comScore's Natural Born Clickers surveys threw digital marketers into a tailspin a couple of years ago by indicating that monthly clicks on display ad had shrunk by 50% --from 32% to 16%. However, if we see display as a branding tool, akin to television commercials, measuring 'clicks' isn't the right metric.
In fact, the lack of confidence in display is confusing relative to the faith in traditional television. Neither allows for accurate conversion measurement, but both clearly have significant branding value. Why is it that television, the more expensive of the two options by far, seems like a better proposition to many companies?
In part it has to do with creative: it's difficult to develop a great message in the limited real estate offered by traditional display sizing, particularly if conversion is a goal. Television, in relative terms, offers a luxury of time and space. Part of the reason that display appears to be a less successful advertising channel is that messaging has often been poor -- though there is infinitely more opportunity to tweak an online ad than there is a commercial.
For some, television may also seems like a 'sure thing.' While costs are high, there's a sense that there is proven value in large, targeted reach. Comparable reach in the display space may require getting your ad onto hundreds, if not thousands of sites, each contributing a small piece of the pie. This means risk. On TV your ad is associated with a few very particular brands; online an ad may end of on a number of smaller websites that make the brand seem like small potatoes.
The final analysis? The data supports the idea that a multi-channel strategy works best. Don't give up TV, but well designed and thoughtfully placed display ads can do a world of good in boosting total reach and upping brand awareness. A good campaign won't require the marketer to make and either/or choice.
No comments:
Post a Comment