I’m not calling them liars or anything but there has to be a problem with the question or something.
On the list of things I will believe:
Full-screen takeover ads drove 124% greater unaided brand recall than standard display ads.
That’s not surprising. It’s much easier to remember the cow you almost hit because it was standing in the middle of the road than a cow on the side of the road.
So then they asked people to select a word to describe their feelings about an ad. They had choices ranging from “liked it very much” to “disliked it very much.” The result?
Full-screen takeovers delivered 40% higher overall likeability of the ad experience than standard display.
They also found that high-impact ads of all kinds were more likely to be shared. People also said full-screen interactive and large-canvas displays were ads that “people will talk about,” they called them entertaining and unique and it made them more interested to learn about a product or brand.
I’m beginning to feel like the magician at the magic show. Since I look at this stuff all day, every day, I’ve become immune to the magic of advertising. If I wasn’t rushing to get to the next webpage, I might get a kick out of the winged creature that flew across the front page of Comingsoon.net to deliver the new I, Frankenstein trailer.
Okay, I have to admit that was a little cool and only slightly annoying but at least they made the Close X easy to see.
The takeaway here is that the old school, static banner ads just doesn’t pop for people anymore. Brands need to reach out and grab the consumer with aggressive ads that also entertain. That’s the tricky part. Simply forcing a boring banner to take-over a screen isn’t going to work.
And, if you believe this study, the all-mighty native ad isn’t going to work in the long run either.
Isn’t that interesting.
What are your thoughts on the take-over ad? Love ‘em? Hate ‘em? Or can’t be objective because I’m in the biz.