Chase had ads on 400K sites then on just 5K and got the same results (2017)
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
The ephemeral "brand awareness" provided by most advertising takes more than a few days to fall off. Chase isn't going to get someone to open an account just because they saw a banner ad, their goal is to familiarize people with their name so that when someone wants to open a bank account Chase seems like an option. People are not going to forget about Chase bank...
The cynical thought would be that this story exists to encourage other big brands to be more choosy in the sites they advertise on, and what better site to advertise on than the NY Times?
I actively avoid seeing them. I use ad-blockers, and have for over a decade. When I commonly read print media, I used to go through first and tear out all the ads, seeing them as little as possible, and pasting blank paper over the ones that had desired text on the other side.
When driving, I avoid looking at billboards, just as I avoid looking at oncoming lights at night.
I also don't trust news coverage. I especially don't trust favorable news coverage, because that's often advertorial. That does create bias I know. And if I'm actively interested in something, I read a variety of media, from different countries.
To each his or her own, I guess. Do you close your eyes when venturing outside as well? Also, as I am sure you are aware, much of what you read has been pitched and influenced by PR agencies: that’s what they do. When you read about a product in some publication, that product didn’t just randomly find itself as part of a story, a PR firm helped get it there. I might suggest that you might be a bit naïve about how advertising, media and PR work. You can’t escape it even if you think you are.
I don 't close my eyes outside, no. But I do trash ads, whenever I can. Back in the hardcore days, I carried stickers with moisture-catalyzed adhesive. Once those suckers cured, sand-blasting was the only option. Now I just carry black markers ;)
There's a spectrum of marketing that ranges from "how can I communicate the existence of my cheese spray product to fans of Cheese Whiz," to "how can I get every American to spray cheese wiz directly into their mouths three times a day as a meal substitute." Techniques for doing the first are about as well tested as Newton's laws, but techniques for doing the second are virtually guaranteed to be a scam where you're the mark.
Brands want to appear on that list of names, and the closer to the top ("top of mind") the better. Of course, for most brands the aspiration to be top of mind is ludicrous since there can be only one. For UK womenswear that one is Next and, barring the company suddenly going under (possible but not likely), it ain't changing any time soon.
Prompted awareness, when you're presented with a list of brands and asked a question to elicit your awareness of them, is much less valuable because if you see anything often enough on the high street you're going to remember it when prompted.
> Surprisingly, the company is seeing little change in the cost of impressions or the visibility of its ads on the internet, she said. An impression is generally counted each time an ad is shown.
I take that to mean that the tail didn't cost very much, and didn't increase ad visibility very much.
Marketing metrics in general move slowly: think weeks, months, or even longer for significant moves. A lot of short term moves are noise generated by imperfections in sampling, particularly with daily collection. This applies regardless of the metric: awareness, consideration, affinity, penetration.
I don't know what she means specifically by "performance metrics", but it would be a pretty poor showing for the CMO of a global company to expect significant moves in any marketing metric over the span of a few days. I'm therefore guessing she means something else - like impressions, clickthroughs, or sign-ups - and that the article is simply of poor quality.
I'm straying off topic here, but generally the only time marketing metrics make significant moves over a short period of time is if something major happens that hits the news or goes viral. Even here it may only be changes in media metrics, such as buzz, that aren't reflected by changes in more substantive areas.
E.g., I can see a gigantic spike in negative buzz for KFC in the UK in late February 2018 because they ran out of chicken nationwide (I kid you not). I can also tell you that whilst over the next several months their penetration dropped by a few percent (significant at the levels we sample), no long term harm appears to have been done to their business: penetration quickly returned to its pre-crisis levels.
The reason nothing has changed could at this stage be attributed to the fact that it's too early, or simply that nobody cares Chase has stopped advertising: they're so ubiquitous it doesn't matter.
And if you're still looking for more reasons why this isn't news, this might be the killer: it's pretty well understood that you're going to get a different response to online advertising depending on where you place it. Some sites simply give you more return than others on your advertising investment, and the differences can be stark. I'd bet Chase has limited their ads to the 5000 sites that give them the best ROI so, again, no surprise that nothing has changed.
Flattr is a good system for smaller content producers, who in turn could pay large content distributors like Youtube for being listed there. No ads needed, but who would want to burst the web advertising bubble?
Could you provide a source for me to read more?
In any case, the ads that appealed to me sold an aesthetic.
That is, a mainstream product like chase works with mainstream sites. While the fake news / conspiracy sites might be good for the kinds of things that end up in my spam folder: get rich quick, penis enlargement, tax scams and the like?
why is it always the interns
This is pretty significant.
How much of the results are driven by 1 property (aka Facebook) alone?
The only site I frequently visit where I don't feel dirty and violated by ads are the video ads on YouTube because I know they are screened for in appropriate content and aren't littered with 30 spyware packages. Of course YouTube makes up for that with horrid ad/stalking behavior everywhere else.
I even bet Facebook would be an ethical company if not for all the behaviors associated with chasing ad revenue.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding you here, but I'm not really sure any viewers are requesting content makers do ads that target kids for gambling like apps and site.
Either way they are ads, and they are on YouTube. It's hardly a clean place advertising wise.