|Google sales chief says still testing display ads|
|Web search leader Google Inc.'s global sales chief sidestepped questions on Tuesday over whether its foray into graphical display advertising has been a disappointment, saying the effort remains in testing mode. |
"I think it's fair to say we have basically just started," said Sheryl Sandberg, Google's vice president of global online sales.
The company has been experimenting for two years with running graphical advertising on affiliated Web sites supplied by Google rather than testing ads on its own search results pages.
Last month, it introduced a plan to offer "click to play" video advertising.
Google sales chief says still testing display ads [today.reuters.co.uk]
Like any smart advertiser, they are testing, testing and testing.
I still don't understand why brand advertising hasn't taken hold on the web. Nearly all television commercials are for branding purposes: use Tide, drink Coke, go see the X-Men. Except for the "call within the next 30 minutes" ads, TV commercials have no real call to action...their purpose is to increase awareness of a certain product.
Yet even now in 2006 everyone thinks that people need to click on internet ads and do something (buy a product, fill out a form, etc). Why don't we see "use Tide, drink Coke" ads flooding the internet? They need not even be clickable! A TV ad isn't clickable, afterall.
Anyway, the point of this mini-rant is that CPM AdSense image ads would be perfect for these kinds of campaigns. And Google, of all companies, should have the clout to attract these kind of advertisers and shift the paradigm. Yet they haven't...
google is "testing" graphical ads since years - to no avail.
|I still don't understand why brand advertising hasn't taken hold on the web. |
because the web is the excellently qualified medium for direct sales marketing.
google started out with these incredible efficient cpc text ads blasting away the whole affiliate banner industry who still pays publishers minimum amounts per sale or lead. now they wanted to enter the graphical ad market by broadening their supply of ad types.
the point is, that image/video ads serve other purposes. in addition to the pure text message, you have the intended visual impact on the user, the branding effect.
on the one hand, naturally a branding campaingn will hardly work click-wise as well as contextual ads - unless you trick the visitor to click or directly beg him to do so. on the other hand, the branding factor can not be accepted as free of charge by a reasonable publisher.
in consequence, image or video ads have to be accounted in impressions just like in the other media.
the crux is, that on the advertiser side, there is still a widespread aversion for cpm campaigns. why is that?
ok, after inventing cpc for text ads try to convince spoilt advertisers to do shaky branding campaigns with basically incalculable success measures on cpm basis. as a small advertiser dependent on direct sales, why take second best when you are happy with the first best option? there's only a chance to get the brand manufacturers on the cpm track.
i'm pretty convinced, that branding on the net will be a hot issue and still hasn't got through to the marketing departments. it just seems to be a long way..
"I still don't understand why brand advertising hasn't taken hold on the web. Nearly all television commercials are for branding purposes: use Tide, drink Coke, go see the X-Men. Except for the "call within the next 30 minutes" ads, TV commercials have no real call to action...their purpose is to increase awareness of a certain product. "
Thats one of reasons why advertisers are advertising on the web,they can track almost every aspect of ad and its ROI