If the media biz is a jungle, banner ads are cowardly and camouflaged. Try a plan of attack that goes in for the kill.
I just ran into a series of roadblocks on The New York Times, and The Washington Post, and I was thinking: Are they just bad banners times two, or is there something more to this format that offers value to advertisers?
Well, I know the answer because I have run multiple campaigns for multiple brands over the years, but I'll make you wait for that. First, let's define what they are, and what they are not. I'm tired of hearing people use terms loosely in our industry. Precision is necessary for understanding. Without it, we'd all be monkeys poking each other with sticks. Actually, when it comes to understanding internet advertising, many people still are. Well, maybe they're not even that good. How about "flesh pods with arms." That's a little more accurate. Alas, but I digress.
If you come to a site, and before you enter the site, you have to sit through an ad, that is an introstitial. If you are on the site and have to sit through an ad when going to a different section, that is an interstitial. But, if you are on a page and all the ads on the page are from the same advertiser, that is a roadblock. I often hear people in the industry group these three together and it only creates confusion for those flesh pods with arms.
So, why would an advertiser use a roadblock? First, the problem with banners. You may know my views on the banner format from my previous rantings, but is the roadblock any better? Or are you just flushing double your money down the drain? Well, it all depends on your business model and your objectives. Wow, that's a cop-out and a bit MOTO (master of the obvious). I’ll explain whether they are useful, to what businesses, and how -- after a bit of an explanation of the overall failings of the banner.