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

Subject: Mac Designers (Was RE: UKNM: Banners ads, again)
From: Mat Morrison
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 11:09:02 +0100

Just to raise a point slightly off-topic:

I used to be a typical Mac-advocate. The Mac OS is still my favourite
historical OS. There are a disproportionate number of Mac users online
(mostly students in the US...) at around 10-12% of traffic on some sites.


Shouldn't someone point out to their designers that this means that around
90% of users see Windows error boxes? Around 90% of users see white
mouse-pointers, not black? That 90% of users have dark blue title-bars, not
cute stripy ones?

All designers should (at some point) be dragged kicking and screaming onto a
Windows OS machine. They don't have to stay there, but they should remain
long enough to

Incidentally Annie -- on your successful campaign (Congrats on the
click-through) -- more than 85% of the users weren't affected by the banner.
What happened to the ones who clicked through (potentially a bunch of
mouth-breathers who were "tricked" into an unthinking click)? Did they buy?
Did they convert to lead?

Many of us have (at some point) put a photo of an attractive girl on a
banner (if for no other reason than to prove a point). For some reason, this
increases click-through by around 400-800%. What it doesn't do is deliver an
appropriate audience (except in certain circs. which are outside my

I agree that some clients may want "traffic, traffic, traffic", but isn't it
our job to listen to the client's objectives, and supply the strategic and
tactical input? "Traffic" certainly comes under the latter headings.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Annie Millar [annieatwe [dot] xxist [dot] com (mailto:annieatwe [dot] xxist [dot] com)]
> Sent: Friday, September 25, 1998 6:10 AM
> To: uk-netmarketing
> Subject: RE: UKNM: Banners ads, again
> 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]