ITZ Publishing

MediaPost Publications Bigger Not Always Better For Ad Engagement 10/13/2009

MediaPost Publications Bigger Not Always Better For Ad Engagement 10/13/2009.
by Gavin O'Malley

In contrast to banner ads, bigger isn't necessarily better when it comes to rich media, according to new research conducted by display ad provider Eyeblaster. Rather, choosing the right video, ad format, flash features and expansion are far more important when it comes to rich media display ads. A breakdown by ad formats across multiple regions suggests that for rich media, half leaderboards -- sized 235x60 -- are the top-performing rich media ad formats, followed by rectangle ad formats, sized 180x150. "Eyeblaster data suggests that physical size of a banner has less to do with performance than creative execution and rich media," said Gal Trifon, CEO and co-founder at Eyeblaster. "This corroborates other published studies that reveal that bigger banners do not equate to better engagement." Eyeblaster analyzed data comprised of more than a quarter of a million of ads worldwide, including all sizes, formats and markets served between the third quarter of 2008 and the second quarter of 2009. To demonstrate that size is not a key performance booster for rich media ads, Eyeblaster analyzed the performance of the most popular ad format -- polite banner -- with and without video, across sizes. Unit sizes were sorted by pixel from high to low and measured in total "dwell time" -- the amount of time a user is exposed and engaged within an ad. Results show that video increases performance significantly by 71%, regardless of size. For standard banners, unit size is one of the major factors to attract users' attention. The analysis indicated that on average, an increase of 50,000 pixels yields an increase of 0.044% in CTR, compared to the overall CTR of standard banners at 0.1%. To increase performance and consumer engagement, Eyeblaster suggests that marketers reevaluate the role of technology in their ad play, and and consider aligning creative with appropriate metrics in the beginning stages of planning a campaign.

Metrics Insider » Blog Archive » Should The Web Have GRPs?

Link: Metrics Insider » Blog Archive » Should The Web Have GRPs?.

Should The Web Have GRPs?

Posted June 13th, 2008 - 10:46 am by David L. Smith       

<p>&amp;lt;a href=&quot;http://mediapst.adbureau.net/accipiter/adclick/CID=000019d069049b2a00000000/SITE=MEDIAPOST/AREA=METRICSINSIDER/AAMSZ=TOWER/QUAL=0;&quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;img src=&quot;http://mediapst-images.adbureau.net/mediapst/300x250.swf&quot; alt=&quot;&quot; width=&quot;300&quot; height=&quot;250&quot; border=&quot;0&quot;&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/a&amp;gt;</p>

       

As someone who came out of traditional media and who believes its members have a good understanding of what clients want and need, I am always astounded by the question of the validity of using GRPs for a Web metric. But then I back off and remind myself that there is a whole generation of advertising people who are from the Web era with no background in traditional.

The answer is yes, of course.    

Why? Let me count the ways.   

1) They already exist, even if they are not used or obviously available.   

2) Advertisers who spend most of their money in traditional media (the majority) are used to this metric, along with reach and frequency as a KPI (Key Performance Indicator) in evaluating media plans.

  3) GRPs are simple to compute.   

4) They don’t have to be the only or even primary metric for the Web, but they can be an important data point.   

  5) If using them makes it easier to sell your plan through, why not?   

There are those who say that the Web should go beyond the GRP. Don’t use old metrics when you can use new ones, they say. I agree that new metrics should be used wherever possible. But cross-media comparability is important in providing the evidence to a traditional advertiser that makes it easy for them to approve a plan. So, why not use the metric?

There are others who say that they don’t see GRPs reported out anywhere, so what the heck are we talking about? Here’s a simple Media Math 101 lesson.

A GRP (or a rating point) represents 1% of the audience measured. Traditionally, as TV households represent virtually 100% (actually 98 point something) of the U.S., TV households are commonly used as the denominator in any equation. This then produces an apples-to-apples comparison on a cross-media basis. But you can use total U.S. households as the denominator, too. The numerator is the number of impressions. For your information, Nielsen reports that there are 114,890,000 total households and 112,800,000 TV households in the U.S.

Despite Dominance By A Few, Independent Ad Networks Can Continue To Rise: Report | paidContent.org

Link: Despite Dominance By A Few, Independent Ad Networks Can Continue To Rise: Report | paidContent.org.

By David Kaplan - Wed 12 Mar 2008 08:53 PM PST

With Google’s (NSDQ: GOOG) $3.1 billion acquisition of DoubleClick closed this week, it might seem like there’s no room for smaller ad networks. But a white paper by media investment bank DeSilva & Phillips—Ad Networks: Monetizing The Long Tail—says that there is still a valuable space for independent ad nets to fill, at least for the moment. D+P posits that the value is available through the Long Tail, which allows ad nets to gather up sites with traffic that was previously too difficult to advertise on or which was otherwise undesirable. In other words, there’s still a lot of web space to advertise on and even Google, not to mention Microsoft (NSDQ: MSFT), Yahoo (NSDQ: YHOO) and AOL (NYSE: TWX), can’t serve it all. (Again, the report reiterates its hedge that this view is not meant to be a long-term industry outlook).

The 15-page report reads like an introduction to ad networks, though it does make a few points worth mulling over:

-- The rise of mini-aQuantives: Certain stand-alone players are likely to have bright futures. D+P expects indies like Tribal Fusion and Casale to continue to generate cash by using their platforms to roll up small rivals and niche specialists into “baby aQuantives.” A combination of “unique technologies” and established relationships with marketers are the key.

Revenue From Display Ads to Grow 20% by '09 - Advertising Age - Digital

Link: Revenue From Display Ads to Grow 20% by '09 - Advertising Age - Digital.

J.P. Morgan Analyst Bullish on Underrated Online Ads

By Abbey Klaassen

Published: January 02, 2008

NEW YORK (AdAge.com) -- Don't overlook display advertising in 2008 -- this format, which is elderly in internet years, still has some growth left in it if one major analyst's prediction pans out.

J.P. Morgan is bullish on rates based on the cost-per-thousand viewers for graphical advertising, citing improved technology and monetization as reasons why display CPMs will accelerate by 4% in 2008. It also predicts CPM-based display ad revenue will rise 20% and reach $10 billion by 2009.

'Difficult year'
Last year was a "difficult year" for display advertising, said analyst Imran Khan on a call outlining his 2008 internet trends. "In 2007, we saw pretty significant influx of inventory coming from social networks sites like MySpace, Facbeook and e-Commerce sites started trying to monetize their page views. That drove tremendous amount of new inventory and as a result we saw fragmentation of audiences ... and a divergent shift from premium to remnant inventory."