Television ads are far more potent than online ads for viewer engagement and brand resonance, according to a new study by Fox Broadcasting and neuromarketing firm Innerscope Research. According to information released by Innerscope, “television ads across the spectrum of familiarity evoked 38x more emotional engagement, a combination of intensity of and time spent in engagement, than the same brands seen in online rich media display advertising.”
Even when online ads were shown on a contextually appropriate page (e.g., an auto ad on a page about autos), the study found that TV was 30x more engaging.
The real question, I suppose, is how a media planner should interpret these numbers, i.e., what does “30x more engaging” mean in terms of sales impact, brand recall, etc. Apparently, the study attempted to measure branding impact using a measure they call “brand resonance,” which they define as “the lasting, positive effect of ad messaging post-exposure.” They say that brand resonance was nearly three times higher for TV ads vs online ads.
As is often found in studies like this, the greatest impact was achieved by a combination of media placements, with combined TV and online impressions achieving 48x the emotional engagement and 4x the brand resonance of online ads alone.
Whatever numbers like “38x more emotional engagement” actually represent, the thought that a viewer would be more engaged by a TV commercial that occupies 100% of a large viewing area than by an online ad that is part of a small screen containing other content isn’t shocking. One concern about traditional TV is the declining viewership of commercials due to DVR use, though a previous study by Innerscope suggested that even fast-forwarded commercials have a branding impact (see Do We Process Skipped Commercials?).
More from Innerscope: Innerscope Research and Fox Broadcasting Company Debut Biometric Study Scientifically Validating the Creation of Brand Equity through Immersive Media Exposure.
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”
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
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
Matt, the online ads are described only as “rich media” – could be lots of things. Thanks for the link.
Roger
I’m sure that this will change within a few years
Yes, it will be curious to see how such data, although with abstract measures, has changed for the past few years. For both types.
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”
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
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
This Study is sponsored by Fox-Broadcasting. What results did you expect?
Move along. Nothing to see here.