Are designers to blame for bad Web ads?

Last night I was at a dinner with Dean Donaldson, digital experience strategist for rich media company Eyeblaster. The gathering was to discuss a new measurement technique Eyeblaster is championing that looks at "dwell time" and "dwell rate" as a better way than clicks or impressions to figure out the branding effectiveness of Internet ads. At one point, Dean said something quite interesting. He said the notion that banner ads don't work is mostly because of poor creative. This is a regular argument. He went on to pin much of the blame on designers. On the Web, he explained, designers for some reason were the creatives. Rather than craft the kind of emotion-tugging ads we see in traditional media, they've focused on, yes, Flash microsites. That's meant, for the most part, terrible Internet advertising. When I asked for the best Web ad he's seen recently, other than the Apple banners, Dean pointed to the full-page placement for Chanel No. 5 on MSN recently. It expands to cover the page. On the Internet, ruled by designer sensibilities and a cult of usability, this is ugly intrusion. To Dean, and most importantly to Chanel, it's a good ad.

To some extent, Dean might have a point. He's echoing the argument IAB chief Randy Rothenberg has made: the Web needs to embrace the type of creativity that produced VW's "Think Small" campaign. Maybe. Another guest, Wired's Frank Rose, brought up the idea of telling stories and noted that online the challenge is to get other people to tell your story. This rang true to me. Creativity on the Web has a long way to go, but it's probably a mistake to believe it'll imitate the lush Chanel ad in Vogue. The ability to build applications and utility and enable consumers to advance a brand message.

Comments

[Jack (jack2point0)]

I wouldn't be so quick to blame (solely) designer sensibilities for the whole issue. Clients need to have the budgets to purchase the takeover ad first and foremost. The reason we see tons of crappy banner ads is because that's the space the client and their media agency purchased before going to the agency/designer and asking that ads are created for that space (usually within a week or two). Budgets also don't just affect the buy, but what can be done with the units themselves. That is, how many different creative concepts can be created, etc.

I think that the deeper issue is that the ads are bought before the brand and the designer/agency decide what "story they want to tell". Everyone is then left trying to retro-fit the idea to the units... trying to put a square peg in a round hole.

I also think we need to be realistic. People hate ads. They do everything they can to avoid/ignore them. We need to do better. Display ads, no matter how lush and beautiful, are very traditional in nature/philosophy. Some have a bit of interactivity, but for the most part we are just broadcasting a message at the consumer still (which they obviously choose to ignore). I agree with you, it's about building applications that enable the consumer to advance the brand message.

[Noah Brier]

Hate to quote "the enemy", but Denton had some stuff to say about larger ads in a recent AdAge interview: http://adage.com/digital/article?article_id=136776

"People have faster connections and bigger screens -- and the editorial images are getting larger. It's about time that the advertising caught up. Nobody complains that the ads in Vanity Fair are lavish. Why should premium sites on the web be any different? With about 13 million unique visitors in the U.S., we finally achieved scale. We've been more willing to provide value to advertisers -- in the form of our giant marquee ads, for instance. And I do wonder whether online marketers are finally distinguishing between crappy networks and online properties with genuine followings."

[Doug Schumacher]

I'd also add that just pinpointing the designer, versus the creative team, is a little misdirected. A good concept has to precede the design. And with such little space, that ad probably has to be even more conceptual than in mediums that can rely on subtle production tactics.

Much online creative is still stuck in a DR rut. Because of the size of the ads, simplicity is even more important. Yet companies try to cram so much info into a 300x250 space.

I wrote a piece on this in iMedia a few months back:
http://www.imediaconnection.com/content/22856.asp

Also, most ads in any medium are pretty bad, so I don't know if online is all that different.

[Adrian Ho]

Interesting, not really sure what to think about this. Could he be right? Everything I think about the Internet says he's totally wrong and that the answer to people ignoring ads isn't to make them even more interruptive, but making them fade into the background isn't the answer either.

But really, isn't the better question: who's helping to make the Web cool, designers or advertising creatives?

[Michael Maurillo]

First VideoEgg, now Eyeblaster (and per Noah, Gawker as well). I'm waiting for someone other than those selling the big ads to say 'bigger' is the solution.

I, like you Brian, am with Frank Rose on this one. I'm also slightly surprised that Denton is foolish enough to use big "lavish" PRINT ads in Vanity Fair as an argument for the same approach on the web, premium site or not. Those lavish ads have a permanent and expected place within the medium. Start placing them all over the editorial page itself, and then make them shake up and down while you're trying to read Tom Wolfe's latest short story and I think you'll get a different response.

Yup, Apple's adds are doing it well. But who else is doing it and where else are they running other than NYT.com. There are a lot of people that need to work together to fix this...

[Candice-Leigh Baumgardner]

There's something to be said for the "dwell time" with that Chanel ad, though. It's beautiful and layered, and certainly makes me linger.

I recently started using Ad Block Plus, which replaces online ads with images from curated photography collections. I'd love to be lured back by some outstanding creative and design work.

[Brian Morrissey]

Everyone wants to find the magazine ad for the Internet. I wonder if it exists. I'm not sure why it has to exist. But apparently Chanel hadn't done much, if any, Web advertising before that MSN execution. As a user, I'm not fond of it. Actually, it scares the shit out of me. But as a content creator, like Adrian said, I know putting the ads further into the background isn't necessarily the answer either.

Oh, something else that Dean mentioned that's interesting: Eyeblaster's data shows people interact quite a bit with those floating ads. His claim: this proves users don't all find them so annoying.

[Jack (jack2point0)]

So I was thinking about the concept of "dwell time". Right now my firefox browser has 11 tabs open. I'd say that's about average for me. I multitask, as a lot of people do. Do we know if the "dwell time" metric is able to account for this type of user behavior?

Also, my gut tells me that a lot of those people that are interacting with the eyeblaster type units are actually trying to figure out how to close it (you'll notice on the chanel ad that the "close" button was transparent lacked an "X" and was in the middle of a lot of movement. It wasn't truly in the top right corner). And even if users are interacting, it doesn't mean that they will be down the road. Display ads and pop-ups had solid click through rates before consumer's got wise to what was going on. At best, these ads are a stopgap, but not the answer for us...

[Dean Donaldson]

Thanks Brian - fired off a response: BadMen – mature thinking needed in Digital Advertising

http://bit.ly/BadMen

Dean

[Karen McGrane]

I'm glad to see people talking about this issue. Finding ways to create more relevant advertising that users don't hate and advertisers will pay more for is what will keep the internet growing.

Blaming the designer for the flaws in the advertising business model is a mistake. I wrote up some of the REAL reasons online advertising sucks:

http://karenmcgrane.com/2009/05/22/why-web-ads-suck/

[Helen Klein Ross aka AdBroad]

Interesting, Brian. Dwell time. Luv that. I don't think designers are "to blame" for lame web ads so much as old agency constructs are. As long as web campaign components are thrown to "techs in interactive" working in isolation, executions will remain largely tactically-focused, and like Chanel fail to forge emotional connections achieved elsewhere. Imagine what print ads or TV spots would look like if only production departments were behind them. The complexity of creating digital media has long scared off creatives who have been only too happy to throw those assignments over the fence. But I agree with Randall Rothenberg. This needs to change if creative change is to take place. We need to stop thinking of digital the same way clients do who are seduced by its shiny tools and metrics. Sure, the vehicles for consumer persuasion have changed, but the tenets of what persuades people haven't. Traditional ad agency creatives need to restake a claim in the digital space, to dimensionalize brand messaging, create systems that haven't been done before. But this will only happen when creatives and techs (oops, digital experience strategists) take seats at the same table.

[Noah Robinson]

Brian,

I'm curious if you or Dean Donaldson have a basis for the underlying assumption that banner ads don't work.

I agree that most online ads are ugly or boring.

But, in my professional experience, banner ads are efficient sales drivers.

Banners don't always work, and obviously, some ads are better than others. But for every campaign where I've actually had good access to marketing spend data and revenue generation data, I've often found banner ads to be highly-effective sales drivers.

[Noah Robinson]

Brian,

I'm curious if you or Dean Donaldson have a basis for the underlying assumption that banner ads don't work.

I agree that most online ads are ugly or boring.

But, in my professional experience, banner ads are efficient sales drivers.

Banners don't always work, and obviously, some ads are better than others. But for every campaign where I've actually had good access to marketing spend data and revenue generation data, I've often found banner ads to be highly-effective profit drivers.

[Lars Bastholm]

The fault lies with a number of people, not just creatives.

IAB for creating standard formats that didn't consider creativity as a factor, but mostly thought about inventory sales.

Publishers for plastering their sites with ads, leading the users to suffer from "banner blindness"; a unique ability to not see anything but the content that got them somewhere in the first place

Creatives for getting so bored with the formats that they'd be willing to do anything to avoid doing banners. Having to create 8 different formats of the same inconsequential message will do that to you. Enter the most junior team. Exit brilliance.

Everyone for thinking that banners were the end rather than the beginning of online advertising. No, the Mac vs PC ads are not the only kind of ads we'll see in the future, but at least we are now talking about change rather than sitting with each our depression about the status quo.

[Ben Malbon]

Really interesting debate. And some typically punchy comments. All good stuff.

We've recently staged parallel debates on similar themes, especially around why there isn't more great work in the interactive space. Lots of factors might be 'blamed'- we tried to collate constructive suggestions around how things might be improved.

Catch up with the commentary and equally heated discussion at:

http://bit.ly/14HVJo

[dave bedwood]

its all about the mix of skills you throw at work. Designers and programmers bring great design and understanding of the internet but don't necessarily have the great copywriting skills of an ATL creative. One isn't better than the other, they are both needed to make great online advertising.

The problem sometimes with bad work is that there is too much of one type in the mix, either designers writing concepts that are a bit poor or copywriters trying to write a TV ad in a banner.
I think a bit of mutual respect would not go a miss.

I know designers always feel resentment to the ATL lot for owning the concept, but for designers to think that they can not only do their job brilliantly but also do the job of copywriter also shows a lack of respect.

Anyone who has ever worked as a copywriter in an ATL agency will know that its not a job or skill that comes easy, I've had to write thousands of (shit) ads and had my balls kicked by ATL CD's,in the drudgery of book crits, it's grueling but that's what makes the best creative teams and is something a lot of digital creative (who want to write a persuasive ad,on the same calibre as the Economist campaign, not this Chanel e.g )

In the end we are all trying to make something that wherever it ends up that entertains our mom, mate, local pedo etc etc you best bet is to get the right mix of people on the job. Digital has in my opinion doesn't do this often enough.

[dave bedwood]

bloody hell, so many typos, sentences unfinished, and I'm making the case for copywriters, what a joker!

My excuse was a gloomy looking producer waiting for a meeting.

[Mastodi]

Keep up the good hard work man, this article has really blown me away ! Good stuff, recommended.

MASTODI REPORT