Forum Moderators: martinibuster
[useit.com...]
(Hope it's OK to post the link, but I think it is highly relevant to the discussions in this forum.)
One of Nielsen's conclusions: "A specific ad may or may not be ethical, depending on how closely it masquerades as content. I caution against going too far, because it can backfire and mislead users. Unethical ads will get you more fixations, but ethical business practices will attract more loyal customers in the long run."
Yeah, this is depressing - this explains why ~1% CTRs are common, unless you engage in 'creative' blending. (That research shows that even 'on-topic' and 'highly relevant' ads are likely to go unnoticed by the average visitor...)
Not necessarily. It just means the average visitor may not be interested in responding to the ads. After all, just because a person is reading an article on snow tires or mortgages doesn't mean the person wants to buy snow tires or apply for a mortgage at that moment in time.
If it's any consolation, response rates in other media can be a lot worse than, say, a 1% or 2% AdSense clickthrough rate. What percentage of TV ads with 800 numbers result in phone calls? How many people who drive by a real estate agent's bus bench pull out their mobile phones and call the agent? How many magazine ad impressions does it take to generate a single lead?
If it's any consolation, response rates in other media can be a lot worse..
on the internet most advertising can be measured to a very accurate degree.
..and that targeting and tracking advantage *should* result in a premium for online publishers compared to offline media.
alas, this is not the case. online advertisers pay exactly what the stats show they can afford per direct roi. temporal discrepancies in sales are largely disregarded as well as branding issues. as yet the perverse thing is, that advertisers tend to pay more, if the outcome of their campaign is unclear.
[edited by: moTi at 11:18 am (utc) on Oct. 8, 2007]
Banner Blindness
Old and New Findings as of 2007 August
[webmasterworld.com...]
Didn't spark much discussion unfortunately.
online advertisers pay exactly what the stats show they can afford per direct roi.
Let's not assume that all online advertising is direct-response advertising (a la AdSense). That isn't the case. Much online advertising is for branding purposes, and direct ROI is difficult to measure (just as it is in the offline world).
As John Wanamaker, the department-store magnate, once said (or is said to have said): "I know half of my advertising is wasted, I just don't know which half."
I suppose the reason people shy away from that is that branding can't really be measured in the way responses can. If it does have a significant positive effect, there's no real way to prove it.
Not necessarily. It just means the average visitor may not be interested in responding to the ads. After all, just because a person is reading an article on snow tires or mortgages doesn't mean the person wants to buy snow tires or apply for a mortgage at that moment in time.
I was talking about the fact (or theory, at least) that a significant fraction (most?) of the audience don't even notice the ads (ad blindness). They don't even see them. This was the entire point of the article, as I'm sure you well know.
It's one thing to be uninterested in responding to ads, it's another thing that the audience does not even see them.
If the articles' eye tracking study is representative of a typical user, then I wonder how an advertiser would respond - the user didn't even focus on the ad in any significant way so what kind of response can the advertiser expect for his or her money?
If ads are not "blended" (a trend I find distasteful) it appears that the user just doesn't see the ads. I can't understand why advertisers will pay for placement (in any media) if the audience can blank them out so easily.
(I've noticed that radio ads on talk shows are often 'blended' - to sound very similar to the ambient programming in style, tone, format, and content - in order to ensure that people can't trivially tune out the advertising. If it's not considered sleazy in radio, then why is it considered sleazy in web content?)
the user didn't even focus on the ad in any significant way
I noticed that but I also noticed that the ads were on the right which is not where I put mine.
My ads are either on the left in the vertical back of the F or they float to the right in the article text. Both places more likely to be seen according to the charts.
I do put a border around my floating ad. But even without one the ads look different enough so as not to be confused with the text.
I get a better click rate than 1% even without complete blending. I think part of the equations is whether or not you get good related ads that will interest visitors to the site. That kind of depends on the topic. I just don't use AdSense with some topics.
If ads are not "blended" (a trend I find distasteful) it appears that the user just doesn't see the ads. I can't understand why advertisers will pay for placement (in any media) if the audience can blank them out so easily.
Users do see ads; they just may not see them consciously, at least not initially. (In magazines, advertisers often use Starch Reports to measure recall for different parts of an ad: e.g., the headline message and specific elements within the ad.)
Frequency obviously helps with ad recall, and an Atlas Institute paper titled "Proof that Online Advertising Works" [alt.coxnewsweb.com] has some statistics on that topic. The document is in Adobe PDF format.
Users do see ads; they just may not see them consciously, at least not initially. (In magazines, advertisers often use Starch Reports to measure recall for different parts of an ad: e.g., the headline message and specific elements within the ad.)Frequency obviously helps with ad recall, and an Atlas Institute paper titled "Proof that Online Advertising Works" has some statistics on that topic. The document is in Adobe PDF format.
Ok, so then PPC web advertising also serves as a form of branding when users don't click (and, if the paper is to be believed, don't even look at the ads).
So why don't publishers get compensation for pageviews *and* clicks with PPC ads? After all, even when the visitor doesn't click, there's a proven benefit to the advertiser. At least, according to the aforementioned paper, and EFV's statements above.
It sounds like there's room for another model: a PPC / CPM ad hybrid. Except of course if the advertisers wouldn't understand it, or would be uncomfortable with it. (I can't see why they would have a problem with it, though. Unless it can be explained by the fact that they *like* getting free branding with CPA/PPC.)
Ok, so then PPC web advertising also serves as a form of branding when users don't click (and, if the paper is to be believed, don't even look at the ads).
Of course.
So why don't publishers get compensation for pageviews *and* clicks with PPC ads? After all, even when the visitor doesn't click, there's a proven benefit to the advertiser.
Publishers don't get compensation because Google doesn't get compensation unless users click. Google, however, has been smart enough to use an algorithm that serves ads based on performance as well as bids, to discourage "branding" freeloaders.
Publishers don't get compensation because Google doesn't get compensation unless users click
Doesn't Google offer site-targeted advertising beginning from $0.25 CPM?
We were talking about CPC ads. With site-targeted CPM ads, the advertisers are paying by the impression, so there's no question of advertisers getting a free ride.
I found my gf clicking on the search ads on another site thinking they are results, so prime user of blending is Google.
You seem to be suggesting that the "another site" was Google. It's worth noting that Google does not blend its search ads into the organic results.
Searcher on normal Google expects that first hit is a search result, do they do the same on Google adsense search, the first links are ads. Uses the click automatism of many searchers. :)
It's worth noting that Google does not blend its search ads into the organic results.
EFV, some may disagree with you in that aspect. Those top ads are "blended" very well with the SERPs. Yes, they are clearly marked as Advertisements but that doesn't stop them from being blended from the average users perspective. They are right there in the fold and right where the user is typically going to click. ;)
In any case, the proof is in the pudding, and advertisers tend to bid more for AdWords ads than for AdSense ads because of higher conversion rates.
What I've read was that poorly designed pages get a higher CTR on ads.
Maybe, maybe not. Every case will be different. But if clicks are resulting from bad page design (and not from the fact that users are interested in the ads), low conversion rates from those ad clicks are likely to result in "smart pricing" discounts for advertisers and lower earnings for the clueless or opportunistic publishers.
You're making several assumptions here, without supporting evidence.
True.
It's a guess based on one sample.
I have now 8 x times the earning there. :0
If I would get these CTRs in normal adsense I would be prebooking that yacht. :)
[adsense.blogspot.com...]
Many publishers have found that visitors are more likely to see and click on Google ads when the ads themselves blend cleanly into a site. At the same time, the "Ads by Goooooogle" tagline clearly distinguishes the Google ads from the site content, so users aren't confused.
This is, I guess, all we need to know.
Not really, unless you assume that Google's interests are always the same as yours. Google needs click inventory at all price levels, and Google certainly isn't being hurt by publishers who are foolish enough to make decisions that result in penny-per-click earnings.
