Slashdot Mirror
Web Ads Work Better Than TV Ads
Fohootville, We Hate You writes "According to a new study, Internet advertisements work better than television advertisements. Internet video watchers were reported to be 47 percent more "engaged" by the advertising they watched than were traditional TV viewers. The report does not mention whether pornographic internet advertisements were included in the study."
It is actually true that the human brain is more active while sleeping than when watching TV. The other thing is that TV commercials are rarely of any interest to the people watching TV. Usually they are for products or services which don't appeal to a particular viewer. Ads on videos like that are far easier to target to the viewer than the ones on TV, radio or in newspapers.
Additionally, if I can click on an ad and actually find out more information, I'm much more likely to pay attention to it than the same tired Mastercard commercial. For the most part, even the most amusing commercials cease to be interesting after 3 or 4 views.
Obviously, the one defining difference between normal TV and web-based TV is the remote control, and the ease with which you can change the channel. Commercial comes on? Flip flip flip flip flip. You get to ignore commercials, zone out, and satisfy your OCD all at once. Eventually, your show comes back on, and you flip back.
There's no channel to change with web-based TV shows. Sure, you can alt-tab to another browser window, but once the ad is done, you'd have to task-switch your brain back away from whatever it was you were doing to distract yourself from the ad. It just doesn't have the same feel-good feeling of repeatedly pounding a dinky little worn-down button on the remote.
On a side note, could overlay ads on TV possibly get more annoying? Sometimes they take up 50% of the screen and include loud obtrusive noises. Fox and TBS are especially annoying in this respect. What happened to the good old days, before Spike became Spike, when they'd just take a tiny strip of the screen at the bottom and tell you what was going to be on next? Do people really watch more Sex and the City just because they plaster Sarah Jessica Parker's old and tired face on top of whatever it is you're actually trying to watch?
Yes. I bought a car last month based on a banner ad. A Honda Fit. I had never heard of one before, rarely watch TV, and the ad caught my eye. I looked at the page, then dug further and further into the site researching it, then went hunting for reviews and opinions online. After a few days of this I was convinced and went and purchased the car.
"Engagement" was in quotes in the summary, and rightly so - it's an advertising metric. Think of it this way:
Nielsen numbers ideally measure how many people are watching a given television show based on a percentage of a demographically relevant sample, but they don't measure how much attention people are paying, so TV on in the background when a person is preparing dinner is weighted the same as someone who's involved in the show.
Engagement, usually through things like questionaires based on show content, measures how much attention people are actually paying.
Engagement is a Big Deal, big enough so that many TV networks have started factoring Engagement numbers into their formula for determining how much blocks of advertising are worth in any given show.
--Triv
I've been stunned by how often I'll be leading an older person around,trying to teach them how to find answers for themselves, and they can't tell the difference between the adsense ads and the normal results. I can't for the life of me figure out why, but it seems like they're so afraid of computers that they just don't bother applying common sense.
It's like they've been so acclimated to computers speaking tech babble ("Illegal operation at 0x00ff0e9a") that they don't realize that some things (like web pages) are written in plain English (or whatever your native language is).