DOES SIZE REALLY MATTER?

As I "re-imagine" interactive advertising design as part of IAB's new task force to update their new standard ad guidelines, I ask myself, "Does Size REALLY matter?". The answer is less than you might think.



I have a feeling that more people will jump to the conclusion that increasing ad sizes will magically reverse the trend of declining online metrics. Not so fast my friends. The answer is in positioning, not size. Think about it. Where do you see most large rectangle units? Homepages and within content/stories. Now, where are the smaller units? They are on the peripherals within the navigations - where no one is looking. It's not about the ad size of a takeover ad. It's about the take over itself. Same thing with a Welcome Ad. To this point, there has been chatter of getting rid of the leaderboard unit based on performance. The size isn't obsolete, the position is. Hey, I've been on the publisher side, so I undertand the need for buttons, leaderboards, skys. But if we want to really improve the performance of the online channel, then we'll put our thinking caps on and come up with better positioning and user experiences.

Quick quiz: Without looking, which one of these is in the header of this blog? A. Clouds, B. Trees, C. Birds. Don't know? Thought so, but I bet you saw the ad for the Entertainment Book.

(Media Buying Tip: Ad networks or any buy that involves remnant inventory will charge the same rate for a bundle of ad sizes (468s, 160s, 728s and 300s) compared to portals or contents site, which put a higher value on the bigger sizes - as well as they should. So take advantage of this and opt to run only the bigger sizes, or the 300s only. You'll end up with better metrics and more importantly, better positioning as well.)

Interactive Media Design

The IAB released an announcement on April 30th that it was bringing together a task force of “TopTalent To Re-Imagine Interactive Advertising” – and as a member firm of the IAB, Media Two Interactive was quick to jump on board.

For years, interactive media has been reliant on great creative execution to become successful. Publishers and sales reps alike are the first one to blame creative when a campaign is unsuccessful, which is why about 8 years ago, Media Two started up a media design division (award winning division I might add!). After so many years of doing great media strategy (which includes a combination of media & design), this is a great opportunity for Media Two to help out in the relevance of interactive advertising for years to come.

Although the consensus with our designers is they’d love to eliminate small ad formats, increase file size restrictions (especially now that broadband is widely accepted), and even do away with the original leader board formats that are typically not as responsive as the larger, 4:3 ratio ads – there is more thought going into it than just that… Look at TV for example… DVR’s and Tivo’s of the world are fast-forwarding commercials. Unless the 30-second spots become a Super Bowl caliber entertainment value, people are tuning out most of them. So what you are seeing are more and more product placements within the content themselves... With the advent of Social Media online and consumer interaction at its highest – let’s figure out how to create a non-intrusive placement that consumers want to interact with, can create that coveted brand awareness, and oh yeah, publishers can make their money so the online experience continues to be a free one. I don’t believe TV made a mistake – I believe the consumer experience evolved past that – so let’s not model an online ad experience after one that consumers have already passed by. I’m looking forward to our interaction and involvement with the IAB – as this will be changing the way we work for years to come! If you want to keep updated on things progress, I encourage you to follow our Creative Director Rachel Rumsey on Twitter – she is @rachrum !

Agen"see"

I read an interesting commentary today from a colleague of mine explaining why most agencies still don’t succeed at interactive advertising. The gist of the argument was that poor media buying led to ineffective campaigns. Very true, but I also think this points us to look at the evolution of the “big agency” take on interactive and why this is only half the equation. Truth be told, at first the failure of big branding agencies to succeed online was because none understood the level of trackability and functionality. It was thought that you just needed to get online because your competitors were there… or weren’t there yet.

A few years later and a few campaigns wiser, most are realizing the errors of their initial efforts. But to that point, are they really “getting” interactive now? In my humble opinion, the answer is no. So what if they’re producing multi-level Flash campaigns with interactive rollover banners and integrated video? That’s aesthetically pleasing and gives the business suits the warm and fuzzies, but does it really product results?

We constantly preach good design here at Media Two, but for most agencies I think that there’s a disconnect between what’s good design and what’s functional. Good design placed in the right places still doesn’t necessarily product results, and the converse is certainly true. But when good and functional design is coupled with innovative strategy, the result is a living and breathing media plan that grows and evolves.

So where I’m going with this is that success is two-fold in nature. It begins with the design team understanding the strategy side. Whether it’s copy, images, or functionality you’re talking about, the design team must understand the context in which their work will be viewed. For example, slap the Mona Lisa on the side of a building in East Harlem and it goes unnoticed, but speak to the locals through a blended mural and suddenly an artistic genius emerges.

The second part of this equation is ensuring that the strategy team fully understands the end result the designers are striving to achieve and then using that knowledge to find innovative ways to display it. After all, pictures always look better with a nice frame, right?

In the long run, I think the ultimate demise of most interactive campaigns comes from the inability of both groups in the equation to fully understand each other. It’s the old left brain/right brain conflict at its best. Those agencies that are capable of collective thinking with both brains will be the ones that excel in this industry by driving all parties involved towards a common goal.

Creative IS Media

Lately I’ve been reading articles about media firms that are starting to break into the creative ranks, but are getting push back from their parent companies or holding companies as they don’t want the media group to compete with their other brand agencies. I “get” that from a holding company strategy. They want to make sure they’re not stepping on each other’s toes, and strategically it opens doors for them if they have a wider array of specialties. However, if I’m the media shops client – I’d be damn sure to push back on them, and here’s why.

For years we have been saying give us more solid clients that understand marketing principles, and we’ll deliver them results – whether it’s brand exposure or ROI – we’re going to produce IF… If the Media Buy is flexible, can be tracked and has good creative execution. Notice I didn’t say “great” creative execution – I only said “good”. If you give us “great” that’s a whole new meaning that we can deliver the world on your doorstep.

To prove our point, we have a client who we had been begging for some brand identity guidelines from. This is not a small client, they just happened to be evolving their brand to keep pace with the fast moving interactive audiences. But when it never came, it was misconstrued by them as saying Media Two didn’t want to create their ads. On the contrary – we were creating very good ads, but our objectives were direct response and that meant there was not a lot of consistency from ad to ad or from site to site. So when the brand guidelines came, they turned the creative chores over to another agency to produce. We immediately saw a negative impact of the new ads and asked for new ones. Three to Four weeks later we had more underperforming ads to the tune of a 150% increase on our CPA. This is not the fault of this new agency, instead it was the result of removing creative from the hands of the media department. With media sitting next to creative on a day-to-day basis and sharing in the experience, you get the benefits of:

• Hearing what new sites are working from media allows design to customize banners (for example – if it’s a sporty site, make an athletic image/message).
• If the media buyer is on the phone and has a value-added opportunity in a new ad size format, the creative group can have that format done in minutes so as to not miss the opportunity.
• If messaging completely bombs – the media buyer will be the first one asking for new ads from creative before the client has even reviewed the end of day numbers.
• Media can keep in check design… By that I mean, every designer wants to create the coolest ads in the world – but when running ads on Yahoo.com or other large sites, you’re limited to 25k file sizes and 15 seconds of animation. If design understands media’s pain – it’s a much happier relationship.

Again – there are a lot of reasons to keep media and design together, and there are a lot of best practices, but I think the biggest reason any of our clients could ever see is that 150% increase on our CPA. As a side note – we have received those creative duties back from the client and are awaiting approval on our first batch of banners under the new brand guidelines. Anyone else smell a case study coming?