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?