Knowing (and paying) the price for interruption

Interruptive advertising is one of the building blocks of most traditional marketer's communications plan. TV ads break up 20 minutes of actual programming (unless you Tivo your content). Radio ads moan on and on while you trudge through traffic. Pre-roll ads on web video make you wait patiently for 15 to 60 seconds. Everywhere you turn, you are accosted by advertising.

There are consequences to doing this, especially in the digital space. I enjoyed reading this article on the New York Times site points to a Burst Media survey of 2,600 online video viewers. In the survey responses, 53.6% of people recalled seeing some type of interruption-based advertising (pre-, mid- and post-roll). 78.4% of those people said that in-stream ads are intrusive with 50.4% saying the ads disrupt their time. (This means the subtraction of value, not the addition of value.)

The in-stream, or mid-roll, ads (a trend that is rapidly growing and is particularly user un-friendly) had the most negative reaction by far. 50.7% of respondents said to have stopped watching the video when they saw an mid-roll ad and 15.3% were so angry they left the site all together.

While people ages 18-24 are slightly more likely to stay through a mid-roll ad, the worst finding for advertisers was around the recall of the ads. Only 21.4% of people who recalled the ad said they pay more attention to mid-roll versus other ad formats. 

If you're a content creator, does it really make sense to run mid-roll ads if people are abandoning your content? You have to ask yourself where you place your value, ad dollars or content distribution. Moreover, if 1/3 of people leave your site altogether, you're hurting revenue from sponsors and other advertisers not to mention your reputation.

From an advertiser's view point of view, why would you do this? The negative impression of the ad's placement is weighing on your brand. If your goal is to have people take action or remember your product/service, this is definitely going to work.

There are, however, better options. Create a "skin" for the video where your branding surrounds the content, but doesn't encroach on it. Align your ads with content that makes sense and is in your audience's focus. The worst thing you can do is take a 30 and plop it in the path of web users who are trying to get the content they value. You're not adding anything to that situation. The 30 second spot is dead online as well (just in case you were wondering). 

What other advice would you give to advertisers lining up for these placements? What ads have you appreciated or received value from and how have they been placed?

This all leads up to a post I have been working on for a while that will premiere tomorrow. "3 is the new 30".

Comments

[Cam Beck]

"Create a "skin" for the video where your branding surrounds the content, but doesn't encroach on it."

That's sounds about right as interim solution for now, but as more solutions become possible with technology and bandwidth, there may be additional ways to both improve the quality of the content and the delivery of brand messaging.

In other words, we should use the least intrusive, most effective methodology at our disposal at any given time.

And we shouldn't piss people off.

[Ryan Karpeles]

Maybe step back and first ask a different question.

Like, "Why do we want to invest in something that people despise?"

Rather than cramming ads into every possible nook, how about creating something yourself that people want to watch? Like an instructional video. Or something informational, perhaps with a dash of humor.

Or better yet, how about creating sexy products, or treating people right, or going out of your way to help someone? Advertising isn't the only option. In fact, it's starting to become one of the worst.

I think people get stuck in this mentality: "How and where can we advertise that will piss the least amount of people off?" I'd recommend getting out of that business, and instead focus on how you can make the most amount of people happy.

[Valeria Maltoni]

And yet agencies keep *recommending* interruption ads online. Why?

[Matt Dickman]

Cam -- You are so right. I think new technology and advertising platforms will innovate on video advertising and integration.

Ryan -- Very good question indeed. The old saying was "I know half of my advertising is wasted, I just don't know what half". Well, now it's more like 80% of advertising is wasted and we can track what that is and the loss, but people still treat it like TV. You're also right on the idea of developing better products, messaging and adding value. It just takes more effort.

Valeria -- This is a puzzling idea for me too. I think a lot of this comes from ad agencies being charged with delivering web ads when it should be handed to a digital firm to really leverage the medium.