{"id":3369,"date":"2014-05-09T08:00:28","date_gmt":"2014-05-09T13:00:28","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.manufacturedhomepronews.com\/cuttingedgemarketingsales\/?p=3369"},"modified":"2014-05-09T08:02:36","modified_gmt":"2014-05-09T13:02:36","slug":"dare-to-compare-banner-ads-vs-tv-or-other-media","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.manufacturedhomepronews.com\/cuttingedgemarketingsales\/dare-to-compare-banner-ads-vs-tv-or-other-media\/","title":{"rendered":"Dare to Compare! Banner Ads vs. TV or other Media"},"content":{"rendered":"

Last year, Ben Kunz – Vice-President of strategic planning at media agency <\/em>Mediassociates<\/b><\/i><\/em> –<\/b> penned a column in <\/i>Digiday<\/b><\/i> called, “In Defense of Banner Ads.” <\/b><\/i> Kunz opened with a pithy set of points:<\/p>\n

“If you believe banners suck, you’re not alone. The poor things are so disparaged that the entire digital industry has repositioned them as display advertising to wipe off the banner stigma.<\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

But the truth is, banner ads work just as well as most other forms of media, which is remarkable given their small size, surrounding clutter and creative limitations.”<\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

In fact, some of Kunz's findings make banner ad results better than most other forms of media,<\/b> and of course, can be more targeted and thus at a far lower cost.<\/i><\/p>\n

\"earth_moon-comparison-wikicommons-cutting-edge-marketing-sales-blog-mhpronews-com\"<\/p>\n

Compare to TV<\/b><\/p>\n

“Nielsen, the typical U.S. consumer is exposed to 4 hours and 38 minutes of TV a day, about 40 percent of which is commercial time.” <\/span>Kunz points out that with that giant screen, the response rate is still only .05% for TV. The average consumer sees about 6,600 commercials monthly.<\/p>\n

Compare to Radio<\/b><\/p>\n

The typical adult in the U.S. listens to 1 hour and 23 minutes of radio daily, 2,500 minutes a month, and at 15% of radio being commercials, that's 750 thirty second spots a month. Results?<\/p>\n

.013 percent.<\/p>\n

No wonder they repeat those toll-free phone numbers, over and over, and over…<\/p>\n

Compare to Billboards<\/b><\/p>\n

Kunz used NY Suburbs in his example, here are his numbers: “…$320,000 for 26 large 14-by-48-foot billboards (for a 50 GRP level). That provides 28.2 million impressions a month.” Response rate? 0.03%.<\/span><\/p>\n

And Banner Ads?<\/b><\/p>\n

Kunz states that Facebook ads were running .03%, and that the Direct Marketing Association and Google uses a range from .03% to .09%, with .07% being tossed about as 'typical' by others.<\/p>\n

The bottom line is that banner ads would meet or beat TV, radio and billboards.<\/p>\n

In an operation such as MHProNews.com<\/b><\/i>, there would be no way to cover the nation with as many manufactured housing industry professionals other media for anything like the low cost of our banner ads.<\/p>\n

So while all reports suggest that CTRs (Click Through Rates) stabilized at a lower level than they were some years back, they still compete very well with other forms of media, so sayeth Ben Kuntz!<\/i><\/p>\n

DC Marketing Pro <\/b><\/p>\n

Brooke Jordan in DC Marketing Pro<\/i>, gave her 5 reasons for using banner ads.<\/p>\n

1) “…Regardless of measured click-through rates, banner ads still create a favorable attitude toward the ad due to repeated exposure.” (Journal of Consumer Research)<\/span><\/p>\n

2)<\/b> <\/b>“<\/b>Research shows that consumers engage with banner ads more than TV or outdoor ads.  Banner ad CTRs average at 0.07% (Digiday).  TV response rate is 0.05%, according to Nielsen. Outdoor has a 0.03% response rate (Digiday). Radio, which lacks the visual component of the other three media, has a response rate of 0.13% according to Arbitron.”<\/span><\/p>\n

3.) “Banner ads have the ability to hyper-target by age, lifestyle, and geography better than most other mediums.  Maybe that’s why eMarketer projects the top five sellers of display advertising to generate $18.6 billion in the U.S. alone in 2013, a 20 percent increase from 2011…” <\/span><\/p>\n

4) “Video and display advertising are effective at driving a significant lift in site visitation and SEO, even in the face of minimal clicks on ads. (comScore)”<\/span><\/p>\n

For me – and for most of you – the real hitter was Brooke's point number 5!<\/p>\n

5) “It’s all about ROI.  Marketers continue to pour billions into banner ads due the sheer scale and efficiency.  Low CPMs, compared to other media, mean that marketers can afford a high volume of impressions at a relatively low cost.  When you combine the business generated directly by clicks with the “collateral damage” that occurs beyond the click, most advertisers find the investment is worth it.” <\/b><\/span>(<\/span>Bold emphasis added).<\/b><\/p>\n

In yet another study, Smartinsights <\/b><\/i>claims CTR rates are around 1 per 1000 impressions.<\/p>\n

When Jordan was talking about the “collateral damage,” she is using that as a humorous, positive euphemism for “impressions.” An impression is defined by Wikipedia<\/b><\/i> as:<\/p>\n

“An impression (in the context of online advertising<\/b>) is a measure of the number of times an ad is seen, whether it is clicked on or not. Each time an ad displays it is counted as one impression.”<\/span><\/p>\n

\"comparison-credits-arbitron2010-richmond-sign-scapes-\"<\/p>\n

In a recent 90 day campaign for a client, we generated over 1.5 million impressions and some 900 click throughs. More important to the client, they grew their outcomes by 14.7%, which made it a good investment.<\/p>\n

The exact record of their campaign results: 1,566,675 impressions and 946 click throughs.<\/p>\n

A longer term client, the MMHF working with Show Ways Unlimited and the Louisville Manufactured Housing Show, gave us a historic performance track record and testimonial, linked her<\/a>e<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Impression Gold?<\/b><\/p>\n

Ad-Mays <\/i><\/b>in a report on impression-based advertising<\/b> stated the following:<\/p>\n