser's needs.
Without the pop-up option, Petrie-Norris says he must "be more thoughtful in the design of creatives to reach each objective." Incorporating interactivity, interstitials, and rich media into campaigns is an oft-used approach. Knowing larger formats work well, large skyscrapers are used, too. As a network almost exclusively composed of cost-per-action (CPA) advertising, Advertising.com can practically guarantee results regardless of format, even without pop-ups to fall back on.
Pop-ups may be matchlessly effective, but not everything that tastes good is good for you. Consider expanding beyond the pop-up. You may just find something that works.
Their case is a simple one: Pop-ups outperform every other online ad format. They realize associating their clients with pop-ups could damage the brands. But when a format works, you'd be surprised how many marketers and advertisers are willing to take that risk.
Listening, one realizes there are two types of media buyers. There are those who represent Fortune 500 firms. Their duty is to promote trusted brand names online. Some may say these marketers have it easy. On the one hand, failure to meet the elevated standards of these clients (whose business single-handedly supports a good many agencies) could result in being blacklisted from this elite community. On the other, working with familiar and trusted brands vastly increases the likelihood of marketing success.
Then there are those who represent the hundreds of independent advertisers promoting products online. The majority of online media buyers fall into this category. These marketers can attract big budgets, too. They plan and buy for online travel services, casinos, office supply companies, and the like. But unlike their counterparts, they don't have the luxury of promoting established brands. These planners and buyers aren't often asked to develop branding campaigns. Their decisions and actions are entirely driven by sales, and their clients can't easily absorb campaign blunders.
It's the latter group that continues to be drawn to pop-ups, a format heavily relied on to buttress campaigns and used to fall back on should they somehow hit the skids. When representing clients less concerned with brand image, these individuals are more inclined to blanket the Web with millions of untargeted, uncapped ads -- a bad habit that's loathed by all.
To these media buyers and marketers, pop-ups are an addiction. What advocates need is an alternative that produces results without the inherent risks (and without irritating the rest of the online community in the process). These marketers have fruitfully used pop-ups for so long, few believe such an option exists. Here's what some of the top ad networks recommend to these die-hards.
Skyscrapers
In the infamous Advertising.com study that named pop-ups 14 times more effective at generating conversions than standard banners, one format was found to produce even more stellar results: skyscraper ads. According to the study, skyscrapers boasted a CTR 60 percent higher than banners and a 20 percent better conversion rate. Part of the Interactive Advertising Bureau's (IAB's) Universal Ad Package, skyscrapers are carried by virtually all major sites and ad networks. Many publishers offer them on a cost-per-action basis, making them a cost-effective option for marketers with limited budgets.
Pop-Unders
The less-intrusive cousin of the pop-up, the pop-under is still touted as an "incredibly effective format" when used responsibly. It's one of the eight formats offered by Fastclick (pop-ups didn't make the cut). According to Jeff Hirsch, the network's chief revenue officer and IAB Task Force member, it's experiencing "unprecedented demand."
The price at which Fastclick offers pop-unders -- rate card cost of $7 CPM -- is higher than the average pop-up. Hirsch says it's known to produce good return on investment (ROI). The secret is strict quality control. Fastclick only delivers one pop-under per user per browser session. They try to introduce new creative to users every week. This effort to avoid inundating consumers with ads is what Hirsch believes makes the format work. "There is some association between pop-ups and pop-unders, and some concern about negative brand association," he says. "Then again, some of the largest brands became that way by using pop-under ads."
Word is the IAB plans to release a new set of standards for both pop-under and pop-up ads in upcoming months.
Customized Combination
When asked about replacing pop-ups, Colin Petrie-Norris, director of product with Advertising.com, admits "there's no silver bullet that can replace pop-ups that we know about." His network has come up with the next best thing. When approached by a client who wants results without pop-ups, Advertising.com recommends a combination of formats customized to each advertiser's needs.
Without the pop-up option, Petrie-Norris says he must "be more thoughtful in the design of creatives to reach each objective." Incorporating interactivity, interstitials, and rich media into campaigns is an oft-used approach. Knowing larger formats work well, large skyscrapers are used, too. As a network almost exclusively composed of cost-per-action (CPA) advertising, Advertising.com can practically guarantee results regardless of format, even without pop-ups to fall back on.
Pop-ups may be matchlessly effective, but not everything that tastes good is good for you. Consider expanding beyond the pop-up. You may just find something that works.
