Re:Using cost-per-click data to debunk advert design myths
by marcus_holmes on Tuesday April 19, 2016 @09:58PM
(#11531808)
So they discovered that people click slightly more on unbranded images of happy women with no relevance to a product. Good work guys!
But the total difference from best to worst was < 5%. If you're doing a vast ad campaign then sure that totals up. But what's the opportunity cost of the brand awareness? Spending ~5% more per click to use a relevant, branded, image seems like a good deal.
I think it's great that they published this, but it doesn't really bear out the conclusion. Of course, given the nature of the author the conclusion was always going to be: "design is really really important and you should totally spend more money on it".
But the total difference from best to worst was < 5%. If you're doing a vast ad campaign then sure that totals up. But what's the opportunity cost of the brand awareness? Spending ~5% more per click to use a relevant, branded, image seems like a good deal.
I think it's great that they published this, but it doesn't really bear out the conclusion. Of course, given the nature of the author the conclusion was always going to be: "design is really really important and you should totally spend more money on it".