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."

Riddle me this:

[locokamil (850008)]

Has anyone here ever intentionally clicked on a banner ad? A text ad? Any ad?

Re:Riddle me this:

[Rude Turnip (49495)]

Yes, several times when they offered exactly what I was looking for at exactly the right time. I clicked on a Google text ad this morning looking for custom rubber stamps. The fact that the merchant uses Google's checkout system, designated by the Google Checkout icon...*another ad*....sealed the deal for me.

Re:Riddle me this:

[Firethorn (177587)]

From what I've read, google is the master of targeted ads. I frequently click on the ads when they come up during google searches - they're usually pretty good. They easily have the best rate going.

As a result, they have far better results than less targeted but more disruptive ads - as a result of TV, people already have a massive resistance to ads they're not really interested in. Add that to the fact that most television ads today are mostly brand awareness - can we really answer how much difference Coke/Pepsi ads make today?

New products make more sense to advertise - awareness hasn't built up yet. Still, I've been deluged with so many ads that I've stopped watching television most of the time, and I've certainly built up resistance to advertising.

Every so often the media companies go too far with advertising - resulting early on in people taping TV shows in order to be able to fast forward through them. Then they came up with auto-forwarding players, and players that would automatically pause recording during commercials.

Then DVRs came and the same features popped up.

On the internet, advertising just kept getting more and more intrusive until a backlash occurred - Firefox, pop-up blockers, various ad-removal services, etc...

Meanwhile google tools along generating ad revenue by concentrating on providing useful, directed, but not intrusive ads.

Re:

[Arthur Grumbine (1086397)]

The ads on Tom's Hardware are also very useful and directed, e.g. ads for the latest quad-core when the Tom's article I'm reading is benchmarking that exact proc, and I'm seeing how totally freaking sweet it is. I have those perfectly targeted ads to "blame" for 1/2 of my impulse purchases. And, in some kind of weird self-destructive way, I enjoy having those ads around...

Re:

[Firethorn (177587)]

Maybe they're hoping to have you back for an undergraduate degree? Or perhaps continuing education? ;)

Seriously, that they're the best of the lot doesn't mean that they don't have misses. UoP ads are probably more directed for you than serving up ads for feminine products, joint pain, or for various medical issues I don't suffer from. I mean, you'd think that erectile dysfunction is a national crisis from the advertising I've seen on the tube(when I bother to turn it on).

At least for search page results,

Re:

[fyrie (604735)]

Yes, usually on genre sites such as movie and video game sites. I don't feel like I need a shower when I click on an ad for the Blade Runner box set for example (something I clicked on).

Re:

[brown-eyed slug (913910)]

If you ever start your own business, I hope for your sake that your potential customers don't all share the same view!

The simple reason for risking a new merchant is that their price and/or service may be better.

Of course, the more you're going to spend the more care you should be taking, and then a bit of research about the company may help. A new merchant may not have a lot of glowing reviews scattered around the web, but if they're ripping people off you can be fairly sure people will be writing about it

Re:

[by Anonymous Coward]

Yeah,

Once I figured out that Google only payed per click not per view, I started randomly clicking an add for the sites that I liked to support them. I've also clicked on interesting think geek items.

Re:Riddle me this:

[QuantumG (50515)]

Yeah, ya know they actually profile the time people spend at the site when they clickthru and correlate that with advertisers? Ya know that there are penalties for advertisers who click on ads on their own site to fraud revenue? Point being, you're probably doing more harm than good.

Re:Riddle me this:

[Slashdot Suxxors (1207082)]

Goatse link in the parent. Don't click.

Re:

[Tuqui (96668)]

Yes, I click all the MS Ad links here [linuxtoday.com]. MS is paying my Linux News.
And by the way "Linux Reference Center by Microsoft" is a improper use of a Registered Mark, isn't it?.

Re:

[Cal Paterson (881180)]

I've clicked on ads when the ads have been extremely well targeted. Must've happened about 5 times maybe.

What you don't realise is that, with google, many people are unable to distinguish from the adverts and the legitimate results. I'm pretty sure google are aware of this, and a lot of adsense ads essentially act as a paid search result.

Especially technophobes and the visually impared

[Almahtar (991773)]

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).

Re:

[Propaganda13 (312548)]

I don't mind most sponsored links, but some companies like Target seem to be default for things they don't carry. I also get annoyed with the link sites and the shopper sites.

Re:Riddle me this:

[weave (48069)]

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.

Re:

[jridley (9305)]

Hey, at least it's not the same as every other damn car out there. You can hardly tell most cars apart anymore.

Re:Riddle me this:

[Blakey Rat (99501)]

Once I saw an ad for a Burger King BBQ sauce burger and I went out and bought one on a whim. It sounded good, and I guess I was hungry. The irony is that I didn't actually click the ad, I just closed the window.

Re:

[aussie_a (778472)]

Yes, many times.

Have I clicked on slashdot ads? Never deliberately.
Have I clicked on Google ads? Never deliberately.

So which ads have I clicked on deliberately?
* Webcomic site ads for non-webcomic products - although this doesn't happen with any regularity. If its for products I'm interested in (anime, etc), I do so more regularly.
* Webcomic site ads for webcomics - This is where I mainly click on ads and do so fairly regularly.

Want to know how many television ads I'm swayed by? 0%

Re:Riddle me this:

[jellomizer (103300)]

Advertising is not Evil. Most of the time there are people with actual goods and services that could be a value to someone. I am fine with Adds just as long as they are under control. A flash banner add is not a big deal.
It is not like the 90's and early 2000's where the adds seriously effected speed of the content, waiting for doubleclick to respond was painful even on high speeds. But lately I rarely ever notice performance issues with adds.
Now adds are not the problem but the Greed of the Web Master. If they want to make a living with a somewhat popular web site they can do so with a tastefully targeted add placed per page much like slashdot, or osnews. But if they are greedy and want to try to make a lot of money they will try to put more and more adds to get the most money from the site.

The Webmaster can fight with the Add agency to keep things at the right level. I found some very open about their dealing with adds, making sure sound adds are not played, and no popups etc... And they just explain to the add company if you don't do this we will switch to an another add company because our users won't stand for this.

Re:

[jridley (9305)]

It's "ad" not "add". "add" is a mathematical operation.

Re:

[sqrt(2) (786011)]

Nope. Because I don't see them first of all, and if I did I'd never click anyway. I use adblock plus with an aggressive filter and no whitelist, along with Customizegoogle to remove all adsense and other google text ads such as those in search results. My screen, my choice what gets shown, and all ads are inherently intrusive. Some forms less than others, but they all require your attention to be diverted from what you're really trying to get done, wasting your time in the process.

Re:

[HTH NE1 (675604)]

I'm waiting for the opportunity to punch the real monkey behind that banner ad.

Not banner ads, you idiots

[BadAnalogyGuy (945258)]

The ads they are talking about are ads run inline in the video, not the crap surrounding the video frame.

Re:

[ShieldW0lf (601553)]

I fucking hate those things. Instant, permanent goodbye to the site that I see them on.

Advertising makes me think of men in suits being burnt at the stake.

That's because

[koan (80826)]

That's because TV isn't interactive, I remember a study done once that measured the brain activity of a TV viewer and it actually declined, the internet *at a minimum* requires that you be involved.
Your brain is in an awake state (well most of us) unlike a TV viewer.

And no, constantly pushing the channel buttons is not interaction.

Re:That's because

[hedwards (940851)]

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.

Re:

[QuantumG (50515)]

One should mention that most of you are talking about american television, which is almost 50% ads and boring ads at that. Other parts of the world have much more interesting television (and ads).

Re:

[Brickwall (985910)]

Oh, pooh. The FCC limits advertising on TV to 16 minutes per hour, or a little more than 25%, certainly not 50%. And some ads are fantastic; the US advertising agencies spend enough money on them.

What bugs me is when the same frickin' ad is played twice in one commercial break or four times during a single show. As amusing it might be the first time, by the time I've seen it four times in an hour, I'm never buying the product, no matter how much I might be able to use it, because I'm so annoyed.

Re:

[QuantumG (50515)]

Yeah, turn on your tv and get out your stopwatch.. hint: the time between shows is not regulated. In any case, the reason why they are playing the same ad twice in a single ad break has nothing to do with advertising strategy, it has to do with the ever reducing number of advertisers. There is simply too many channels with too small a chunk of the audience to warrant the prices demanded for television advertising.

Re:That's because

[Baricom (763970)]

The FCC limits advertising on TV to 16 minutes per hour

Please cite your source. I found nothing to corroborate this and a FCC document [fcc.gov] that directly contradicts you.

Re:

[absoluteflatness (913952)]

Of course, news updates are ads themselves, it's just that they're advertising the local news broadcast. Most things masquerading as "updates" contain no information except some kind of teaser, and more major news tends to lead to a break in programming altogether.

Station identification, while indeed required by the FCC, is essentially always worked in to some other aspect of the broadcast, such as the aforementioned news ads, other promos for the station, or simply superimposed on the screen at some point

Re:

[Jeff DeMaagd (2015)]

And no, constantly pushing the channel buttons is not interaction.

Clicking mouse buttons is somehow on a whole different level?

Unsurprising, really

[NovaX81 (1136085)]

I know with most of the people I associate with, commercials are just a time to go get something done during a show, or talk about things while there's no content playing. No one's really paying attention to the ads.

On the reverse angle, internet ads are streamlined into the content more often than not. Plus, with systems like AdSense at work, the ads are related to the page you're looking at (which is most likely something you're interested in), whereas while the ads on TV have a targeted audience, they aren't exactly 'user specific'.

Funny I ignore both equally

[edwardpickman (965122)]

If I take notice of an ad it's because it's obnoxious and I want to avoid the product they are advertising. A perfect example is Head On. I'd let my head explode before I used any of their products. If you've missed these little gems flip on CNN they run every few minutes and some times several times in a row. I generally hit the mute button during commercials. Flashing and animated web ads are the worst for me. One of my favorite sites years ago got so obsessed with flashing ads I couldn't read the stories

Feeling engaged?

[Futselaar (1103511)]

maybe I don't quite get marketing, but I would prefer not to measure the success of advertising in terms of 'feeling engaged', but rather in terms of 'units sold'.

Re:

[tonsofpcs (687961)]

Engaging viewers is great for brand marketing, the goal there being to get the branding (name) known, not necessarily the product or service. A big example of brand marketing is mMode/mLife in the 2002 Super Bowl

Video, yes. Images, no.

[Fastball (91927)]

Web ad videos are more "engaging," because video player controls are usually disabled for the ad before the actual content you want to see is delivered. Naturally, with TV, the advertiser doesn't can't disable your remote.

As a consequence, there's almost no video I'll click anymore unless I know for certain it's ad-free. Still, I'm sure most folks just gut it out and let the ad play so they can see the content that follows (maybe open a new browser tab, etc.). So in a way, it's "engaging," but I'd be curious to see what percentage of folks abort and move on without seeing the content.

If I had video content online that I'd want people to see, I'd be leary of prepending a ad video that folks couldn't skip.

Re:Video, yes. Images, no.

[LoverOfJoy (820058)]

Web ad videos are more "engaging," because video player controls are usually disabled for the ad before the actual content you want to see is delivered. Naturally, with TV, the advertiser doesn't can't disable your remote.

You must be using a browser without tabs. I "change channels" all the time in opera when I'm avoiding the ad before the content.

Re:

[evilviper (135110)]

Web ad videos are more "engaging," because video player controls are usually disabled for the ad before the actual content you want to see is delivered.

Only with Flash can they "disable" the "player controls". Avoid Flash, and you can fast-forward through any video if it's technically possible to seek, and sometimes, even if it's not (ie. cache)!

What about ad-blocked ads

[Secrity (742221)]

TFA didn't mention if ad blocking was taken into account.

At least 100% better for me.

[headkase (533448)]

I actually stopped watching TV a few years ago, sure I watch the very occasional program but usually I don't watch anything at all. I average less than an hour a week watching tv and when I do it's turning on the news for 10 minutes every three or four days. I believe that I'm actually more fully engaged with the Internet and gaming as they are active forms of entertainment and having made the transition to them, well, I really don't even miss tv all that much.

no porn?

[jollyreaper (513215)]

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."

If they did include porn, I think that would read "47 percent more 'engorged'".

Regardless, the TV ads these days are rubbish, bad ads and too many of them. From the family gathering this year, I can see that everyone has finally made it over to my side of the argument which is slightly more radical than Bill Hicks. Even my mom is sick of it and this is someone who likes advertising, who responds positively to "cute" commercials. When they lost her support, they lost everyone.

I download everything I want to watch. When I am exposed to commercials, I feel zero sense of persuasion, just a growing, burning anger that can only be quenched by dick-stomping the next advertising exec I meet. They are ruining our culture and our lives.

Here's why I don't mind the ads in net videos

[Rude Turnip (49495)]

I'm referring specifically to video podcasts that I can download for free through iTunes, Miro, etc. First of all, most of the videos are in plain, standard MP4/H.264 that I can stream to my Xbox 360 or Apple TV...that means I can fast-forward if I choose. Second, a lot of the ads are voiced by the hosts of the shows I watch (Diggnation, Web Drifter, just about anything from Revision3), so they feel a little more personal.

Overall, the ads are for something you might actually be interested in since a lot of the shows are very tightly focused. The fact that the hosts voice the ads helps you draw the connection that these ads are paying for the shows.

That said, I would never touch any of the flash-based web videos offered by ABC, NBC, etc. Too "corporate" and impersonal. If I can't stream it to my TV, it does not get watched.

Hang on

[by Anonymous Coward]

Are you trying to say that there is porn on the Internet?

Captain Obvious

[Dachannien (617929)]

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?

Web Ads are Contextual and Voluntary

[Phoenix666 (184391)]

A web ad for a tech product or service that's served up on slashdot or thinkgeek is more likely to be something I'd be interested in than, say, anything sports or feminine hygiene related. So it's rather contextual a priori. 99% of the ads you see on TV are totally irrelevant and therefore irritating. Geico ads? No thanks, we take the subway.

Google's AdSense is helping push advertising from something that irritates the hell out of people to something that might be somewhat useful, in that the ads are ev

Engagement

[Triv (181010)]

"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

what-ography?

[dwater (72834)]

..."pornographic internet advertisements"

I read that as 'phonographic internet advertisements'.

I'm so embarrassed.

Time to grumble about Slashdot ads

[Alioth (221270)]

Slightly OT rant, but of all the places I would have thought would have better sense not to run obnoxious advertising, it'd be Slashdot. But recently, we've had ads on Slashdot with sound (it took me a while to figure out which computer was making the sound of a door slamming), and now an HP/AMD ad that rolls out a large graphic on top of whatever you're trying to read. Normal banner ads on Slashdot are fine, and if it's for something interesting I'll click on it. Obnoxious ads are not - they push me to want to install ad-blocking software, and then everyone loses: I don't find out about potentially useful products, and Slashdot doesn't get any ad revenue from me.

Re:Web ads work?

[BadAnalogyGuy (945258)]

The only times I ever click on them is by mistake.

Yeah, I hate when they make the last thumbnail a link to the pay site.