Where You Should Stick Your Ad and Why

Return to Introduction

People are supposed to be good at blocking -- not looking -- at ads. Sorry, that's poppycock. You can't not see something that's in your visual field. You can consciously and non-consciously choose to ignore something. To do either, your mind-eye-brain system needs to acknowledge the ad's existence for you to know where not to look, what not to look at, et cetera.

People choose to focus on or ignore something only after the non-conscious mind has alerted the conscious mind that something does or doesn't deserve attention. The same is true for listening. The parent who can hear their child's troubled voice amid all the sounds on a playground, the lover who can isolate the walk of their partner among all those on a city street, are picking up myriad subtle cues that, when summed together, cause the non-conscious mind to signal the conscious mind "Pay attention."

Information that isn't in our direct focus -- like an ad on a web page -- that gets our attention is known as meaningful noise. Meaningful noise is something that would normally be considered an interference or distraction but can't be truly an interference or distraction because the noise was selected by the non-conscious as something worthy of notice.

The child's cry on a playground is a perfect example of this. You're talking with the other parents and all of a sudden the conversation becomes irrelevant. Your child needs you.

Whatever gets our attention is no longer a distraction because it got our attention. This is also why people tend to get upset or confused when non-priority items get their attention. The parent realizes the child's shriek was a squeal of delight and not a scream of pain, shrugs or shakes her or his head, and then returns to the original conversation.

What gets our attention is based on selection mechanisms that are strongly tied to culture, native language, age, gender, education, training, lifestyle and the list goes on. Understanding selection mechanisms requires studies in visual intelligence, observer mechanics, visual recognition theory, inattentional blindness, negative hallucination, significance effects… and this list is longer than most people care to know.

Fortunately, using selection mechanisms doesn't necessarily require understanding them in any great detail. What it all comes down to is actually quite simple:

  1. If you know enough about your target audience
  2. Then you know where to place meaningful noise in their visual field
  3. So that they will actually stop and focus on it rather than ignore it.

Stated more for the purposes of this article:

  1. If you know enough about your target audience
  2. Then you know where to place an ad on a page
  3. So that your audience stops what they're doing and pays favorable attention to the ad.

What you need to know equates to determining where, on the page, the audience needs to see certain kinds of information in order to accept that information as valid.

Next: What's important to someone depends on what's happening in their life

Joseph Carrabis is CRO and founder of NextStage Evolution and NextStage Global and founder of KnowledgeNH and NH Business Development Network. Read full bio. He was recently selected as a senior research fellow and board advisor for the Society for New Communications Research.

 

Comments

Joseph Carrabis
Joseph Carrabis August 28, 2008 at 8:30 AM

Rob, Sorry I didn't see this until now. "Many actionable solutions"? Well, we do have that tool that determines where ads should be placed based on user responses to some questions.
Are there some general rules? How general would you like them? "For boomer males do x except when marketing high end cars or when there's a slightly younger female in the creative or the product is an OTC or ..."
I know the goal is to make things as simple as possible and sometimes the simplest solution results in the 30 or so questions we currently ask (and I'm happy to learn there's a simpler solution with as high an accuracy). This isn't a defense (as I hope you'll agree I'm always working to improve things and enjoy discovering alternate methods that simplify things and freely recommend them).
Developing the tool and this article was quite an experience for me. I was shocked to learn about the disconnects that exist(ed) in the system -- who didn't talk to whom, who didn't know what and couldn't find out. Something as simple as not knowing where (on what sites) the creative would show up, hence essentially shooting in the dark and hoping you were at least shooting in the direction of the target. You reference this in your "hysterical/horrifying ad/story combinations".
"...there are still a number of moving parts that need to be addressed..." Agreed. And quite willing to discuss.
And thanks for reading my column. - Joseph

Rob Graham
Rob Graham June 22, 2007 at 1:39 PM

I enjoyed the article and found is very interesting. I'm a bit biased perhaps as Joseph is a friend of mine. However, from a practicality standpoint I'm not sure he was able to offer many actionable solutions. Joseph has accurately pointed out that there are a number of shortcomings regarding ad placement that few of us would dispute. However, I don't think he is able to, not would I expect it, to offer up some sort of unifying solution here. I think the real challenge is to get advertisers to think about the benefits of really planning ad buys and ad placement and not just defaulting to choosing a group of silos to push content into. Also keep in mind that most of the logic engines behind contextual advertising still haven't been tweaked enough to avoid the sometime hysterical/horrifying ad/story combinations that result. The article wasn't too long and it brought up some excellent points for media planning. However, there are still a number of moving parts that need to be addressed further before the industry can really act upon a lot of these insights.