The SVP, general manager of national sales for Advertising.com reveals findings from a study that dispute the belief that repetition equals overexposure.

Who knows how it started, but online advertisers have developed a bit of a fixation with frequency capping over the years-- a determination to find the magical frequency at which the most conversions occur without "wasted" impressions. There's no doubt that in some circumstances inundating an audience with unlimited impressions isn't cost-effective. But new Advertising.com research gives a clear indication that being too stingy with frequency can hinder campaign performance-- especially cost-per-action (CPA) campaigns and those whose ad sizes have a slow-burn effect when it comes to conversions. The bottom line is that over-capping these campaigns may result in lost conversions. 

Is there really such a thing as too much repetition?

We all know that there is value in repetition. You want to give consumers as many chances as possible to convert or assign mindshare to your brand. The question is, where is this all-important line between beneficial repetition and over-exposure? According to this research, it may not exist at all.

The surprising thing about this new study is the number of conversions that occur after the third and fourth impression of an ad is served. The numbers generally go down with each additional exposure, but conversions continue-- in some cases at a surprising rate. Marketers must ask themselves whether they want to sacrifice these conversions. Does capping them out of existence really make sense?

Size matters

Here's how the study worked. We examined more than 4.6 billion impressions across four creative sizes (468x60, 728x90, 300x250 and 120x60) at various frequencies across three direct-response online campaigns. We conducted the test on a subset of impressions in the Advertising.com network in October 2005.

Here's how the various sizes performed after repeat impressions:

Leaderboards (728x90), as one might expect, delivered the best results both for the first impression as well as after multiple impressions. While the third, fourth and fifth exposures for leaderboards experienced a steep drop-off in response rates, they did not cease altogether. This pattern could be due, in part, to the fact that leaderboards are more noticeable because of their larger size. They may attract more consumers with initial exposure and claim more of their total potential conversions in the first few impressions.

Contrast this to the other ad sizes, which showed a much slower and steadier decline in response following the first exposure. This is likely due to the fact that banners are less noticeable upon initial exposure. Advertisers should be especially careful about implementing tight frequency caps for banners because conversions are proven to continue after subsequent exposures for these particular sizes.

The key takeaway here is that the value earned from repeat impressions can vary significantly by ad size. With so many responses weighted in latter impressions, capping a banner too conservatively can be costly. Even with the steep decline of leaderboard performance after the initial impression, conversions don't stop entirely-- so why cap the campaign?

Direct-response advertisers who implement tight frequency caps on creative sizes proven to deliver continued response (however sparse) run the risk of losing valuable conversions.

Taking the fear out of frequency

Although the study confirmed that initial impressions are almost always the most valuable to advertisers, it is clear that direct-response advertisers can achieve more conversions through repeated ad exposure. Networks enable advertisers to capitalize on repeated exposure, without inundating the consumer with the same ad on the same website over and over again. 

In addition, advanced ad placement technologies mitigate the risks of an ad being rendered ineffective due to overexposure. Advertising on a network assures advertisers that each ad exposure is served when, where and to whom the ad is most likely to generate the desired action. Ad networks are willing and able to sell advertising on a CPA performance basis, providing little rationale for capping. Whether the desired action is clicking on an ad, purchasing a product or completing some other function, the ad network shoulders the risk, not the marketer.

With the sophisticated controls and advantages of ad networks -- and now real data to quantify the value of repetition -- advertisers should confidently rethink their capping strategies and take a much more generous approach to frequency. 

Nada Stirratt serves as senior vice president and general manager of Advertising.com's national sales efforts. In this role, she oversees Advertising.com's extensive advertiser and agency relationships and is responsible for the company's award-winning advertising sales team. Stirratt previously led Advertising.com's publisher operations and was responsible for the growth and development of the company's advertising networks.

Prior to Advertising.com, Stirratt was vice president of business development at America Online, Inc. She has also served as senior vice president of advertising sales for MovieFone, Inc., as well as advertising director for Conde Nast's Allure Magazine.