It’s five minutes before I have to run into a meeting and it’s been five minutes since my last meeting so there isn’t much time to blog, but something irked me in the previously mentioned last meeting: online advertising’s focus on click-through rate as a key metric.
Sure, there are some times when click-throughs really matter as a measurement tool…for example, I just finished some banners that support the launch of a new product and have a much-more-smoothly-written click here to learn more call to action that takes consumers to a microsite where there actually is more to learn.
On this most recent project, we’re just sending people to a website because we were told to have a call to action so we hit the objective of getting a 0.0X% click-through rate because that is what is says in the brief.
Who cares that there is nothing at the destination to make it worthwhile.
What is wrong with using online banners as sort of an internet OOH?
The product isn’t really one that makes sense for some rich media techie marvel, calculating effectiveness based on interaction rates/time is out. We have nowhere to send people for anything other than maybe, maybe some lame brand information and videos. But we want to build awareness. Is the OOH model so bad?
What with the ads are served to a targeted audience, etc and so on, is the online-OOH hybrid model a bad one for building awareness?
I know that it’s cool to see results that you just can’t see for other tactics, but if they don’t fit the brief, product or project is there a reason to force fit them? I mean, is there a reason to force fit them just because they are there?
The account team is saying that is must be done because it is a client mandatory and, while that is a better reason than “we ate paint chips as a kid,” it still doesn’t do it for me.