Beyond the Click: Which online ads are the most effective? (Part 2)

The following observations are a continuation to part 1 of this article published April 20th 2005.

Eyetrack III Observation 7: 'Static ads vs. animated ads revealed mixed results.'

Traditional thinking would suggest that animated ads should outperform static counterparts by a wide margin. Common theory, holds that animation within the ads should attract visual traffic to 'investigate' the movement initially in a user's peripheral vision. Surprisingly, Eyetrack observations reveal no such trend was apparent.

Comparing static and animated ads instead revealed a mixed trend of some static outperforming animated ads and vice versa. Perhaps this relates back to prevailing user 'banner blindness' avoiding ads which are just that; 'ads'. Clearly no conclusions can be made, but the study does open up a previously closed issue.

Eyetrack III Observation 8: 'Ads closer to the top left part of the page are generally seen before ads elsewhere.'

This observation serves as an extension to observation 1; that ads higher up the page perform better than ads placed lower down, whilst ads placed on the left hand side performed better than counterparts on the right. What this observation adds, is that not only do they deliver longer and more frequent 'eye-fixations' but also are seen much quicker.

In some instances the differences were almost up to 40 seconds between users who saw the ads in the top left of the page versus others placed lower down and to the right. This could prove an interesting tactic when it comes to ensuring your ads 'break through the clutter' when competing with other advertisers on the same page.

Eyetrack III Observation 9: 'Ad creative quality, content affect viewing behavior.'

So creative does after all have a bearing on the length and number of 'eye-fixations'? Based on some of the earlier observations, one wouldn't be blamed for beginning to wonder. However this time, Eyetrack III were clearly focusing on the surprising results before and hence decided to dig a little deeper. This observation required Eyetrack III to rotate a series of exact ad formats with the only variable being the visual message and design.

Again the results were questioning the common theories. The general trend across the ad formats were that simpler designed ads drew more 'eye-fixations' whilst more complex, arguably more visually stimulating designs drew less 'eye-fixations'. This would seem quite finding except that a fundamental difference here is that the more visually stimulating ads attracted longer, more intense visual traffic. Bringing quality of 'eye-fixation' into consideration as opposed to just frequency.

So for some reason, simpler designed ads drew more visual traffic but for much shorter 'fixations' whilst 'busier', 'richer' designed ads attracted less visual traffic but for much longer. Could it be that as per past observations, obvious ads get ignored because they are obviously ad messages? Of course the answer to that is beyond the scope of this study, but clearly the traditional theory is being put to the test here.

Eyetrack III Observation 10: 'Small pop-ups are quickly viewed, then closed or hidden.'

After a series of surprising observations it is almost a sigh of relief to end on a more obvious note. Observation 10 all but puts the 'final nail in the coffin' for pop-up ads. In line with generally accepted belief, pop-ups were predominantly closed within 3 seconds of appearing (often before the ad had time to load). The second most common act was for users to click anywhere on the webpage so that the pop-up minimized. Both clear indications of users ignoring this format and avoiding the ad interruption.

To add insult to injury, no participant in the study actually clicked on the pop-up. Although not confirmed, possibly the only ad format in the study not to generate a single click. Eyetrack III did offer a sliver of hope to this quickly diminishing format by conceding that the pop-up used in the study was small and hence participant viewing patterns may be different if replaced by a larger version.

Conclusions and Tips

The series of observations in the Eyetrack III study range from the totally obvious to utterly baffling. Clearly there are a number of thoughts which emerge, questioning previously held beliefs when comparing ad formats and ad placements. The nature of this study is strictly observational hence leaving the door open for any critic to draw his/her own conclusions from the findings, but perhaps the following are the most striking:


• Advertisers and publishers need to address the growing phenomenon of user ad avoidance. Clearly as users gain in Internet savvy, they also learn to avoid viewing page space normally attributed to ads.

Furthermore, the study suggests that the more contrasting the ad is from the surrounding content may actually result in increasing the hindrance to generating visual traffic. As a solution, the study suggests ad placements to be in very close proximity to key web 'realestate', ie the page content and navigation bars.

Resulting in higher use of 'Island ads' and 'text
ads' which naturally lend themselves to these placements and proved to be amongst the best performers in the study.


• Ads which aren't obviously ads and blend in to the look and feel of a site often generate the highest viewing percentages. This means that web designers need to rethink any unnecessary design touches around the ad content such as lines or added space and instead think about ad integration into the rest of the page content. Considering that most websites in the Middle East rely on ad revenue to survive, this is not an unreasonable request to make and drastically shifts the focus in web design.


• Size may still matter but the difference is not as pronounced as the price differences may suggest. Advertisers may warrant questioning larger ad units which cost twice as much as smaller options in a publisher's ad portfolio. Since cost-effectiveness may not justify the difference. This may also help to explain the traditional 468x60's continued popularity in the face of new, larger ad formats.


• Ad creative, though important, is not the defining line between a campaign success and failure. It seems that placement is just as important, if not more so. This truly has implications in the Middle East where many advertisers are investing in creative development and then not bothering with employing a proficient media planner to even think about where and how the ad will appear in the media. A major area for improvement.


• When developing the ad this study highlights that your window of user attention is a small one indeed. This means that your core message needs to be delivered fast and this is often an impossible task. Instead, consider using message 'hooks' near the beginning of the ad copy to hold the consumer's gaze for a longer period to be able to deliver the final proposition.