You might also like More from author

10 Comments

  1. Walter Pike says

    Sorry mate – this is meaningless – I can’t find the research methodology from clicking the links, how was the respondent exposed to the ads, also I think that we know banner ads have pretty low value “for branding”

    1. Roger Dooley
      Twitter: rogerdooley
      says

      I agree that we need a lot more info for this study data to be actionable, Walter. What the metrics mean, what the “rich media” ads looked like, etc. Rich media covers a lot of territory, and some rich media ads can be quite engaging. Here’s one from Unicast: sample; not exactly your grandfather’s banner ad.

      Roger

  2. Matt Fiorentino says

    Hi Roger,

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but this study is looking at video ads on TV vs. display ads online. The real question is how video ads on TV compare to video ads online – pre-roll, etc. – and how both of these compare to choice-based video ads online. We’ve written about how choice-based video ads compare to broadcast, or forced, ads for brand engagement in iMedia: http://www.imediaconnection.com/content/28884.asp.

    Video is the most engaging brand experience available because it allows brands to tell stories, so it’s no surprise that it beats other mediums.

    Big fan of the blog! Looking forward to more!

    Best,

    Matt

    1. Roger Dooley
      Twitter: rogerdooley
      says

      Matt, the online ads are described only as “rich media” – could be lots of things. Thanks for the link.

      Roger

  3. Wes Man says

    Yes, it will be curious to see how such data, although with abstract measures, has changed for the past few years. For both types.

  4. David says

    Ads on TV are more engaging and not as easy to ignore. Not only that, but people have grown used to commercials and tolerate them now. I don’t think 20 years from now people will remember any web ad campaigns like they remember “I want my MTV”

  5. JAMES says

    With all the reading, the sciences and the theorists, one thing remains unanswered… the HOW??

    If we now know what stimulates and activates the neurons, how do you create
    ads, Websites, and all the good things destined to a consumer?

    I believe unless one has a compelling creative background perfectly synchronized with neuromarketing know how , the latter remains a diploma holder without with now ”HOW” skills.

    What is the point of learning all of it if you can’t put it to practice. We all know the why, but How many in the neuromarketing field that know the HOW?

    Don’t you think the HOW IS the home run of things?

    Cheers

    1. Roger Dooley
      Twitter: rogerdooley
      says

      James,
      I think we get to the “how” in two ways, James. First, as more and more ads are tested using objective neuromarketing techniques, we’ll be able to generalize some of the findings, e.g., “dark, murky backgrounds don’t appeal to women over 40.” (I just made that up.) Second, we’ll continue to rely on testing actual ads to see if the people who developed the ad got the “how” right, and, if not, to fix it.

      Roger

  6. Matt says

    This Study is sponsored by Fox-Broadcasting. What results did you expect?

    Move along. Nothing to see here.

Leave A Reply

Your email address will not be published.