It’s the “if you can target intelligently” part of the equation that is really the problem, isn’t it? Because Display only really works efficiently “in context” due to the nature of the way people use the web. And if it’s in contezt – like Magazine ads usually are – that means there is already Interest. Take some of the B2B verticals, for example. Display generally performs well in those environments, but the impressions are to an audience already Interested. But the real questions is: dollar for dollar, do these Display ads outperform the magaznes for the same verticals?

Regarding the “click-throughs” issue, you would think that’s a pretty low standard to ask from a piece of online advertising. After all, the web site is really the ad, and if people don’t make it to the web site, did they really become Aware? I will bet you something right now: someday, someone will publish an honest (non-vendor originated) study of the “Awareness” created by Display advertising and find it to be substantially different in quality than the Awareness created by other media – something like this one.

For example, looking at audience that are completely UnAware on a neutral, non-Interest related site, they will find the Awareness created by Online is more transitory and has a very rapid decay rate compared with Offline media under the same conditions.

As far as lean back activity on the web, sure, it happens and maybe that is different, like the study that showed people who click on Display ads are poor targets and basically do it because they are bored, not because they are Interested.

I, for one, can believe that!

Not inbound / outbound, guess I should have ’splained myself more.

Lean Back versus Lean Forward refers to the “state” of someone being exposed to advertising on a computer screen versus on a TV screen.

When you are using a computer, you’re in “Lean Forward” mode – you are active, trying to accomplish a task, while being exposed to advertising.

When you are watching TV, you’re in “Lean Back” mode – you are passive, simply paying attention to the screen.

If you are in active mode, you have less free Attention than if you are in passive mode. This is one reason why Display advertising is not as effective online as Search advertising – Search is action oriented.

I was trying to take this idea into the “model” arena by linking the same duality to AIDAS.

In other words, the reason Offline is better than Online at aggregating Awareness is there is more aggregate “Attention” available when the audience is in “Lean Back” mode.

The reason Online is better than Offline at aggregating Interest is there is a task orientation when the audience is in “Lean Forward” mode.

If you think in terms of funnels, the Awareness audience is at the top, is much larger but more differentiated than the Interest audience at the next step down. This implies the “real” audience for Display is much smaller than people think, one reason click rates are so low in quantity and quality – Display is an “Awareness” approach to an “Interest” audience.

LB / LF has other Marketing implications, for example copy, see:

http://www.useit.com/alertbox/print-vs-online-content.html

I think you are rightfully saying that the nature of the web is such that marketers should focus more on making it easy to buy rather than selling.

In the end, we do both, of course. We try to make the web site as user friendly as possible. We try to make the offers we flash up as relevant as possible. But if you don’t buy what we have got, we’ll still send you an email in the hopes that you will come back to complete that shopping cart 8-).

Still very useful for the marketer to align with the nature of the medium and lean back, as you say. If I understand correctly, anyway.

Akin

Agreed, and you’re right about the tracking side of it. However, if you look at really good direct campaigns, for example, the GEICO series here in the US, you also see evidence of “interest-desire-action” being generated through TV, print, and direct mail.

So I don’t think it’s a matter of Either – Or, it’s a question of how do you allocate Marketing resources to highest and best use? And using Online to generate Awareness for the vast majority of products is simply not a great use of resources. I believe Marketers, at least the smart ones that control large budgets, already know this.

So it makes no sense for the Tech side to continue to develop “Awareness Platforms”. They need to move on already and create “Interest Platforms”, AdSense being one of the earliest and not so functional (yet) attempts.

The reverse is also true. Offline should recognize Online is, dollar for dollar, one of the most powerful “interest-desire-action” generators available to them, and construct campaigns appropriately.

In other words, because of the way consumers use the web, Online is fundamentally a Direct medium, but without the Reach of other media used for Direct. But, Online makes up for this fault by being much better at the non-Reach part of the AIDAS chain than other media. So, instead of fighting this reality to the death, the tech side would be much better off acknowledging it and building better platforms to support this reality.

Make sense to anyone?

I agree with you that online is not the best place to build awareness, and that that aggregating interested people is one role, but believe it goes further. Surely the real benefit is being able a marketeer to be involved in the whole “interest-desire-action” journey.

Pre-web we had no real idea where an individual consumer was in this ‘consideration’ journey – now we do.

Smart online media is about recognising not just that they are interested, but where they are on their journey and doing something *relevant* about it.

Talk soon
Matthew