Banners vs. Native Ads - Who Wins?
May 11, 2013
With the birth of the Internet came banner ads. You know, those annoying boxes that compete with the information you logged on to see. The sales departments in newspaper, magazine, radio and television urged their clients to buy banner ads "to be seen by millions..." We have, for years, been pitched the thousands, if not millions, of page views a media company says they get in the hope we'll purchase a banner ad and...we have.
Trouble is...they don't work very well.
That's not to say we didn't buy some. However, in each case the number of clicks to a banner ad was, at best, underwhelming. While we've always warned that "page views" do not translate into "click throughs" some of our clients were still intoxicated with the idea of cheap advertising and increased exposure. But then, following the run, they quickly opted out.
Now along comes a study that, in part, supports our long standing belief. The study says consumers visually engage with "native ads" 52% more frequently than with banner ads. The survey used eye-tracking technology to measure ad impact for major brands.
So, you're wondering, "What the heck is a native ad"? Here's a quick description: Think of an add that appears in the conversation stream of Twitter or Facebook. You know, right there on the top of what a friend said about supper and below what somebody said about their kids. They can also appear in blogs, smack in the middle of the conversation sort of like this:
(Sorry, a little self promotion can't hurt...)
If you are a small to mid-size company how do you get there? Well, if you are already in social media circles you already have the power. Now what you need to do is visit regarding WHAT you do...making sure it's at least interesting to the audience.
Want some help? We're here.
Study details can be found here:
The study, titled Benchmarking the Effectiveness of Native Ads, used surveys and eye-tracking technology to measure ad impact for major brands.