Are Dynamic Ads More Effective?
Written by Kyle Johnson (contact - e-mail) -- April 30th, 2009 |
Share - Save - E-mail
At Compete we’ve recently been digging deeper into online ads. Like our clients, we’ve noticed that banner ads often don’t “click through” like they used to, and we’ve watched the recent outburst in new ad types and are eager to discover which of them will perform best.
As if to aid us in our quest, Toyota recently ran two similar but slightly different ads for its new Venza, enabling a side-by-side comparison of two ad types. The similarly-placed ads, one on the MSN homepage and one on Yahoo!’s, ran on two successive days. The ad on MSN was visually dynamic, using Flash to animate the unit; the ad on Yahoo! was interactive, with tabs and buttons that opened new content in response to user clicks.
The difference in performance was noticeable: consumers exposed to the Flash ad were three times more likely to go to Toyota.com’s Venza page over the remainder of the day. Case closed. Animation beat interactivity. Right?
Not so fast. Despite the interactive ad’s lower viewthrough rate, the consumers who got to Toyota after seeing that ad were twice as likely to perform lower-funnel actions than folks on Toyota.com who had seen the Flash ad. Apparently, the interactive ad’s lower viewthrough rate was a red herring – perhaps consumers in the “awareness” phase didn’t click through it precisely because it offered more content, and satisfied their appetite for information right there on the page.
Case closed? Hardly. What we found out could be construed as a small revelation about which type is performing best (the Flash ad had an ever-so-slightly higher lower-funnel yield, ultimately). However, we’re more inclined to take these discoveries as a valuable reminder that online ad performance can’t be judged easily within the aperture of a single snapshot. Given what we found by going just one level deeper – i.e., that the ads were very similar in their yields but different in their impact on behavior – now we have no choice but to compare the two ads’ impact over a longer time period and on other behaviors such as search. Check back soon for more!
Did you like that post? You'll love these.
Done reading? subscribe: To get an automatic feed of all future posts subscribe here, or to receive them via email enter your email address in the box in the right column.
Link to This Post:
Get the 
April 30th, 2009 at 3:22 pm
Yea, I would expect behavioral targeted ads to be performing better, since you are showing what the visitors want. I am curious to know what kind of ads will perform better
May 1st, 2009 at 8:30 am
Thanks for sharing this information, but I am curious. What technology did you use for the “interactive” ad?
May 1st, 2009 at 2:48 pm
Not sure if this really is a question about Dynamic Ads — “visually dynamic” and “animated” does not a Dynamic Ad make. Dynamic Ads are ads that change offers, visual elements, etc. based upon performance, context, behavior or the like. There are a few companies doing this, including Dapper, Turmi, Teracent, Yahoo, Google, and it’s a compelling technology.
May 2nd, 2009 at 8:35 am
Thanks, Paul, for your post. We’re excited about the prospects of adaptive ad serving, too — it finally seems to be a legitimate option for advertisers after years of wishing for it, and we’re hoping to examine it in detail soon. In this post, read “dynamic” with a small ‘d’ and we hope you can forgive our choice of a word that has other meanings.
May 5th, 2009 at 4:03 pm
I think this is a great case, but I don’t think this is an accurate comparison. Browsers on MSN are inherently different than those who browse Yahoo. This could certainly affect the tested rates, causing skewness in the data. Why didn’t you test 2 ad variations on 1 site?
Thanks in advance,
Kyle
May 8th, 2009 at 10:47 pm
Do you think it would help me in advertising my international online business?
http://www.freedom.ws/macbizz
I can use all the help I can get.
June 11th, 2009 at 5:06 am
Thanks for the sharing good information.
June 20th, 2009 at 10:31 pm
Aren’t you comparing apples to oranges. Your conclusion would have been more effective if both ad formats (flash and interactive) for tested on the same site not different sites.
August 13th, 2009 at 4:15 am
I agree with the Jay, this would have been more effective if the 2 ads were tested on the same site on different days. As people who visit Yahoo will be different to those who visit MSN, so you need to take into account which site would be best for attracting your target audience.
August 21st, 2009 at 2:12 am
Your article was very well written, I am very like it, I wish you happy every day!
August 31st, 2009 at 8:52 am
your article is good…thanks…