Where You Should Stick Your Ad and Why

Return to How attention works

Consider luxury and necessity items. Luxury and necessity are usually considered as "luxury versus necessity," indicating that people think of them differently. Intuition might dictate that where the mind-eye-brain needs to see luxury and necessity items on a web page would be different.

The first part is quite accurate. Luxury and necessity items are very different. They are, in fact, polar opposites. An interesting trait of polar opposites is that they are the same thing from a psychological perspective.

In the mind, 180 degrees from a thing is the same thing. The example I give clients and students involves love and hate. People think love and hate are opposites, but they're not. Both are strong emotions directed at an individual or group. They are also self-definers because they allow the person to define themselves in relation to whatever or whomever it is they love or hate. They are, therefore, the same thing. The true opposite of love is the same as the opposite of hate: apathy.

This works itself out on a web page by having both luxury and necessity items appear (all things being equal) in banners (i.e. leaderboards). What about when all things aren't equal? Consider recently married people, definitely for the first time and often for the second. Different "luxury" and "necessity" filters are now in place. The new living situation, the new demands on time, space and money, rearrange what information gets through and what information gets blocked out.

The brain tells the mind-eye combination to look for "necessity" and "luxury" in different areas of the visual field because the non-conscious has created new filters for that kind of information. The visitor's experience of a web page is determined by a complex set of characteristics. Some of these characteristics come from what's on the page, the rest come from what's going on in the visitor's life when they encounter the page.

Next: A skyscraper misadventure

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.