Where You Should Stick Your Ad and Why

Return to What media buyers don't know is killing them

I've written before that I don't accept the industry definition of "behavioral" …well, behavioral anything. This caused some amusing anecdotes to come from our ad placement research and resulting tool development. Icon International's Jim Meskauskas (also the media strategies editor here at iMedia) commented:

"Given that targeting online can be done behaviorally, it isn’t always necessary to have 'hard' demos to use for the purposes of target identification. In particular, the income demo select. Being able to have a 'Not Applicable' select for any demographic category would be good.  Sometimes things like income or number of children don’t matter."

I completely agree with Jim's comment as far as the industry understands behaviors, not so as people manifest behaviors. The difference deals with another $25 term I mentioned earlier, significance effects. The basic idea of significance effects is that the more exposure a person has to a logo or brand (for example), the more meaning that logo or brand has to that person. An example of this can be found in John Timmer's post The Psychology of Banner Ads.

How significance effects work is based strongly on things like size of household, income and several others. For example, an individual is considering a car purchase. Knowing that the individual earns US$65k/year and supports three children and a life partner or that the individual earns US$65k/year and is single is going to influence how they make decisions, hence whether or not the significance effects are positive or negative and where they need to be in the visual field so that they'll always be positive and never be negative.

The goal, of course, is to both create and place ads that drive action. This is done once there is sufficient recognition and reference in the target audience's mind to associate clicking on an ad with a desired, favorable outcome.

Again, gaining recognition and reference can be achieved many different ways. Knowing a great deal -- psycho-socially and psycho-culturally -- about your target audience can better your chances of placing your ad (even if you don't know much about it from a creative standpoint) where its significance to that audience will be highest.

Independent studies from Aalborg University and NextStage indicate that consumers see so many ads in a given web-day that media buyers and planners have only a few moments to generate attention and meaning.

Next: Summary and bibliography

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.