Would Better Online Ads Matter?

By Jake • January 20th, 2010 • View Comments

Photo by missbossy from Flickr used under Creative Commons

Earlier in the week, I posted about Next Jump and their use of data and algorithms to target offers at consumers who are most likely to buy.

Their results are impressive, 60% click-through on offers with a phenomenal 11% rate converting browsers to buyers. Apparently, 5% click-through with 2% conversion are consider very good rates.

I find myself wishing they’d hurry up and colonize the intertubes because since online ads aren’t going away anytime soon, they might as well be interesting and useful to me.

My personal rates for these two metrics are so close to 0 that any measurable data would be considered a statistical anomaly. I mainly ignore ads, and the only click-throughs I can recall registering are on accidental, errant clicks. I don’t remember ever buying something based on an online ad.

Although I manage to ignore pretty much every ad I see, a couple lately have annoyed me into paying attention.

The first one was on Flickr, one of my favorite services, where I find great Creative Commons licensed photos to spice up these posts. Yesterday, the search results there showed me the same series of “get ripped fast” ads, over and over.

The repetition was annoying enough to make me pay attention and wonder why Flickr wanted me to get ripped so desperately.

Was it random? Did they do a BMI calculation based on pictures of me? Do I appear emotionally unhappy with my lack of ripped-ness in photos?

Then today, while on Facebook, Gillette wanted to educate me about body shaving. Aren’t Facebook’s ads supposed to be better because they can use the data in my profile and networks to target me?

What about my profile, aside from being male, would lead Facebook to show me that ad?

I pondered closing the ad, but correctly assumed that Facebook would ask for metadata about why. I don’t really have any interest in making it easier to show me ads I have no intention of clicking.

Taken together, I suppose once I get ripped (fast), I might want to shave my entire body. This is all a bit ridiculous.

Ironically, both these ads disappeared when I went back to screen capture them for this post.

In Flickr’s case, I could upgrade to Pro to suppress the ads. The freemium model is alive and well, as evidenced by the New York Times’ announcement today that they are going freemium next year. I wouldn’t bet on any fewer ads though, even if you pay for more content.

Advertisers are simultaneously trying to get better at targeting, based on social data, and better at skirting ad-avoidance, e.g. an interesting post yesterday about the first DVR-proof commercial.

Advertising is huge business, so why aren’t advertisers getting better?

Most online ads don’t seem to have any connection to the content, which makes them even easier to ignore, and so far, Facebook’s promise of better ads through social has lead to more humor and embarrassment than click-throughs and conversions.

Incidentally, did you hear that Google might be adding its own ads to Street View, overlaying billboard ads? I suppose AR is probably going that way too, but again, these are annoyances and not any more effective. Right?

Thoughts about ads, funny ones, annoying ones, effective ones?

Thoughts about why online advertisers aren’t more successful?

Find the comments.


Possibly Related Posts

  • Jim
    It's hard to imagine how online ads could ever be good? Like you, I ignore them all. If you use Flashblock on Firefox to block flash (and just enable it for the sites you want it to appear on), you can skip lots of irritating animated flash ads. On image based ads - like the get ripped one, I right click the image and block images from that site. For sites I look at q. a lot, it means not many ads get through.

    I read a book years ago called Snow Crash by Neal Stephenson, which had a pretty grim vision of the future world of advertising - something to do with getting inside your retinas. Maybe online ads are easier to ignore than print or tv ads. I'm not sure why any of them work - they just seem so simplistic. Buy this car, and your life will be marvellous. Buy this toilet cleaner, and you can have a beautiful house +and+ a picture perfect wife/husband/child/dog.

    Perhaps I'm so turned off them because they remind me of the insane consumer culture we live in, where it's all about having to buy the latest model of whatever thing it may be, to help make money for some faceless corporation.

    But they must work with some people, otherwise they wouldn't be everywhere. Maybe we're a bad target audience, since we ignore them all!
  • Dude, I love Neal Stephenson. I've been meaning to reread Cryptonomicon for years.

    I agree that ads are terribly simplistic. Even ads I remember, because they were funny or interesting, don't lead to purchases very often. Why do companies waste so much money on them? My guess is they can't accurately track the success/failure rate, and they can't get the data they need to raise it.

    That will change as companies like Next Jump get access to it and produce good algorithms. I actually don't have a problem with ads *if* they are worth something to me. That's the key for me. I'm going to consume anyway.
  • Jim
    My wife is such a Neal Stephenson fan. She's read the Baroque Cycle many times (the whole lot - they're massive books), and she's read Anathem at least 15 times!

    I've read Cryptonomicon twice, and it is wonderful. There are some bits in which go a bit OTT on the maths, but I just skipped those. The characters are incredible, and the part of the story that deal with the jungle / prison camps in WW2 are very stark and brutal. It's definitely my favourite Neal Stephenson book. I've read Diamond Age, Snow Crash, Interface and Cobweb... BUT - have you read his essay "In the Beginning was the Command Line"? That's right up your street, considering what you blog about here. But really - Cryptonomicon is definitely one to read.

    Happy reading Jake...
  • Yes, I've been meaning to *re*read Cryptonomicon for years. Loved it the first time, but that was when it was first released, long time ago.

    I have read "In the Beginning was the Command Line", oddly enough :) but it's been more than a decade. Another one I should hit again. /me adds to pile.
  • Jim
    Okay, sorry, I'm a fool. Can I just delete my last comment! I misread where you said "reread" - I thought you hadn't read Cryptonomicon at all. Ooops.
  • No worries. I have the hardcover edition, preordered from Amazon all those years ago.
blog comments powered by Disqus