Brainfluence: 100 Ways to Persuade and Convince Consumers with Neuromarketing Get 100 amazing brain-based marketing strategies! Brainfluence is recommended for any size business, even startups and nonprofits!
Guy KawasakiRead this book to learn even more ways to change people's hearts, minds, and actions.   — Guy Kawasaki, author of Enchantment and former chief evangelist of Apple
Brainfluence Info

{

9 responses to "Study: TV Branding Beats Online" — Your Turn

}

Walter Pike 11. May 2011 at 7:22 am

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”

Reply

Roger Dooley
Twitter: rogerdooley
11. May 2011 at 7:29 am

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

Reply

Matt Fiorentino 11. May 2011 at 9:42 am

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

Reply

Roger Dooley
Twitter: rogerdooley
11. May 2011 at 11:31 am

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

Roger

Reply

Frugal Living 11. May 2011 at 5:40 pm

I’m sure that this will change within a few years

Reply

Wes Man 12. May 2011 at 7:34 am

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

Reply

David 9. June 2011 at 4:57 pm

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”

Reply

JAMES 17. July 2011 at 11:36 am

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

Reply

Roger Dooley
Twitter: rogerdooley
17. July 2011 at 12:24 pm

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

Reply

Leave a Reply

{

4 responses to "Study: TV Branding Beats Online" — Your Turn

}