Banners and Rich Media

posted 02/23/08 by Rick Webb

Yes, we do banners and rich media. Yes, we still do. Yes, we love them. You know what? This whole viral marketing thing? It’s REALLY HARD. Want to gather an audience quickly and easily? Buy some banners. They still work. Maybe we’re all a little too over obsessed with clickthroughs and interaction rates and stuff – we recognize the value in all of that, of course. But a beautiful rich media piece can really move someone. I remember being moved by a banner before I ever even started this company. I remember thinking ‘wow, that is beautiful.’ It was 1996. Its still possible today. We believe that.

Here are some recent posts from our employees about Banners and Rich Media:

Oops I did it a again (Comment on Gigantico's "On Display" post)

Just read a gloriously clear, detailed explanation of everything that’s broken with banner production and media buys these days over on Gigantico, and of course once again I found myself leaving too long of a comment. I have to stop doing that. Anyway, you should totally read their post if you’re at all involved in the buying, selling, placing or production of display media.
My comment dealt more with the second part of his post, about the broken relationship between digital media agencies and digital creative agencies, but I do think I should probably also mention that in terms of Gigantico’s (very convincing) argument about new display units and download sizes, the IAB is starting to tackle that, and Noah and Jen over here are on the agency advisory committee, so at least that part is getting tackled. Or starting to.

Response to a TechCrunch Article About Advertising

Got a little riled up this evening reading a TechCrunch article from guest author Eric Clemons from Wharton on Why Advertising is Failing on The Internet. I got a little riled up. Mainly these posts irk me in how we’ve just been hearing the same old, same old, for years, even as people do interesting, compelling, effective stuff on the internet every day.
Anyway, here is my long-winded reply:
Okay. I see you significantly revised your article in the update, and, really, this is more a problem of an inflammatory headline, but I think a comment from an advertiser is warranted nonetheless. Take a second, look me up. I know what I’m talking about. Honest. I do advertising. On the internet. And it works. And I make money off it. And my clients are happy. And I don’t care two whits about banners, search, or any algorithms.
Advertising is not failing advertisers, and it’s not failing consumers. It’s failing everyone who expected it to fund the whole of the internet. But advertisers are just like everyone else. Why would we pay someone (websites) for something (messages) we could get for free?
You’ve got a few fundamental logical problems with your assessment. Let’s dissect a bit.
First, you say “advertising is failing.” But your argument here is not that it’s not working, but simply that it’s not the web’s economic salvation. You’re conflating the failure of advertising as a means of funding all the fun the internet has with the efficacy of advertising as a means of impacting users’ behavior. They’re different things. It’s doing each of them well to different extents. Just because it’s failing to fund the whole internet doesn’t mean it’s failing to influence consumer’s purchase patterns.
Secondly, you list the age-old problems with advertising. People don’t like it. They don’t trust it. Whatever. it’s a red herring. It’s always been the case. The internet didn’t change anything about that. Advertising worked before in the face of these obstacles, and it works now in the face of these obstacles. We all like to bitch about advertising. It has challenges. Nonetheless, it still works.
Next, you’re conflating the need of websites and media properties to make money with the need of advertisers to make ads. Just because there are different ways for sites to make money now means nothing. So what? Fewer sites will run display ads? What does that have to do with the existence of advertising? Will it stop someone needing to market their product just because Facebook found another way to make money?
And lastly, like everyone in the tech world (though you seem to not be from there), you seem to be under the impression that all advertising online is display ads, text ads, and maybe a rich media unit here or there. But the definition you give is more broad than that. You said it yourself. It’s getting a message in front of people where they’ll see it, in order to influence them. It’s not clicks. It’s not this page or that.
Here’s the stone-cold fact. Your analysis is outdated. Effective advertisers have already adapted to the years-old “new” reality you outline. It’s more expensive than anyone hoped, it’s less profitable for agencies, and it’s a hell of a lot harder than everyone hoped, but the fact is it works.

Banners, The Media-Creative Scism

Expanding on yesterday’s post, another blog post of mine that started as a comment. This time, to Noah, commenting on yesterday’s post
I think there is a TON that can be done with the banner. I have a whole host of thoughts about that – not dissimilar to yours. As you know, we do still take the occasional banner job, and I always find it hilarious how pleasantly surprised our clients are at our abnormally high interaction and clickthrough rates. They’re always wondering what tech or theory we’ve applied, and are always confused when I tell them we just made the banner with a creative approach, from the heart. It’s such a rarity people consider it innovative.
That being said, I do think, broadly speaking, that the banner has a marginal, at best, place in really making a great brand initiative online. What are the great brands that have been built using the web? Google, Facebook, Twitter, Zappo’s, Netflix. Banners have barely been involved. This, I think, is the crux of the issue: to make a great brand online, you need a methodical strategy, a plan, and a lot of manpower. What you don’t need is a lot of paid placement. And our industry still makes its bread and butter on paid placement.
I did an IAB panel not too long ago and the one thing I said that people actually agreed with was that “our industry shot itself in the foot, when it comes to the internet, when we split media and creative.” It was a great idea, given the circumstances at the time. It’s making our job nearly impossible on the internet. There are these media companies that control the money, and they have a massive disincentive to move that money to the Internet, because it’s a lot more work for them, for less money, and less impactful results. This is not just theoretical. I’ve seen it in every single relationship I’ve had with a media company. Clients want to spend more on the internet, so they tell their media company to shift their dollars. But what’s the media company gonna do? Take an effective, lucrative arrangement with CBS and funnel that money into some half-assed content partnership with MSN? They know in their hearts that it’s not as effective, and it’s more work.
That poor CMO’s screwed too, because his extra funds to the internet aren’t being applied correctly. Because where you actually make an impact on the internet is over on the creative and strategy side. Websites, games, branded content and utilities, a social media strategy. Stuff that creative shops make, not media shops. And those shops, who are desperately need of greater funds to make bigger impressions for brands on the internet, cannot get the funds they need, because all the money’s locked over on the media side. And then the media side try and make all of that stuff, to capture the revenue, but they don’t have any good digital creatives, because what great digital creative would want to work at Giant Media Company X, when they could be working here or at RGA? It’s a total mess.
The solution, obviously, is for companies like us to get into Planning, as RGA has. This, of course, has it’s own set of problems – economies of scale on purchases, executing the purchases, and the need for a new type of smarter, more web-savvy media planner who views a Twitter feed or an ad on the Massive network in-game or a blog mention as viable media channels just as much as a Yahoo! partnership or search. And the old media companies are no dummies, of course, so whenever such media planners do crop up, those companies snap them up immediately. Usually somewhere around their fourth interview here, since, you know, it’s our first one, and we want to be careful. Ha. So it’s a slog. But one I think, over time, we can prevail in. It’s gonna take another 2-3 years, though. But even then, the bulk of major marketer’s money will be locked up at the Group Ms of the world, and even as more money is shifted to the internet, the bulk of it will be wasted on half-assed creative and ill-conceived partnerships, not providing value for anyone and tainting CMO’s view of the efficacy of interactive advertising.
Another theoretical solution for this would be to see the Aegis/Carat’s of the world really truly properly integrate their creative boutique offerings (such as, in their case, FarFar) as part of the big picture from the getgo when planning an online marketing spend, but here you get to the last, ugly but undeniable truth.
You have a million dollars of a client’s money to spend online. Which is more profitable? Give it to a boutique studio that has a team of 15 expensive people on the project, with high overhead costs and a lot of freelancer bills, or to give it to Yahoo, and take 25% profit off the top, and assign one media guy to oversee it? The profit pressure is immense to just give it to Yahoo.
But which is more effective for the client? 15 of the best people in the world building something great and unique for your brand, or another freakin’ bland content partnership with a portal, and some banner ads?

The Cannes Grand Prix

N.B. This post was from the last version of our site

We are pleased as punch to learn today that Come Clean, which we made for Method (the soap company) with Crispin, Porter + Bogusky, just won the Interactive Grand Prix at Cannes. We also won a bronze for our Virgin Atlantic “Dreams” banner, made in conjunction with Crispin, and got shortlisted for the Dr. Angus site, made for Burger King with Crispin. Whew.

Everyone wins!

N.B. This post referred to v1 of our site

Greetings! The awards season has been treating us well. The booty so far: One Show Gold and Silver pencils for Discover, with Goodby, Silverstein & Partners. One Show merit for Release 1 and Nike ACG. Two more One Show merits for two projects with Arnold Worldwide and Volkswagen: Touareg and New Beetle Convertible. A Gold Clio for Discover with Goodby, Silverstein & Partners. A Shortlisting at the Clios for Nike ACG. Flashforward 04 NYC Finalist for Nike ACG.

And, today: Seven, count them, SEVEN, Cannes Lions semifinalists: three for the Subservient Chicken with Crispin, Porter + Bogusky (one for Media, and two for the Cyber Lions), one for Release 1 (our beloved nonprofit friends), one for Pods Unite, the iPod/New Beetle site for Volkswagen and Arnold Worldwide. One for Paddleball for Discover Card with Goodby, Silverstein + Partners, and one for Virgin Airline’s Bounce Banner, with Crispin, Porter + Bogusky.

Whew.

We’re not letting this slow us down, though. We’ve been working on some amazing new things as well. We’ve got some great new people here we want to introduce you to very soon. Honest.