ellipsis flag icon-blogicon-check icon-comments icon-email icon-error icon-facebook icon-follow-comment icon-googleicon-hamburger icon-imedia-blog icon-imediaicon-instagramicon-left-arrow icon-linked-in icon-linked icon-linkedin icon-multi-page-view icon-person icon-print icon-right-arrow icon-save icon-searchicon-share-arrow icon-single-page-view icon-tag icon-twitter icon-unfollow icon-upload icon-valid icon-video-play icon-views icon-website icon-youtubelogo-imedia-white logo-imedia logo-mediaWhite review-star thumbs_down thumbs_up

Why online creative stinks so badly

Why online creative stinks so badly Eric Picard

Recently Randy Rothenberg, CEO of the IAB, released a manifesto for the improvement of creative online. He and I have discussed this a few times, and I'm right there with him: God, we suck so badly. It's an issue that has existed since the beginning of our industry, and despite all good work that's been done by individual creative teams for individual advertisers, we still are a sucky environment for showing ads.


The size issue
I have lots of opinions on what has driven this, but the primary one is that our ad formats are simply too small, so we'll start there. The historical background is simple on this: When the web was invented, people were accessing it over very low-speed modems. Every image was a big deal, and page load speeds were incredibly slow. So the physical size of banner ads was limited on multiple fronts.


As bandwidth increased and average resolutions increased, larger formats were approved. But it's been six years since the industry adopted larger ad formats via the Universal Ad Package in 1992. Since then, we've increased bandwidth significantly -- with much higher broadband adoption -- and screen resolutions have once again increased significantly. Additionally, we now have a large number of widescreen monitors on the market, with the standards moving to the aspect ratio of HD content rather than SD television content.


It's a negligibly easy thing to detect screen resolution and connection speed. Those of us who were pioneers in the rich media advertising space were doing this kind of thing way back in the late '90s. There's absolutely no reason that as an industry we can't offer much larger ad formats to the market.


The formats I would suggest we look at are a 600 x 500 (twice the size of a 300 x 250) and a renewed push for standardizing the 300 x 600 ad format, which was previously named the "half page ad" (but which is hardly a half-page ad when used as a skyscraper on a modern widescreen monitor.


I'd also suggest that we as an industry lock down to a new "brand session" model, where we offer an advertiser the ability to reach each visitor to a website with a one-to-three impression brand exposure session. (This would be adding the concept of frequency to the online impression model.) All ad serving systems offer some degree of frequency capping, meaning that we could simply limit the number of these large-format ads that are shown to a visitor during a single website session. The session would start with one large format ad, then be followed by two of the current UAP ad formats that are standard in the industry today.


Interactivity issues
The other major reason our advertising creatives are so bad has to do with a lack of interactivity. The ad industry has simply not embraced the concept of interactivity -- despite having the ability to build interactive ads since the late 1990s.


The thing that makes me sad (yes, it actually does make me sad) is that at Bluestreak, back in the day, we were building ads that would still be seen as "groundbreaking" today from a creative standpoint. But from a functionality standpoint, we launched expanding banners in 1999 that could transact within the banner. We rolled out rich media interactivity and a design tool to build rich media ads. Designers could build interactive ad experiences with all sorts of "bolt on" capabilities, like video, audio, games, etc. Every capability we created in Java back in those days can be fully replicated today with Flash, and there are literally thousands (maybe even tens of thousands) of designers who are quite expert with Flash.


So we have every opportunity to build better ads, but nobody is doing it. I'd love to understand why. Essentially, Flash is used by the vast majority of advertisers to build "fancy animation" that is only a little more advanced than the animated GIF ads that began to surface in the early days of online advertising.


And size is not the issue. With expanding ad units available from every major rich media vendor today, giving audiences the ability to interact with ads in a space large enough to create an emotional connection is quite simple. Although rich media vendors are doing a great job when advertisers are willing to sign up for an "advanced campaign," the overall percentage of ads that fall into this category is quite low. Frequently, the goal of the advertiser falls more toward direct response than delivering an emotional brand message.


Even if we look at a direct response model, advertisers are not taking full advantage of the medium. Back in the day at Bluestreak, we routinely found that conversion rates were extremely high for actions like newsletter subscriptions, contest sign-ups, requests for product information, or even, in some cases, sales of inexpensive products. I've confirmed with a few folks in the last year or two that they see similar conversion rates for ads that push the conversion action into the ad rather than requiring a redirect to a website. So if we saw this back in the late '90s, why are so few advertisers making use of this kind of functionality?


Conclusion
I do firmly believe that increasing the size of the creative formats is the primary issue to resolve. But adoption of rich media and interactivity is another area where we should see major adoption. Every ad on the internet should give users the option to expand the ad, request more information, watch a video demo of the product, or even to purchase the product right from the ad. I had this vision for our industry in 1997 when we first started building the technology behind Bluestreak's now defunct E*Banner product. And the idea that more than 10 years later the industry still isn't there is not just disappointing. It's sad.


Eric Picard is the advertising technology advisor to the Advertising Platform Engineering team at Microsoft.

Eric Picard is Vice President, Strategic Partnerships, at MediaMath. He was previously the Founder and CEO of MediaMath-acquired Rare Crowds, an open source ad technology company that provides a completely open advertising technology stack for...

View full biography

Comments

to leave comments.

Commenter: Robert Kadar

2009, March 16

Eric knows his stuff and makes an excellent point that everyone in the interactive space should absorb. In the Pharmaceutical advertising category creative opportunities are even more restrictive both due to potential FDA issues and the conservatism with which most pharma companies view online. Robert Kadar, CEO, Good Health Advertising - www.GoodHealthAdvertising.com

Commenter: Keith Hagen

2009, March 13

I think size is getting a bit too much attention these days. We all know people get banner blindness after a time and that is why there is all these new sizes gaining popularity.

Don't forget that it has come full circle. IN 1999, the classic banner was hot, then in 2002 it was dead. Now look at it as a top performer again. The difference? Location is the difference (Lower into the top of copy, not in the header of early day).

Fact is, size, placement, trend, page layout, page type, etc, etc etc all factor in. There is a great post at http://www.emarketingmatador.com/online-ads-moving-past-search-marketing.with the most effective sizes and locations. I tried to help out those who aren't making it happen, which are really those voicing discontent I'm guessing.

Commenter: Andrew Ettinger

2009, March 11

I respectfully dsagree, ad size has nothing to do with creativity. Creatives need to understand the product, the consumer and media to make a great ad. No Thses fundamentals are the more important than how large (or small) or small the ad size,

Commenter: Ari Brandt

2009, March 11

Eric - Your post is dead on. Creativity and performance are not mutually exclusive. At Linkstorm (www.linkstorm.net) we also believe that "Every ad on the internet should give users the option to expand the ad..." The ad creative "stinks" because it's not providing value to the user. Allow users the opportunity to self-select how they want to engage with your brand and not only will the brand favorability metrics increase, but it will also increase your ROI. Ari