[Previous] [Next] - [Index] [Thread Index] - [Previous in Thread] [Next in Thread]

Subject: RE: UKNM: Banners ads, again
From: Annie Millar
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 10:12:27 +0100

Rob Masters said some very interesting points about banners.

1. The banner he mentions was designed and placed by WebPromte UK

He raises the question about loosing the branding by not putting a logo
or URL on which normally I would agree with. However this banner
was tested against 6 others which were branded and the clicks were
much higher for the unbranded - and we were after clicks to test a
site. We tested the same banner with the URL on and it failed.

The click through was between 8.5 and 11.7 which as you know is
well above norm. So the question is if building traffic is important
can you be more creative/oblique? If its a branding issue only then
thats a different story. I don't know about all of you but our clients
want traffic, traffic, traffic.

Saying that we usually do brand a banner, perhaps though we are
hiding behind an excuse. If a banner fails is it down to bad creative
or bad placing or both and with a logo or URL we can always say
well never mind lots of folk saw it!!!!

Annie Millar
WebPromote UK - Intelligent Internet Marketing

mailto annieatwebpromote [dot] co [dot] uk


Phone 44 (0)161 907 3309 2-4 Atkinson Street, Deansgate
Fax 44 (0)161 907 3302 Manchester, United Kingdom M3 3HH

>a Mac error message with the line "An error has occurred...
>in your life" (maybe it just seemed apt). Mind you, I never
>clicked on it so I don't know who it was for...
>This raised an issue for me, though. Looking at it *very*
>simplistically, there are two possible benefits from banner
>1) Click-throughs (i.e. site visits)
>2) Product / brand awareness
>Typical click-through rates seem to be about 2%. So the vast
>majority of the audience for your banner ad just *see* it.
>This viewing of (but not interacting with) an banner ad seems
>(again very simplistically) most closely related to traditional
>forms of advertising.

>In order to create a sense of intrigue which should maximise
>benefit 1, whoever created the "Mac error" ad seems to have
>been happy to sacrifice all of benefit 2 (as no-one simply
>viewing it would know who it was for).
>I've obviously got no idea how many click-throughs they got,
>but even if they doubled the typical click-through rate from
>the typical 2% to 4%, that still 96% of viewers who the ad
>was wasted on.
>So my issue is how many "eyeballs" is a click-through worth?
>In the example above, would an extra 2 click-throughs per 100
>users (and remember I've just made up the 4% figure) be worth
>the effective loss of 96 "eyeballs" (who would see the ad but
>be able to infer nothing from it)?
>And please, nobody say "42".
>Robb Masters rmastersatredkite [dot] com
>Project Manager
>Red Kite New Media http://www.redkite.com


[Previous] [Next] - [Index] [Thread Index] - [Next in Thread] [Previous in Thread]