The effectiveness of mobile ads: Fact or panacea sold to advertisers
The rise and growth of mobile devices and the increasing tendency of users to access the network of networks anytime, anywhere, has caused a revolution in the digital advertising industry.
It is clear that in this scenario, much talk and debate about new data and reports related to the effectiveness of the advertising that now are also exposed to mobile users. A great opportunity for brands and advertisers increasingly committed to segment and optimize their campaigns for these devices.
Some of the latest data we have known, such as those arising from recent report by TubeMogul, show that users are more likely to click on the ads while watching videos on smartphones and tablets on the desktop. As a result, the click-through rates of pre-roll ads shown on mobile devices were 4.9% on average compared to 0.6% from desktops and traditional computers.
Undoubtedly, these data are really positive even though still the mobile advertising market is in full swing. However, this trend will continue to rise and many large companies are beginning to dueling to grab most of the market share. In this sense, Google once again has become the clear dominant of the advertising market also on mobile devices. The latest data provided by eMarketer show how the company will capture 48.2% of total mobile advertising revenue worldwide, a hegemony that will increase in the coming years this year.
However, despite this explosion in full swing, no shortage of theories that cast doubt on much of the data that we usually commonly known, especially in those aspects related to the actual effectiveness of mobile advertising.
To begin, we can recall the conclusions of the study by YouGov it suggests that four out of five mobile users find ads for “tedious and annoying” mobile, knocking down with a blow several myths about this topic.According to the investigation, 79% of respondents said they found these irritating ads and 88% said he did not know those ads that appear in their applications. 86% meanwhile said ignore all formats and types of mobile advertising. Only 5% of respondents held the view that mobile ads are a good idea.
The truth is that it is not easy to draw conclusions if so we must take into account the different types of media and mobile advertising. Judging from the results of Google, we can deduce that search advertising is perhaps the most justified and relevant to the user as it always shows when they intend to find “something concrete” and the ads can really offer added value to the information requested . Other formats and media (videos, in-apps, display, push, …) are classified in the group of intrusive ads that often end up angering users.
To spoil the party, it remained to mention the famous “big toes syndrome” which is to say that many of the clicks on mobile ads are accidental origin.The combination of small screens and large fingers, it seems fatal in many cases. And here is perhaps the culprit in many cases, the high rate and click-through rates of mobile advertising end up skyrocket. It does not seem that this theory has been produced without “scientific” some basis. A recent study by GoldSpot Media has announced that in October this year, 38% of all clicks made on static banners in were accidental and 13% of those that have taken place in banners rich media mobile environment.
Although it may seem a joke, this phenomenon may have important economic implications for advertisers, as a higher cost for something that has not really been an accident, besides annoy users by opening pages unsolicited, and of course, alter the data finally know about the effectiveness of these ads.
This problem went from anecdote to international conflict to the point that Google had to get down to work to further investigate the phenomenon, finding that most accidental clicks usually occur on the outer limits of the announcement. For this, the company presented a new confirmation system clicks to mitigate the effect of the “fat fingers”. That is, a kind of warning to confirm the accidental user action on ads when they could touch that area unintentionally or due to an error. However, the vast majority of media agencies and advertising platforms lack this system.
To question the effectiveness of mobile advertising could be perhaps too bold because if used intelligently, optimize, non-intrusive and relevant, it can generate good results, especially in a channel constantly growing through which users interact increasingly longer. However, do not think that mobile advertising is another panacea for advertisers. All in perspective.