Advertising ranks second for main uses of Flash after video. 90% of banners are displayed in Flash. But what if it wasn’t so useful after all?
Numbers don’t lie. A simple banner is 80% more efficient. This figure may shock but yet it has been confirmed several times during our A / B testing: static banners versus Flash banners, in the exact same environment. A static banner is more effective than a Flash banner. Recent statistics for our client Europcar yet again prove it: +82% of click through rate (CTR) compared to its Flash equivalent!
Yet logic would have it that an animated banner is more attractive, visible, allows a more appropriate scripting. But reality is quite different for the following reasons:
• A Flash banner often conceals poor messaging thanks to flashing, smoothly animated visual effects, and everything else a good Flash programmer can muster. At the end of the day, this is animation but surely not advertising.
• Internet users are now educated. Over time, their eyes have learnt to detect advertising and they no longer see it. The drop in CTR, which average now rarely exceeds 0.15%, proves it.
• Production costs are rather high (especially for international campaigns). Therefore, the advertiser will often just replicate Flash banners rather than fully localise them.
• And, above all, the fun side of the flash format keeps us from tackling real questions: What is my message, my offer, what will make the Internet user click ...
On the contrary, a static banner:
• Requires real creative and zoning work because space is very limited.
• Involves limited production costs
• Allows you to test numerous variations of the initial creation (text, message, background colour/image can be changed to better fit the media environment...): a real scientific and measurable approach with A / B testing.
• Does not disturb the internet user when reading the page. Thus, she/he will be more receptive to messaging.
• Displays perfectly on all mobile devices (many terminals do not support the Flash format).
And if Facebook made everyone agree?
In fact, the next evolution in Internet ad formats may come from where you least expect it: Facebook! For 18 months, Facebook has consistently used the same new format, consisting in a title, 4 lines of text and a static image. It's not highly intrusive, does not flicker, 0% Flash and yet, it does work when well optimised! Why?
For exactly the same reasons mentioned above. Creation is so simple that the ad can be optimised by creating 1, 2, 5, 10 or even 100 different versions at no real additional costs. For example, we produced the same ad in more than 150 distinct variations for an operation led for our client Gites de France.
The great strength of such an ad is that we can test messaging, visuals and combine with social targeting possibilities offered by Facebook (socio-demographic, interests, geographical location ...) an unlimited number of times.
Another smaller player entering the market with a premium position is Ligatus. You can find its ads on most editorial sites. Here again, text plus image and a real optimisation policy.
So for your next campaign, why not go back to static banners?
Les commentaires récents