Re: Defining Rich Media banners for the purposes of Pricing

From: Janet Fouts <fouts_at_foggy.com>
Date: Thu 25 Jan 2001 14:08:46 -0500

MARK TARBATT <mark.tarbatt_at_eircom.net> WROTE:
> I wonder could I have a little bit of assistance from
> your list with regard to arriving at a satisfactory
> definition of what exactly constitutes a Rich Media
> banner?

Mark,

A lot of banner companies define Flash as rich media,
the idea being that Flash offers a lot more than just
blinking or flashing image animations.

That said, it depends on how you use Flash in the ad.
If it's simply a way to animate with a smaller file
size, I wouldn't call it rich. if it incorporates
tracking, (as can be done with flash now), then we
call it enriched and it's worth more money because it
has more features.

On the other hand, if it's in Shockwave or Quicktime,
allowing a story to be told with video, then that is
also rich, and worth more based on the value of the
story being told.

Yes, these " interstitials " can be more expensive to
produce, and can cost more because of that, but the
click through rate is considerably higher, so the
customer ROI is better..

There are a few rich media ads we've produced as an
example on this page :http://www.tatu.com/where.html

Hope this helps!
Janet





Received on Thu Jan 25 2001 - 13:08:46 CST