As I said in a previous post, I am not a big fan of online display advertising, questioning its effectiveness based on research that shows consumers are in many cases blind to it. What about online video advertising?
Various reports are out forecasting that online video advertising is set to be a rare recessionary growth area. For example, here we have Bright Roll saying that, 87% of agency executives plan to spend more on online advertising in 2009 ('more' is of course all relative).
Yet the very same study showed that the same proportion - 87% also hadn't really measured effectiveness, which makes you wonder whether we've got a case of the shiny new toy syndrome
So does it work?
According to the Deloitte Media Democracy project, TV is still twice as effective as video advertising. Their research found that 84% of consumers said TV ads would influence them to buy a product - against just 45% for online.
At the same time, around 64% of respondents said any kind of Internet ad was more intrusive than newspaper ads.
Meanwhile, in 2008, econsultancy reported on a Burst Media study that found that the very presence of a video ad was a 'turn off' to 78% of online consumers. 15% - so over one in seven of your target customers - will even leave a website altogether once an ad starts playing.
The problem seems to be the dreaded pre-roll. That clip that media companies make you watch before you can access that video you really want to see. For online video advertising to be really effective, it has to be less of the blunt instrument used in the offline world and be both targeted and interactive. When both those boxes are ticked then the evidence is that it can work.
For example, here we have a study by Neo Edge networks which showed that in-game video advertising was 5x as effective as TV advertising in unaided brand awareness. Meanwhile this video by the IAB goes through the reasons why it's so appealing for brands in terms of interactivity.
Of course as Connected TV says, a key reason why online video is currently so appealing might be very simple: The reason of cost:
"Faced with allocating a million dollars to a conventional broadcast TV campaign with questionable impact instead of a tenth that amount against an online video equivalent with poor conversion rates (but feedback on every view and click), who's to say today's hard-pressed media buyer wouldn't choose the latter over the former?"
Image - The future of interactivity 1960s style! From Pink Ponk
Related articles by Zemanta- Internet advertising continues to grow (ceoworld.biz)
- Economy Down, Online Advertising Up (revenews.com)
- Interactive Advertising Outlooks 2009 (fredericmartin.typepad.com)
- Online Consumers Most Receptive to Ads in Evening (marketingvox.com)
- IAB Reports Internet Advertising Grew 10 Percent Last Year; Outpacing TV (techcrunch.com)
Link to original postLink to original post
Link to original post