Beyond the Click: Which online ads are the most effective? (Part 2) (page 1 of 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).