In Your Face Animated Ads: Ugly Sells

In Search of a Better Way to Generate Click-Throughs

[martinibuster]

I'm experimenting with affiliate ads on my site, and studying the results. What I'm finding, as far as getting click-throughs:

• Ugly ads/garish colors are receiving less click-throughs
  
• Animated ads do much better
  
• Some text links are getting me 7-10% CTR
  

I've read the posts that Ugly Sells, but does subtle and relaxed have a place at the table?

As a publisher or advertiser, please share your thoughts.

[StanBo]

IMHO Ugly does not SELL, for such ads rarely attract serious people with money. They can however bring in some teenager traffic, if that's what you're looking for

As for "subtle and relaxed" - they have their place, but only for branding purpose, for they are unlikely to attract actual clicks. For optimal click-through, you message (an ad) must be moderately aggressive, but clean, professional, telling and, of course, well targeted.

[Smiley]

Ugly sells when then the whole site is set up in that way, integrating Ugly creative into an attractive site really can't be productive.

For Ugly read obvious and simple to use and understand (text link). And with regard to click throughs targeting is key.

[StanBo]

Smiley, are you sure that your definition of Ugly is what martinibuster meant under the term?
We might end-up discussing absolutely different things under the single term :(

[Smiley]

>> Smiley, are you sure that your definition of Ugly is what martinibuster meant under the term?

I think so, but the discussion about "Ugly Sells" has usually been in context of the whole site not just the creative. martinibuster I think is talking about ugly creative.

[StanBo]

Let's compare
"For Ugly read obvious and simple to use and understand (text link)" from your post
and the initial one:
"Ugly ads <skipped> are receiving less click-through ... text links are getting me 7-10% CTR"
There seems to be a contradiction here - that's why I asked

[rcjordan]

>the discussion about "Ugly Sells" has usually been in context of the whole site not just the creative. martinibuster I think is talking about ugly creative.

That's the way I read it, too. And while I know for certain that ugly SITES sell, I don't believe in ugly creative, particularly if it's for the 468x60 top slot where overcoming anything that might contribute to banner-blindness is paramount.

>Ugly ads/garish colors are receiving less click-throughs
>As a publisher or advertiser, please share your thoughts.

My first thought is that there are plenty of advertisers out there that are running branding campaigns and poor creative is a way to engineer that without paying market rate for the ads.

>animation
>does subtle and relaxed have a place

I'd refine that to "movement" versus animation. You need something to draw the eye, but it can be very subtle, IMO. I've used scrolling "..." or just filled in the last word in a phrase after a pause on real estate branding ads.

[martinibuster]

Thanks RC for your input. I'm moving toward text links mixed with product images, text links, and banners way at the bottom of the page.

Subtle and non-distracting. Although when you read online media, they're always going on about how creatives have to pop up, blink, etc. in order to get click-throughs, that's not really the case I'm finding.

New waters for me, so I'm feeling my way here looking for the right mix.

[rcjordan]

>I'm moving toward text links mixed with product images

For the best of both worlds, try a small icon-ish graphic (but on theme) in a text ad. For movement, I did a mouseover color-change of the div background --seems to work great for my sponsors. As a bonus, depending how you serve the ad, it can add to the on-page factors in the serps.

[rcjordan]

<added>

>try a small icon-ish graphic (but on theme) in a text ad. For movement, I did a mouseover color-change of the div background

BTW, the above isn't particularly pretty (OK, it borders on ugly since I use yellows and turquoise in the background colors), but I was speaking of "the usual" (banners, skyscrapers) when I said I don't believe in ugly creative.

[martinibuster]

The mouseover divs sounds like a great idea!

The icon thing- a cute icon can be as irrestible as a stray puppy.

[EliteWeb]

I think it depends on the market and the standards of that market and what type of site its sticking on. The crowd makes the difference.

I have found animated converts better though for all of my sites. Static just sits there :P

[Nick_W]

I did a mouseover color-change of the div background --seems to work great for my sponsors. As a bonus, depending how you serve the ad, it can add to the on-page factors in the serps.

Even just an :hover to text links increases CTR quite dramatically. Recently I've taken to going back to basics with blue links and purple visiteds but with a nice hover color.

Usability: Redundancy is a big Factor [webmasterworld.com]

Nick

[rcjordan]

>Static just sits there

Heh, yeah.

But, on the con side of animation, don't run the banner up to 30k or they'll scroll beyond it before it loads.

[StanBo]

rcjordan, From my experience Ugly creatives are indeed associated with branding campaigns, but in more subtle way then just "not paying market rate". They are often used when running a branding campaign on a CPC basis and their low CTR efficiently decreases campaign budget for the planned reach.

[Smiley]

Nick_W

>>Even just an :hover to text links increases CTR quite dramatically

Really, have you tested this? I'm right with you on the blue link factor, I have also started making links large enough to click, no more stylish small links for me.

[Nick_W]

Not to any scientific degree no, but I have noticed an increased CTR on sites that use it as opposed to sites that don't.

Nick

[Smiley]

Interesting, thanks Nick.