New Media Age, Opinion, 4 February 2004

DMC calls for more light to be shed on research claims about interruptive online ad formats, and questions the value of the interruptive approach.

DMC Letter to Editor, 4 February 2004, New Media Age

I keep hearing and reading claims that despite interruptive ads being despised by end-users - (which arguably should be reason enough for media owners to get rid of them if they want to encourage repeat visits!), they also get high response.

How can this be true? Are end users simply masochists who hate interruptive ad formats yet respond to them in droves? Or do the organisations who produce the high response-claiming research have a vested interest in persuading advertisers to keep using these formats?

t may not be that black-and-white but something doesn’t add up. The response-claiming research needs to be scrutinised more closely to understand why it doesn’t square with research about user preferences.

For starters, what is meant by ‘high response’? Is it high response in terms of generating awareness, or click-throughs? If high awareness is what’s being claimed, why does no-one talk about pop-up ads or other forms of online interruptive advertising (rich media or otherwise) in the wider world?

If pop-up advocates are claiming cheap exposure, that may be so, given that rates can be as low as 5 cents per click. But generating exposure is not the same as building brand, and you don’t get consumers spreading awareness about pop-up ads positively in the way they talked about Budweiser’s ‘Whassup’ ads, for example, before they even appeared on TV.

If click-through response rates are what the research refers to then we also need to ask how effective is the non-interruptive approach at customer conversion, and what is the cost of customer acquisition by this model? Perhaps more importantly, what is the lifetime value of customers acquired by this means - do they churn more easily than customers acquired by non-interruptive means? Let’s see some research comparing the two approaches.

Whatever the term refers to, many people still think that ‘high response rates’ attributed to interruptive ads are simply the result of users trying to close them down.

Even if the high response-claiming research is correct, should we be advocating a technique which is the online equivalent of door knocking! You only have to look at the energy industry to learn a valuable lesson here. The direct, unsolicited approach may provide good response figures in the short term, but in the longer term power companies have found that customers acquired by these means do not stay loyal. Using less interruptive methods of communication builds stronger and longer customer relationships. And that’s a fact.