Display Advertising v. Graphical Ads

In last week’s coverage of changes at FM — including the departure of 7 staffers, mostly from the back office team that traffics banner campaigns — some news outlets covered the story as FM pulling back from “display advertising,” and, by implication, pulling back from traditional brand-advertising activities in favor of something else (what we call conversational marketing) which must not be, um, brand advertising.

It got me thinking about the phrase “display advertising,” and how it’s annoyed me that it’s lost so much meaning as it made its way from print to online. (I mis-used it myself in an interview with PaidContent, and didn’t put enough emphasis, apparently, on the subset of graphical ads to which I was referring, the “dumb” ones.)

In print, display advertising generally refers to the full-page ads that run in the main editorial sections of a magazine, as opposed to the smaller, often text-heavy classified ads at the back of the book. Advertisers would pay a premium rate for display ads, but not merely because they could use colors and pictures in the ads. They paid a premium because display ads did more than drive calls to the phone banks; the adjacency to the editorial content and the association with the publication’s brand helped advertisers *create* demand among readers who didn’t yet know they wanted or needed something. If that demand already existed, of course, the reader would have flipped to the back of the book, or picked up the yellow pages, to find a phone number. Some publications — the yellow pages, for example — offered classified advertisers the option to add colors and pictures, but that didn’t turn classified advertising into brand advertising. The yellow pages didn’t convince any of us to buy a new car while the old one still got us to work; those beautiful display ads and TV commercials did.

Online, however, the industry watchers call anything with colors, animation or graphics “display advertising.” The fact is, most online graphical ads are intended to do one thing: Drive clicks to retail opportunities. Contextual targeting engines, like Google’s AdSense algorithm or the technologies developed by various ad networks, are a fabulous evolution — perhaps you could say revolution — of the classified advertising model. Instead of organizing phone numbers and offers alphabetically or by category, the contextual targeting engines take an educated guess about your wants and needs based on the content you’re reading and push the classifieds to you. And that’s a wonderful thing. (Except when these “push classifieds” engines accidentally create embarrassing moments for their clients.)

But online banner ads still have a long way to go before they deliver to brand advertisers a messaging vehicle that’s as *native* to the online medium as display print ads were to the magazines in which they ran.

At FM we’re still very much in the banner-ad business. We just believe most banners aren’t living up to their potential. At the very least, they need to support the publications their customers love, not just rotate through a website’s ad inventory based on a bot’s logic. Ideally the banner ads are an opening to something bigger: A window into a brand’s broader online publishing strategy. Here’s how Dell and JCPenney are using ads to syndicate their content assets. If your customers use social networking platforms to have a conversation, figure out how you can join that conversation, like American Express is doing. If they love to connect with others by way of drawing, like certain BMW customers, let them color in your brand.

Whatever we do, let’s move beyond lame “graphical ads” that won’t create demand, no matter how well we target them.

  1. # Brooks Jordan said: January 21st, 2009 at 10:21 am

    I love the insight that most graphical ads on the Web are an evolution of classified ads rather than badly done display ads.

    Also, your insight that a display ad in print absorbs value from context. What it sits next has a great deal to do with what it says – and that totality is what engages a reader.

    Really, these two things are all one needs to know to (a) have confidence that conversational marketing is going to catch fire and (b) set a course.

    Thanks for the post.

  2. # brooksjordan » Blog Archive » No Boundary said: January 21st, 2009 at 12:11 pm

    [...] post was inspired by ChasNote’s post on display advertising versus graphical [...]

  3. # The Purpose of Online Advertising said: January 30th, 2009 at 10:15 am

    [...] on the difference, as I see it, between display advertising and graphical ads.) Comment on post SHARETHIS.addEntry({ title: “The Purpose of Online Advertising”, url: [...]

  4. # Battelle: On Display and Conversational Marketing said: February 1st, 2009 at 1:57 pm

    [...] Display advertising v graphical ads. Comment on post SHARETHIS.addEntry({ title: “Battelle: On Display and Conversational Marketing”, [...]

  5. # John Shankman said: February 2nd, 2009 at 7:57 am

    The distinction between graphical and display was excellent. Also, the history behind display in print was very helpful in filling out the frame of reference that the ad business on the web operates in. Thank you!

  6. # Best Buy CMO Barry Judge: Invest In Brand Experience said: February 6th, 2009 at 5:29 pm

    [...] Best Buy is clearly paying attention to how its customers are using the web, and it’s going native. [...]

  7. # IAC, AOL See Q1 Display Ads Down As Much As 50% said: February 7th, 2009 at 4:05 pm

    [...] they’re selling “display advertising” when in fact they’re only selling graphical ads. Comment on post SHARETHIS.addEntry({ title: “IAC, AOL See Q1 Display Ads Down As Much As 50%”, [...]

  8. # Higher Value “Display Advertising” | FarneyMedia.com said: February 9th, 2009 at 4:31 pm

    [...] In a recent blog on the state of the online ad industry, Chas Edwards, CRO of Federated Media, highlights the fundamental difference between display and graphical advertising. [...]

  9. # Facebook: If Three Ads Per Page Aren’t Working, Add Two More said: April 3rd, 2009 at 9:23 am

    [...] approach, though, is just where Facebook needs to innovate. Make more relevant — more “native” — ads, not more of them. Comment on post SHARETHIS.addEntry({ title: “Facebook: If Three [...]

  10. # Well Fargo: Social Media Insights by Tim Collins and Ed Terpening said: April 12th, 2009 at 8:41 pm

    [...] Fargo’s TV advertising (and everyone else’s) became much more effective when it went native, when commercials evolved into 30-second versions of the comedies and dramas that TV viewers tuned [...]

  11. # Facebook: Click-through Rates on Newsfeed Ads As High As 6.49% said: August 13th, 2009 at 8:56 pm

    [...] of performance improvement you expect when you build an advertising format that attempts to “go native,” to speak to customers in their own vernacular. At Facebook the vernacular is a stream of [...]

  12. # Intel Ads Speak to Digg Readers, Even When They’re Not at Digg said: February 2nd, 2010 at 10:53 am

    [...] variation of my recommendation to “market in the vernacular of your customers.” (More here.) By that I mean: Figure out what attracts your audience to a particular media product or platform [...]

Leave a Reply