Doug Schumacher presents the test -- how much better will an IAB rectangle perform than a leaderboard?
The first ad unit to really take hold on the internet was the 468x60, and as a demonstration of the power of being first to market, it’s still the most common size. It’s certainly not the most effective size, at least based on CPMs. But it arrived early and grabbed a great seat at the top of almost every site with an ad revenue model.
Since then, we’ve learned a thing or two about media units and what makes some work better than others. Everyone in online advertising knows that the new IAB rectangles perform well relative to the other standard ad units.
The reasons are simple. Better location: The 300x250 (and its 336x280 and 250x250 cousins) are generally in the center of the page, adjacent to the content people are reading. Bigger size: They’re 14 percent bigger than 728x90s and 167 percent bigger than 468x60s. Better proportions: A square shape is much easier to design to, especially when the ad involves photos.
Even if those factors are clearly understood, we’re still left with several questions. How much better do the 300x250s perform, and what’s the value of that increase in performance?
That’s what we’re asking in this week’s test.
Testing Strategy
There are several angles from which to look at this. One is through our response metrics, in this case click-visits to the home page (click here to review definitions of our metrics terms). Given the size difference and thus its ability to flag people’s attention, it would seem obvious that the 300x250 should generate higher performance. The question of course is, how much higher.
Another view on this is the depth of visit, or average page views, generated by each ad. The question behind this metric is whether a visitor from one media unit could be more predisposed to the brand or product, depending on which media unit they came from. Even when both ads deliver the same message.
To build an analogy, most people would probably come away from a double-page print spread with a more vaulted view of the advertiser than if they saw a 1/3 page ad. Even if the content of both ads was identical. If those exposed to each ad were then given a brand attitudinal survey, we could then identify a difference, if one exists.
That type of post-impression brand testing is something I hope to explore in future case studies. For now, we’ll need to try and gauge that favorable predisposition through analyzing the level of site activity that each ad’s visitors engage in. We’ll analyze that with the average page views per visitor metric. Generally, the more predisposed a visitor is to a brand or product, the more likely they are to give the site a good look.
Testing Construct
This test will again pair two ads face to face, this time the only difference being the size. One 300x250, the other 728x90. They’ll both run in the same media plan, utilizing 24/7 RealMedia’s OnTarget behavioral targeting across their Entertainment and Health content channels. We’ll keep the impression counts for the two different sizes as close as possible.
Goals & Objectives
Our goal with this test is to introduce some of the different considerations around evaluating two different media units, and see if the metrics add insight to any of the issues. There are clearly questions around cost-value, but we’d also like to explore some of the grayer areas of message and brand credibility.
Given that my background isn’t media, I’m especially glad to have 24/7 Real Media SVP Ari Bluman as a guest expert on the next article. He brings a wealth of experience to the table as, in his words, he’s been in this business since clicks were called transfers.
The results come out this Thursday. Stay tuned.
Doug Schumacher is the president of Basement, Inc.