Much has been said about the lack of creativity within online advertising. A fair amount has been undertaken to try and redress the problem – more awards for interactive creative, the IAB’s Creative Showcase, increasing numbers of educational seminars and briefings.

However, of the 2%+ of ad spend that goes online, the majority of that is spent by media buyers, with the vast majority of the spend going on CPM buys, with the majority of placements going to a very small minority of publishers (mostly portals, ISPs etc.). I don’t know exact figures but I suspect the value of spend on more creatively challenging and complex online advertising, focusing on tighter audience segments, is really pretty small. Hopefully this will change but there is still a very long way to go.

My own feeling is that online ads are conceived in too ‘flat’ a manner. Ironically, there is too little thought given to *interaction* and how an ad might be *used* rather than seen, or clicked on. Most online ads I see still go something like this – here’s a piece of copy, here’s another piece of copy, and here’s the call the action. Usually I’m not even around on the page to see stage 3. The likes of New Media Age review online ads (with their Ad Watch section) – but how? In print. This isn’t how these ads should be reviewed in my opinion. I think the opportunity is to see online ads as experiences, as content, indeed as mini web sites.

Return on investment for online advertising is very largely measured in terms of response – usually clicks. Efforts are being made, with some success, to position online also as an advertising medium for brand impact. And rightly so, I believe. However, not many people seem to be measuring ROI in terms of the success of the ad in engaging the target market where there is no need to even leave the publisher’s site - a little is done with ‘play rates’ and ‘close rates’ for rich media ads (for ‘time spent with brand’ type metrics).

Rather than thinking about ways to get your target market to come to you, shouldn’t advertisers (and their agencies) consider ways in which they can use online advertising to enter into a dialogue with their customers wherever *they* choose to be. For example, if I was selling mortgages, where the value of a lead and acquisition are clearly very high, then maybe my online ‘ad’ could, in fact, be a chat interface allowing likely customers to ask questions to real people (an IFA, for example), in real time. I can target the ‘ad’ very tightly to manage the rate and quality of enquiries (a bit like a call centre) and I don’t have to get my potential customers to leave the site they found my ‘ad’ on. 20% of clicks don’t even arrive at their destination so why lose all that value in trying to drag a customer to you when the interaction can happen then and there on the site your customer has *chosen* to visit?

From my point of view as an advertiser I wouldn’t dream of spending money on basic banner ads except, just possibly, in the name of brand building, in the right places. However, if my ‘ad’ was in fact like a mini-website, which was served into the relevant context, where I knew my target market to be, and which allowed users (strictly on a permission basis i.e. they choose to interact) to, say, explore how we could help them choose an e-mail marketing agency… now that’s much more compelling. And entirely possible already.

I also think that ad serving technology has been underexploited to date. Not so much for serving ads across publishers’ sites but for use by site owners on *their own* sites. Imagine the following scenario: you, the advertiser, spend a lot of money promoting a new brand on TV and in press; as a result a lot of people search on that term in various search engines; (hopefully you’ve already thought about your search engine marketing strategy before you spend all that TV money, so..) your site comes up in the results; the user comes through to your site with the TV ad or press ad in mind; they get to your site but can’t quite find that one thing that drove them there. You’ve broken their journey and possibly lost their custom and squandered your ad spend.

Of course, one would hope in the above example that your homepage, or landing page, was already updated to tie in with your TV campaign, or that your navigation/search was good enough that users could find what they wanted even if not straight away. But it doesn’t always happen that way – maybe the content management system and templates can’t be updated quickly enough to capture that value, maybe there are ‘other priorities’ that mean this ‘project’ can’t be dealt with in time?

You could, however, use ad serving technology as a ‘lite’ solution to get around this. For example, you could pick up the referring search string and if it matches your new brand that you’ve just advertised, you could use the ad server to make sure relevant content and links are served up to the user upon arrival. Even better, the ad server is an ASP solution and you only pay per ad served – a bit like ‘pay and go’ with no up front costs. Effectively you are using the ad server as a tactical cross-sell / promotional tool to capture and maximise your ROI on ad spend in other media.

Is all of the above pure fantasy? Maybe. But I’d be surprised if I could even have this sort of conversation with a media agency and their planners / buyers. I wonder whether online “adverts” are better off in the hands of agencies skilled in understanding interaction design, customer experience modelling and website build (data capture, functionality and so on)? The technology is all there but I rarely see what I’d consider truly creative and compelling applications of the medium for what it does best.

Is 'interaction rate' set to become the new 'clickthrough rate'?

Rich media formats have significantly improved the creative potential of online advertising. Features such as polite loading, bandwidth detection, smart streaming, video and additional assets have opened up new opportunities by minimising file-size and technological constraints. However, while ad-serving technology has evolved very quickly, the way rich formats are actually being used is still in the proverbial Stone Age. Agencies and clients are mostly using (or should I say abusing) the formats to 'get in the way' and interrupt user experience, rather than trying to find ways to enhance it.

As a result, web savvy audiences get fed up, publishers are under pressure to ban various formats, online advertising is getting bad press, and most campaigns are not performing as well as they perhaps could.

The main culprit is the unhealthy and irrational obsession with CTR. Unless a campaign is purely about driving traffic, what is the point in obsessing about it? Instead of trying to get users to CLICK , advertisers should focus on getting users to INTERACT. By delivering useful and/ or entertaining applications within the format, interested users can respond with minimum interruption to their original task.

Polite loading technology can be used to deliver rich content up to 1mg into in-page units such as banners, skyscrapers LRECs etc. In-page units can also be used to obtain permission for launching a floating ad (on user rollover, similar to expandable banners). Enhanced features such as 'additional assets' can be used to deliver additional content 'on demand' when prompted by the user. Data capture, email and SMS fulfilment can be seamlessly integrated into rich media formats as standard, with minimum fuss, removing the need to create any backend applications.

So, rather than trying to interrupt users in their tasks, advertisers should use the increased capacity and functionality of rich media formats to deliver the brand experience and elicit the desired response within the ad. Rich media advertising should be seen as a 'push' channel to distribute content rather than as just a way of 'pulling' customers to client websites.

Detailed measurement and tracking is available to allow agencies and clients to measure every interaction with their ad, driving down the need to focus on CTR only. ROI models and campaign scorecards should be redefined to account for interactions and clients should be taught to put clickthrough in perspective.

(The views and functionality described in this piece are based on what's available on Eyeblaster right now.)

On 15:59:29 1 April 2004 Ashley wrote:
>Much has been said about the lack of creativity within
>online advertising. A fair amount has been undertaken to
>try and redress the problem – more awards for
>interactive creative, the IAB’s Creative Showcase,
>increasing numbers of educational seminars and briefings.
>
>However, of the 2%+ of ad spend that goes online, the
>majority of that is spent by media buyers, with the vast
>majority of the spend going on CPM buys, with the majority
>of placements going to a very small minority of publishers
>(mostly portals, ISPs etc.). I don’t know exact
>figures but I suspect the value of spend on more
>creatively challenging and complex online advertising,
>focusing on tighter audience segments, is really pretty
>small. Hopefully this will change but there is still a
>very long way to go.
>
>My own feeling is that online ads are conceived in too
>‘flat’ a manner. Ironically, there is too
>little thought given to *interaction* and how an ad might
>be *used* rather than seen, or clicked on. Most online ads
>I see still go something like this – here’s a
>piece of copy, here’s another piece of copy, and
>here’s the call the action. Usually I’m not
>even around on the page to see stage 3. The likes of New
>Media Age review online ads (with their Ad Watch section)
>– but how? In print. This isn’t how these ads
>should be reviewed in my opinion. I think the opportunity
>is to see online ads as experiences, as content, indeed as
>mini web sites.
>
>Return on investment for online advertising is very
>largely measured in terms of response – usually
>clicks. Efforts are being made, with some success, to
>position online also as an advertising medium for brand
>impact. And rightly so, I believe. However, not many
>people seem to be measuring ROI in terms of the success of
>the ad in engaging the target market where there is no
>need to even leave the publisher’s site - a little
>is done with ‘play rates’ and ‘close
>rates’ for rich media ads (for ‘time spent
>with brand’ type metrics).
>
>Rather than thinking about ways to get your target market
>to come to you, shouldn’t advertisers (and their
>agencies) consider ways in which they can use online
>advertising to enter into a dialogue with their customers
>wherever *they* choose to be. For example, if I was
>selling mortgages, where the value of a lead and
>acquisition are clearly very high, then maybe my online
>‘ad’ could, in fact, be a chat interface
>allowing likely customers to ask questions to real people
>(an IFA, for example), in real time. I can target the
>‘ad’ very tightly to manage the rate and
>quality of enquiries (a bit like a call centre) and I
>don’t have to get my potential customers to leave
>the site they found my ‘ad’ on. 20% of clicks
>don’t even arrive at their destination so why lose
>all that value in trying to drag a customer to you when
>the interaction can happen then and there on the site your
>customer has *chosen* to visit?
>
>From my point of view as an advertiser I wouldn’t
>dream of spending money on basic banner ads except, just
>possibly, in the name of brand building, in the right
>places. However, if my ‘ad’ was in fact like a
>mini-website, which was served into the relevant context,
>where I knew my target market to be, and which allowed
>users (strictly on a permission basis i.e. they choose to
>interact) to, say, explore how we could help them choose
>an e-mail marketing agency… now that’s much
>more compelling. And entirely possible already.
>
>I also think that ad serving technology has been
>underexploited to date. Not so much for serving ads across
>publishers’ sites but for use by site owners on
>*their own* sites. Imagine the following scenario: you,
>the advertiser, spend a lot of money promoting a new brand
>on TV and in press; as a result a lot of people search on
>that term in various search engines; (hopefully
>you’ve already thought about your search engine
>marketing strategy before you spend all that TV money,
>so..) your site comes up in the results; the user comes
>through to your site with the TV ad or press ad in mind;
>they get to your site but can’t quite find that one
>thing that drove them there. You’ve broken their
>journey and possibly lost their custom and squandered your
>ad spend.
>
>Of course, one would hope in the above example that your
>homepage, or landing page, was already updated to tie in
>with your TV campaign, or that your navigation/search was
>good enough that users could find what they wanted even if
>not straight away. But it doesn’t always happen that
>way – maybe the content management system and
>templates can’t be updated quickly enough to capture
>that value, maybe there are ‘other priorities’
>that mean this ‘project’ can’t be dealt
>with in time?
>
>You could, however, use ad serving technology as a
>‘lite’ solution to get around this. For
>example, you could pick up the referring search string and
>if it matches your new brand that you’ve just
>advertised, you could use the ad server to make sure
>relevant content and links are served up to the user upon
>arrival. Even better, the ad server is an ASP solution and
>you only pay per ad served – a bit like ‘pay
>and go’ with no up front costs. Effectively you are
>using the ad server as a tactical cross-sell / promotional
>tool to capture and maximise your ROI on ad spend in other
>media.
>
>Is all of the above pure fantasy? Maybe. But I’d be
>surprised if I could even have this sort of conversation
>with a media agency and their planners / buyers. I wonder
>whether online “adverts” are better off in the
>hands of agencies skilled in understanding interaction
>design, customer experience modelling and website build
>(data capture, functionality and so on)? The technology is
>all there but I rarely see what I’d consider truly
>creative and compelling applications of the medium for
>what it does best.

This is the type of discussion that will help the industry move forward. Perhaps Ashley will be cited in posterity as having coined the phrase?

Creative efforts are currently been made by various companies; for example: http://www.unitedvirtualities.com/demo/slide1/

This is one of my favourites, and they are very close in delivering the full promisse of their technology; that is, its high impact, and in some cases entertaining, it facilitates mini-sites, sweepstakes, games, etc.

We have the technology and we even have buyers experimenting; at least in the US, but as always, we in the UK are lagging behind.

Perhaps more recognition of campaigns making use of this type of technology that shows them delivering results would be a good way to drive our creatives into action; we all know how much they enjoy the recognition.

If other media have public awards to highten their profile and reputations, isnt it time we in the online arena pushed for something similar?

I am not certain if anything of this type exists presently, but if not, then perhaps the CIM would be a good starting point, as they are now increasingly recognising the online medium as a vital part of the marketing mix.