The Social Banner

Gianluca over at [mini]marketing has an interesting proposition about banners - what would happen if we made them more social?

When I looked into banners for digital advertising I was not impressed by the metrics - the number of views that translated into clicks is not at all as good as traditional trade print media. That despite, as Gianluca observes, online ads being increasingly bigger, bolder, more intrusive, dynamic and interactive. Why is that?

Could it be because we cannot interact with banners?

I just finished reading Herd by Mark Earls, a book that explains and demonstrates through stories how it is the interaction between people that makes things interesting to people, not so much the things themselves. A social event, a blog with critical mass, a Tweet that stirs more emotion at the right time are likely to draw a bigger interaction - and thus more interest than spaces without an existing conversation.

I see it here - the first comment is the hardest one. If nobody else is interested, I can hear you say to yourself, it must not be good. We had this discussion a long time ago.

What makes the banner stand out as an anachronism online? According to Gianluca:

1. It is probably the last or near to last element of the Web that does not have a permalink or a feed. I like how he puts it - it's a door to door sales person. You either buy now, or forget about it. Somehow this image conjures Willy Loman and his attempts to hold on to the way things were in the face of change.
2. It wants a one to one with you. You cannot share the banner across networks and with other people. That is a shame because applications are growing explosively on Facebook. What is your message doing there all alone? Wouldn't you like some engagement? Although Maurizio in the comments points to a Nike ad that does have a share button.
3. The banner is antisocial. It does not want to connect individuals to others who have also clicked on it.
   
4. It does not want to have a conversation. How about feedback in any form? I know we pay attention to the stars on Amazon with the reviews.
5. A banner is usually not interesting. Would you tag a banner as favorite? How about linking to it?

Maybe you do not need the data, you know that we truly hate banner ads and at best we are quite indifferent to them. What do you think? How can we get over the "make the logo bigger" syndrome?

Gianluca may be onto something with the social banner idea. Mostly because I do not think we have seen yet implementations that go much beyond mass marketing. Is the banner the :30 commercial of the Web?

Are we missing a fundamental idea of the Web here? Is there opportunity to create interactions with assets (banners and the like) that encourage engagement?

I'm warming up to the idea of using games both for educational purposes and immersion. They could be especially useful if your product is complex or your service is quite difficult to describe in less than a couple of sentences.

If it is true that online we are all one click away from each other, what are the implications for the micro?  If the banner ad is antisocial, how can we improve it? I go back to the conversation we had on marketing by context building. Here's where I see the opportunity. Apparently, so did Google.

I'd love to hear your take. I could not think of one favorite banner ad. Do you have one? Have you an example of an online ad campaign - client or agency - that worked? Here's a perfect venue to toot your horn. Bring it on.

Comments

[Mads Kristensen]

Reading this I cannot help thinking that perhaps this a useful place for widgets? Because what if we started thinking about integrating widgets from advertisers instead of banners into our websites.

We could do the following:

- Only engage with advertisers that provide context, meaning and real added value to the website they want to advertise on.

- Integrate the advertising through a widget complete with social elements such as aggregating, sharing, commmenting etc.

The result would be a website that would be enriched by advertising - not deflated by it. The advertiser would get a better response/relationship with the user because the advertiser provides real value. And most likely websites would be able to get better prices due to better performance.

Key in this is to put stringent demands on the advertisers and not let them throw crap in the faces of your users.

Might work.

[Paula Thornton]

My head and my stomach hurt. Too many mixed agendas here (but all good stuff!). This is a cognitive and economic problem space. The problem has to be understood before the appropriateness of the design solution can be assessed.

Any design solution can be optimal for a given situation. But banners are a bad design solution for the majority of cases in which they are engaged.

The problem is with the concept of 'advertising'. Advertising is a flawed discipline at the core (http://www.fastforwardblog.com/2008/02/18/advertising-relic-of-inefficiency/ ). It needs to be replaced with something else that has Behavioral Economics (cognitive economics http://del.icio.us/iknovate/CognitiveEconomics ) at its core.

Yes, conversations are important, but they have their place. Work backward from the action/scenario. A 'teaser' (regardless of it's form -- link in an article, a callout) is typically followed because of interest. This is going to get really long, so I'm going to back off of it by simply saying, stop thinking of "Markets as Conversations" and begin thinking of "Conversations as Markets". Go to where the individual is (and yes, the Google context ads move toward this, but they're still ads -- more appropriate are 'suggestions' -- ala. Amazon's you may also be interested in).

I'm more interested in what we haven't come up with as options yet. But we won't get there without a deeper focus on Cognitive Economics informing design...not 'put it in this [mediaform] design, but true "what makes the most sense in this context" design.

[Jon]

@Paula: Your comment made me want more info on the 2nd link you provided, but when I click it, there are 'no items'. Bummer. I think you and I are thinking along the same lines. I'll wade thru your blog to verify this...

Valeria, you probably know what I am going to say...

The Banner is obviously not working. Most people I know tuned it out back in the late nineties. But it IS prime real estate, so we should figure out how to make it useful.

Again, I have to say that I think online marketing is looking at the situation completely backwards. Online marketing needs to include the consumer as THE reference point for any plan.

Look at everything marketing on the web from the point of view of the one sitting in front of the screen. Forget your advertisers. Forget your 20th century relic of a boss. Put yourself in the user's chair.

It's actually very easy to do, because each one of us is that user. Ask yourself, "What do YOU want from online marketing?"

Then ask the users. Every day. Then listen to them. Especially when they change their mind.

I'd better shut up or I may spill my beans...

BTW, I still cannot use my email address to post a comment here! Your blog is making me use an old YAHOO address that I created to catch spam from online sign ups... Isn't there some way you can 'whitelist' me?

After all, I am a Friendly!

[Valeria Maltoni]

@Mads - banners are such prime real estate that utilizing in more concrete and valuable ways can only provide an upside. I am warming up to the idea of using a widget. In fact, I will be thinking further about an execution in that direction. Thank you!

@Paula - Thank you for turning the question around. That is indeed the direction we should explore and the gap between where marketers are and where they should be sometimes is a bit large. I have been wrestling with the idea of design of business (which is where I'd really like to be vs. at the mere communications after the fact) and needing to be in conversations on the ground floor vs. an afterthought. I totally got where you were coming from. The alternative would be to dumb down and flatten it all making it sound and look simplistic, which it isn't. It is in moments of chaos that creation emerges so this is a very opportunistic time to drive change into specific directions.

@Jon - good direction. Usability is key, as in value within context. I think we all see that. How do we get there? I am going to give some thought to what Mads proposed, keeping in mind what you and Paula added. Now we're cooking! I will inquire with TP about the email if you send me your address off line. I remember that I once tried sending you a message there form email and it bounced back...

[gluca]

thanks Valeria, what a honour! :)
glad that my post is inspiring such a debate also here :)

[Alex Wipf]

A social ad with people in it is still an ad. A concept, btw, which has been used for decades. I am wondering if they can save online advertising, or if it’s just a reprieve to keep spending on media instead of creating valuable experience for people.
http://culturalfuel.com/2008/08/08/social-banners-can-they-save-online-advertising/