I was in a meeting today discussing a media strategy when someone mentioned the ability to do what is called a Page Take Over Interstitial.
You may have seen one before. It’s when a popular website such as www.theage.com.au has some form of advertising over the top of it when you first arrive on your browser. In this case the advertisement can’t be clicked out of for 10 seconds. He then went on to say “They can’t click out. They have to see it. I love that one”
Well, I didn’t love it that much. In fact I thought it’s probably more likely to make people hate us and ignore our message.
My view is clear. If we really want people to listen, then their choice of attention must be respected.
I’m so happy right now. Everytime one of those ads is displayed the Japanese kill another whale.
You’re saving whales Steve. One ad at a time.
Michael,
I’m not getting that comment. Not sure if it’s because I’ve had a long day, or it’s too cryptic for me?? Help,
Steve.
Probably too cryptic.
Those ads are the worst form of advertising on the net right now and the fact that the websites keep running them is testament to how much abuse we as readers take. It’s a vicious circle, the advertising companies want more attention and the newspapers want more money. We as readers hate them, yet for some reason we put up with them.
Both these 2 sides of the advertising game should be finding ways for us to be MORE engaged, not only in the media we read but also the advertising we see. As soon they figure this out it’s going to be a win-win.
Yep got it now. I hoped that was what you meant. Another one I heard is that these take over advertisements are like spitting in someone’s face at a bar (interruption) versus sending someone a bottle of champagne. (permission).
Glad that you’re pointing out the validity of these advertising messages.
Seems like someone took a lesson out of a 1930’s textbook.. push and they (will) buy.
What’s even more amusing is that theage.com.au allows these ads to slow down their site so significantly that users have to wait even longer for the content to load.
Doesn’t ad-block on Firefox shut these serial pests down?
I consider them the equivalent of those scrolled adds that pollute my programs on TV…evil little interruptions…
Is that the same marketing whizz who invented auto play video? I believe there is an award awaiting to be awarded. The ad strategy that killed the most kittens and whales.
These ads arnt pop ups as they take over the whole page. I hate them too. In fact I don’t even read the ad, I just look for where it says close. I resent this advertising and those who use it. It’s weak, uncreative and to be honest, rude. It shows disrespect to the sites readers as well.
Yes, interstitial’s and auto play videos are by far the most annoying form’s of online advertising. So much so I make a point of not clicking through even if the ad is for something of interest. They shouldn’t be encouraged.
Interesting you mention The Age. It’s one of the sites I regularly visit who seem to be a common offender. I think it shows a complete lack of respect for their user experience.
I cant stand it!!! Very aggressive.
Nadene (@nads75 via twitter)
Ad equivalents of full screen website flash intros which have thankfully largely gone the way of the dodo. Reflects badly on the Brands that use them as well as sites that allow them. Hopefully these to shall pass into the obnoxious interruption graveyard.
Steve, I agree with you, in a general sense that as a consumer I hate these things, mainly because very few of the messages are of interest to me. The homepage of ww.theage.com.au being the internet equivalent of a massive billboard by the side of a freeway, largely untargeted.
But I am a little concerned with you dismissing it out of hand.
The internet dudes should have moved past a reasoning of ‘I love that one’ to tell you that these advertisements are fully trackable, they will be measuring such metrics as click through rates, and then the path of the consumer on the website they have clicked through to, or complete video views, interaction with the various elements of the advertisement or anything else you want to know.
Assuming with accept that this tracking is a true measure of consumer behaviour (and there is no reason to think it isn’t) then you as a strategic analyst should rely on this information to prove it’s worth.
Should your personal opinion (or internet media guy’s for that matter) of a channel/execution override the empirical evidence? I would hope not.
What I do and what you should too is email them and tell them how your not going to their site anymore. Let them know.
Also anything Fairfax is like this. They just don’t get it. They are the most backward news site in Oz. Race to the gutter with the Herald-Scum.
Here’s the point…
If the idea is good enough…engaging enough…entertaining enough then people don’t give a rats about the channel or the fact that they have just lost 10 seconds of their lives. Ideally we’ve made them laugh or maybe cry – we’ve entertained them and that is the job of communication experts right? Whatever it is, if the idea is good enough they will watch and not complain. If the idea is bad then they will complain vigorously. And so they should!
couldn’t agree more – it’s putting me off the age as my primary source of news…
it’s rude and intrusive and I don’t get how the money they are getting for this outweighs the crap user experience…. when I find another news source I will change
I hear your point around metrics. But for every engaged audience member who takes the next steps and clicks through (which in this case they can’t, it’s a static non click-able advertisement) how do we measure the portion of the audience who say “fuck you” I’m not listening and in fact, I’ll actively ignore your message because of the way you have interrupted me? How do we measure that… it isn’t traceable, and there is no doubt it will be the very large majority…. in the vicinity of 99.9% or more…. And even of those who do follow through, want more information, and interact further it can’t ever be a true measure of consumer behaviour because it will be such a significant minority, it will not be robust. In this case the empirical evidence WILL point to it being a very poor strategic choice.
Over to you.
Steve.
I think Luke has hit the nail on the head. If the message is entertianing, and engaging enough. Something I want to see, I won’t care that you have interupted me. If I’m thinking about going on holiday, and up pops an advertisement about cheap air fares I’m a happy little consumer.
The problem though is 99% of the advertisements are not going to be relevant to me, particularly on something as broad as The Age homepage. That’s where the challenge in media buying/advertising is – reducing the ‘don’t care’ factor.
That might be through using great creative, or a great, well targeted placement. The Age homepage is not well targeted so you better hope your ad’s great.
I can take a guess what campaign this is for, I’m guessing your market is ‘anyone who drives’ so that’ll make it difficult. I best you could hope for is that the incredibly small minority take some notice.
The other thing to consider people tend not to get pissed off the brand advertised (they simply don’t pay attention), they give pissed off with The Age.
Advertisers in traditional print media have always had a strong disrespect for the attention of the reader. I think that it’s become more intrusive because the technology has become available, and advertisers (media planners and buyers) have become terrified of what happens to them when clients actually have ways of tracking metrics.
I wrote a bit about this over on my Tumblr a little while ago. You might be interested in it.
http://rossfloate.com/post/596852991/youre-not-readers-to-them-youre-eyeballs
Totally agree with your sentiments. Thanks for sharing the link Ross.
Steve.