Basically, I found that the referral (or clickthrough) rate for 12
on-line ads studied ranged from 1.40% to 0.36%. In other words, only
about 1 in 100 people who saw each of the on-line ads followed that
ad to the site of the advertiser. Such rates struck me as being low,
so I quickly checked 12 other ads. The rates for them were virutally
the same.
Three identical ads on the same site produced referral rates of
0.69%, 0.67% and 1.40%, perhaps varying according to positioning and
adjoining content. The 0.69% ad appeared on the first screen of a
menu page. The 0.67% ad appeared well into a content page. The 1.40%
ad appeared on the first screen of a content page. It's hard to
gauge sequential readership patterns, but it would appear that the
1.40% ad would have been displayed the third time the ad was
encountered by a typical reader.
A similar set of four identical ads was checked. In presumed sequence
of reading, they produced referral rates of 0.41%, 0.36%, 0.43% and
0.84%.
Differently designed ads for the same product on the same type of
page produced identical referral rates of 0.69% (which was right at
the mean), even though one offered a graphically simple, directly
cognitive message about the benefits of the product while the other
offered a graphically elaborate, more heuristic message about the
benefits of the product. (The cognitive ad probably was read first;
the more hueristic ad, second.)
Oddly, an ad containing only the logo of an unfamilar company,
imparting no information whatsoever about its products, produced a
1.04% referral rate. An identically positioned ad, with all manner of
content, produced a 1.20% referral rate. Both were on the same type
of page that produced the twin 0.69% rates.
The 1.20% ad was repeated on a subsequent page that featured a more
closely tailored demographic appeal to the product. The referral
rate for that second version of the ad was only slightly higher
(1.32%).
Two of the ads were for products also mentioned in editorial GIFs.
The editorial GIFs produced referral rates of 3.18% and 8.41%
while the advertising GIFs produced referral rates of 0.68% and
0.43%, respectively.
If the ads in question had been billed at a $15 cost per thousand,
the typical advertiser would have paid around 68 cents per referral
to their site. This strikes me as high, particularly when you
consider that variance in referral rates may be accounted for more by
error than by any content, design or positioning factors.
As someone whose firm occasionally sells on-line ads, I must say that
I find these numbers very disturbing. The idea of "advertorial" sites
seems to be strongly supported, but the idea of general advertising
within editorial seems hard to support.
Obviously, additional research is needed. But from this pre-study,
unless it is way off base, I somewhat fear for the sake of on-line
publications what a more thorough study might uncover. We probably
will undertake it nonetheless on a subscription basis.
__________________________________________________________________
Eric K. Meyer N E W S L I N K 2,830 media links
meyer@newslink.org research/consulting <a href="<a href="http://www.newslink.org">http://www.newslink.org</a>">http://www.newslink.org</a>
Now available from NewsLink Research:
"Tomorrow's News Today: A strategic guide to on-line publishing"
For free preview, write to report@newslink.org
----
The Internet Marketing Discussion List is sponsored this week by:
Decisive makes surveying by e-mail &amp; Internet easy! &lt;<a href="<a href="http://www.decisive.com">http://www.decisive.com</a>">http://www.decisive.com</a>&gt;
Post a message to this group by filling in the form below.