So I have a client who wants to do a campaign online.
Trouble is - they don't really seem to feel that having an online 'destination' is that important. All they really want to do is let people know the product is available and give people an image of it in action.
I tend to agree with them. The nature of the product doesn't lend itself to finding out more - it's extremely straight forward.
So when I was asked whether they could run a campaign without the ad being clickable my first response was, 'erm ... I really don't know.'
For this advertiser, they want to look to use the web purely as a medium to build targeted reach for their brand in relevant environments. For them, response doesn't actually have any value for the campaign in question.
The more I thought about it, the more it actually made me smile. Here's a brand that is looking at online more than either response or 'creating a dialogue.'
I know some people will say 'this campaign is all about interruption, the hallmarks of old media blah blah blah' ... and maybe they're right ... but it also offers many benefits - right place, right time, right consumer.
So I asked around the major publishers and networks on whether they'd accept an ad creative that didn't click anywhere.
All of the groups I asked said they would, except one.
Google - in the context of their display media content network (purchased on CPM mind you) flatly refused. I asked for a reason, none was given.
It made me wonder - is Google indirectly making a statement that if you can't click on an ad online it doesn't hold any value for the advertiser or user?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Interesting post and thought provoking.
It's good to see brands thinking beyond DR and ability to understand the value of contextual relevance. Associating it's brand among "foodie" communities at it's highest point of engagement online.
This probably can lend itself to more creative executions too.
We have an overseas client and they recently have had their product become available in every Woolworth's in Australia.
All they want is a branding campaign. We'll send them to their website but that is not the main objective.
All they want to achieve is to tell consumers their product is now on the shelves in Woolworths.
Benjamin
Gourmet Ads
I wouldn't be suprised if google refused because and only because they work on CPM, instead of pay per impression. They don't want people not clicking through on sites. Where else would their get their solid traffic data so they can market effectively to us?
Wouldn't it be more effective to make the destination a page where highly-targeted-jo-surfer can easily BUY said product, instead of going to a landing page with more fluffy watered down information about said product?
It would work for me.
hey mariel,
the nature of this product doesn't lend itself to buying it online. it's similar to what gourmet ads is talking about.
We'd love to know a bit more about the brand here, Ben ;-)
But I'd add two things to this thread.
The first is that I see this happening more and more. The Levi ads you see in newspapers aren't abut making more sales, but building the brand enough that they can charge more. Why not on the web? Let's see more of this.
Second thing: the rise of widgets (mini embeddable apps) is addressing this very issue. I'd be inclined to suggest to your client that they run an in-widget app which when clicked gives them a mini experience of the product, a nice noise, or something which rewards the interaction (because people will click on them) without necessarily bouncing to a site.
It could even just display a short product message suggesting that they buy the product or whatever it is. But Widgets address this issue perfectly I think.
I've got a campaign live doing exactly that right now, makes reporting a breeze. I'm noticing a trend in simplicity of digital planning recently, especially among FMCG and retail advertisers. Maybe it's time to stop overcomplicating the whole thing, and make it more palatable for mainstrewam marketers.
Post a Comment