NONE: Re: ONLINE-ADS>> Repeat Visits Versus Clicks
Re: ONLINE-ADS>> Repeat Visits Versus Clicks
Cliff Kurtzman (cliff_at_tenagra.com)
Thu, 21 Aug 1997 12:07:50 -0500 (CDT)
Preston Bealle (pbealle_at_ny.poppe.com) wrote:
> Concerning the old but recently renewed subject of banner burn-out,
> consider this. If someone clicks on a banner, finds a site, and likes
> what they see, what do they do? Generally, they bookmark it, and/or
> note the URL somewhere to revisit. If they become regular visitors to
> the site, you've won the game, but they no longer are likely to click
> on banners for that site.
This runs contrary to my experience on our sites, which tend more towards a
persistent sponsorship model rather that rotated banners. To give a
specific example, for a little over 3 years now we have been running a very
popular tennis publication on the web. Our advertisers consist of folks
including tennis equipment sellers, racquet manufacturers, tennis
tournaments and the like. One of my advertisers, a tennis store, has run
the exact same banner on our home page for two years now, and consistently
achieved click throughs over 3% (sometimes well over 3 percent). This same
company also advertises each month in our tennis e-mail newsletter we
operate in conjunction with the site.
My impression based on experiences with this and other advertisers is that
people deal with advertisers on our web site in a similar manner to the way
they remember advertisers in the back of a tennis magazine. I may not
remember the company I ordered from last time, but I know if I open up the
magazine and look at the ads in the back, then I'll probably recognize the
advertiser that I purchased from last time. This is one of the reasons why
it is important that they advertise over a sustained period and maintain a
consistent look and feel to their ads.
When people come to our tennis web site the first time, they may check out
our advertiser and remember that they are on our site. They will
repeatedly come back to our web publication for the great content (of
course!) but probably only click through to the advertiser again when they
are actually in need of buying a product. My advertisers are not in the
business of providing tennis content, so there is not necessarily as strong
an inclination for people to bookmark their site. As long as I am
successful in delivering good advertisers on my tennis site, people will
bookmark it as a place to come both for good content and good ads. (As
much as I hate to admit it, I'm pretty sure at least a small portion of the
22,000+ subscribers to my tennis newsletter are subscribing more to get the
ads than read my brilliant exposition on the game...) The following
newsgroup post made by a visitor to our tennis site illustrates this point:
Has anyone ever purchased a racket from the Tennis
Wharehouse via the tennisserver www page? Can you tell
me how the service was and how they handled your order,
money shipping etc...
I'm thinking of getting a racket there...
Another observation we have made is that, as hard as it is for us
experienced folks to believe, a lot of casual new web users don't
understand the idea that an ad banner is an advertisement from a business
entity different than the site the banner is placed on. A not insignificant
percentage of our web site visitors are confused about whether the
advertiser is a an extension of our publication or a separate company,
despite the fact that we go to great pains to state clearly that we are
delivering a sponsor's message from xyz company. We include text around ad
banners indicating it is a "Sponsor's Message," and highlight all e-mail
ads in a similar manner. Nonetheless, we get profuse "thank you's" all the
time from people telling us how happy they are with their new racquet "we
sent them" even though they bought if from an advertiser, or asking us if
we have a new racquet in stock.
> Isn't the best measure of success "repeat visits" rather than clicks?
> A successful banners that pulls in a large number of repeat visitors
> may appear to burn out. The more successful it is, the fewer eligible
> clickers remain, because you've already won them.
>
> Frequency of exposure is the proven tool in advertising, that's how
> Procter, Colgate, Lever et al became what they are. You may not like
> Charmin ads, but you sure as hell know what the brand stands for. And
> yet, you wouldn't click on a Charmin banner, while still receiving a
> valid impression, with all the dollar value that entails.
Agreed!
--Cliff
Cliff Kurtzman
President and CEO
The Tenagra Corporation
http://www.tenagra.com/
281/480-6300
Internet marketing, public relations, consulting and web design
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This week's Online Advertising Discussion List sponsor:
312 million page views a month + 58 million visits a month + 715,000
Geocitizens + 37 online neighborhoods = 1 very effective place to
advertise http://www.geocities.com/mediakit/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Online Advertising Discussion List To Unsubscribe send UNSUBSCRIBE
http://www.o-a.com/ to online-ads-request_at_o-a.com
