Media mind global_benchmark_q4_2010

MediaMind Global Benchmark Report
Who said that Standard Banners mean mediocre results?
Try these 4 simple steps to drive performance and boost trafﬁc.
Non-Standard Results
Standard Banners –
retweet this

Bigger is better
Larger Standard Banners perform better than smaller ones. Larger
banners increase visibility over the publisher’s content and yield more
clicks and conversions. Get more real estate on the page for better
performance.
2
3 Let the algorithms work for you
Automatic optimization, a proprietary algorithm by MediaMind that
selects and serves the best performing creative, boosts CTR by 73%
and Conversion Rate by 40%. Serving the most impactful creative is
more likely to push users to take action.
Match the media and the message
Sites with focused content achieve better CTR and Conversion Rate
as compared to more general sites with a diverse audience. Aligning
media content with your advertising message may boost response.
1
4 Retarget the underexposed
Users are more likely to click on ads that they have already seen, yet the
majority of users see a given campaign only once. Make sure to provide
users with sufﬁcient exposures by retargeting underexposed users.
4 rules of success with
Standard Banners

Content
Maximizing standard banner results
The good news: CTR stopped declining
Not everyone clicks
The four rules of success
Focused content
Larger ads
Automatic Creative Optimization
Retargeting the underexposed
Benchmarks Overview
Regional benchmark tables
4
8
10
11
9
8
7
5
13
15
21
59
60
Argentina 21
Australia 22
Austria 23
Belgium 24
Brazil 25
Canada 26
China 27
Denmark 28
UAE 29
Finland 30
North America 15
Europe 16
Australia and New Zealand 17
France 31
Germany 32
Greece 33
Hong Kong 34
India 35
Ireland 36
Israel 37
Italy 38
Japan 39
Malaysia 40
Mexico 41
Netherlands 42
New Zealand 43
Norway 44
Philippines 45
Poland 46
Portugal 47
Romania 48
Singapore 49
South Africa 50
Spain 51
Sweden 52
Switzerland 53
Taiwan 54
Thailand 55
Turkey 56
UK 57
United States 58
Verticals deﬁnitions
Metrics deﬁnitions
East Asia 18
South Asia 19
Latin America 20
Country benchmark tables

Standard Banners – Non-Standard Results
4
Easy, low cost and gets the job done. These are some
of the traits that keep Standard Banners as the popular
choice for online advertisers. Standard Banners still comprise
the majority of online advertising impressions.
Standard Banners are easy to create and relatively
straightforward to serve. Unlike Rich Media, they lack video
or interaction within the banner, so they are used mainly
to generate trafﬁc to the advertiser’s website, where users
can obtain more information about the brand or make a
purchase. Thus, many advertisers use Standard Banners
for Direct Response campaigns, where the aim is to drive
sales.
Typically, Standard Banners generate less clicks and
conversions as compared to Rich Media formats.
Maximizing Standard Banner results
Furthermore, the format cannot deliver a full interactive
experience the way Rich Media can. Nevertheless, even
with this simple format, there are still ways to improve
and entice users to click and browse to the advertiser’s
website.
A careful analysis of billions of Standard Banner impressions
has shown that the following four simple steps may
increase the performance of Standard Banners.
First, use sites with focused content rather than more
general environments. Use larger banners for more
visibility. Leverage Automatic Optimization to serve
the best performing creative to your audience and get
more trafﬁc. Last, get in front of your prospects more
often by increasing frequency and retarget them on
the exchanges.

5
When the first display banners appeared in the 90’s, they were
greeted by users with a significantly higher Click Through Rate
(CTR) as compared to today’s CTR. Display advertising is the fuel
that turns the Internet’s content machine and allows publishers to
provide free online content to users. However, as online advertising
developed and grew in spending and also in sophistication, CTR
declined.
Chart 1 indicates that while the trend of decline in CTR began
long ago, the greatest decline has been around September 2008.
That month, Lehman Brothers collapsed, taking with it the world
economy. This had an adverse effect on users’ willingness to click
on ads.
The good news is that this decline seems to have halted. An
Chart 1: 2006-2010 CTR
Source: MediaMind Research. Data: 2006-2010, Standard Banners, Worldwide.
0.23%
0.21%
0.19%
0.17%
0.15%
0.13%
0.11%
0.09%
0.07%
0.05%
ClickThroughRate
Jul-06
Oct-06
Jan-07
Apr-07
Jul-07
Oct-07
Apr-09
Jan-08
Jul-09
Apr-08
Oct-09
Jul-08
Jan-10
Oct-08
Apr-10
Jan-09
Jul-10
Global CTR Annual Average CTR
analysis of CTR of Standard Banners indicates that average CTR
declined from 0.15% in 2006 to 0.09% in 2010. Yet, in 2009
and 2010 this decline seems to have stopped. Both in 2009
and the first eight months of 2010, Average CTR has remained
around 0.09%. This indicates that online advertising performance
has reached equilibrium.
What caused this decline in CTR in the first place? Evidence shows
that the success of online advertising has paradoxically been the
prime cause for the decline in CTR performance. As more budgets
were poured into display, users were exposed to more and more
ads. However, the number of ads that a user clicked on did not
catch up with the number of ads that a user was exposed to, thus
reducing the overall CTR.
The good news: CTR stopped declining
Imagine that you are exposed to one thousand ads each year, and that you click on five of them. Your CTR is 0.5%. Imagine now that
you are exposed to five thousand ads; you are probably not going to keep clicking at the same vigor, so instead of 25 clicks, you only
click on 20 ads. Therefore your CTR is now only 0.4%. Thus, as users are exposed to more ads, their CTR drops.

6
One interesting point is that English speaking former British colonies, such as Australia, Canada, US and New Zealand, tend to have a
lower CTR than what the trend predicts. These are some of the most advanced online advertising markets. Still, users in these countries
tend to click on ads less than countries with similar display spending per household. The UK itself, worth noting, is slightly above the
trend.
1
This can change according to the cost of media at various countries.
Chart 2: Display Spending and CTR
Source: MediaMind Research. Data: Q3 2009 to Q3 2010, Standard Banners, Worldwide.
PwC. 2010 “Internet Household”, 2010 “Global Internet Display, Classiﬁed, Other Advertising’. Global Entertainment and Media Outlook: 2010-2014.
Display Spending per Internet Household
South Korea
Colombia
Finland
Argentina
Romania
Thailand
Malaysia
Mexico
RussiaSouth Africa
Israel
Brazil
Singapore
Spain
China Denmark
Portugal
Philippines
Chile
Turkey
Taiwan
Greece
Italy Hong Kong
Hungary
France
Ireland
New Zealand
Austria
Switzerland
Belgium
Netherlands
Germany
Canada
UK
Japan
Australia
USA
Norway
Poland
0.22%
0.20%
0.18%
0.16%
0.14%
0.08%
0.12%
0.10%
0.06%
0.04%
0.02%
0.00%
$0 $20 $40 $60 $80 $100 $120 $140
ClickThroughRate
This phenomenon is best illustrated when examining the link between CTR and average display spending per household in different
countries. The average display spending per household serves as a proxy to the number of ads that a person sees over
the year1
. The analysis shows that as more money ﬂows into display advertising and as people are exposed to more display ads, CTR
declines. Thus, countries like Norway, USA and the UK, with higher online display spend per household tend to have a lower CTR.
Countries such as Mexico, Russia and South Africa, with lower display spending per household, tend to have a higher CTR.

7
Not everyone clicks
The popularity of measuring CTR stems from it being one of
the first online metrics as well as it being intuitive and easy to
measure. Nonetheless, CTR is only a partial measure of online
success. Both industry research and comparison with other online
metrics show that CTR does not capture the full effect of online
display advertising.
Research by comScore has shown that two-thirds of Internet users
do not click on any display ads over the course of a month and
that only 16% of Internet users account for 80% of all clicks. It
also showed that clickers tend to be younger and less affluent than
non-clickers. comScore confirmed that there is a latency effect
and branding effect to online advertising, in which users arrive
at the advertiser’s website even without clicking.
However, the research by comScore also indicates that display
advertising has an effect on user behavior even at low click through
rates. In the research, which included 139 display campaigns from
seven verticals, comScore has shown substantial effects on traffic,
sales and branding despite a lack of clicks.
According to comScore, the display campaigns yielded 46% lift
in advertiser websites visits, over a four week period. In addition,
exposed users are 38% more likely to conduct an advertiser
related branded keyword search, over a four week period and
are 27% more likely to make a purchase online. Furthermore,
exposed users are 17% more likely to make a purchase at the
advertiser’s retail store.2
MediaMind has found similar results to comScore. An analysis of
more than 100 million conversions from thousands of campaigns
worldwide confirms that only about 20% of conversions are the
result of a click, while the vast majority is the result of viewing
the banner without clicking.
These results, together with comScore’s research show that clicks
are only a partial measure of online advertising effectiveness.
About 80% of the traffic of users that were exposed to the ads is
not accounted for when measuring only clicks. Placing conversion
tags on the site is a smart move for better measurement of an
online campaign.
Chart 3: The Effect of Display Advertising
Source: comScore. “How Online Advertising Works: Whither The Click?”
LiftExposed/Unexposed
50%
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
5%
10%
0%
Advertiser
Website
Visits
Branded
Keyword
Search
Online
Purchase
Offline
Purchase
2
comScore. “How Online Advertising Works: Whither The Click?”
Available at: http://www.mediametrix.com/Press_Events/Presentations_Whitepapers/2008/How_Online_Advertising_Works_Whither_The_Click
Chart 4: Post Click and Post
Impression Conversions
Source: MediaMind Research. Data Q3 2009 to Q2 2010, Standard Banners,
worldwide.
20.4%
79.6%
Post Click Conversions Post Impression
Conversions

8
The 4 rules of success
Obviously, great results call for exciting and visible creative, eye-catching images, witty copy and a powerful call to action. Getting these
things right is the aim of the creative agency. Yet, these are campaign-speciﬁc qualities, which are hard to generalize. Nevertheless,
there are some other rules of thumb that are likely to enhance the performance of almost any Standard Banner. MediaMind Research
has sifted through hundreds of thousands of banners to see what works and what doesn’t.
Chart 5: Standard Banner Performance by Environment
Conversion Rate
ClickThroughRate
0.35%
0.35%0.30%0.25%0.20%0.15%0.10%
0.30%
0.25%
0.20%
0.15%
0.10%
0.05%
Kids
IM
Finance
Music
Sport
LifestyleSocial Network
Home Page
Mail
Other
News
Games Weather
Travel
Technology
Maps
Auto
Health and Beauty
EntertainmentAverage
Average
Source: MediaMind Research. Data Q3 2009 to Q2 2010, Standard Banners, worldwide.
1 Focused content – superior results
Browsing speciﬁc content is a powerful indicator of user’s areas of interest. For example, visitors of automotive websites are
more likely to be looking for a new vehicle, or visitors of a tech site are more likely to be early adopters of new gadgets.
In direct response, serving an ad to users exactly when they show interest in a product may be a powerful way to boost
Chart 5 analyzes Conversion Rate, x-axis, and CTR, y-axis, by site groups and environments. Groups at the upper right quarter of the
chart are both higher than average Conversion Rate and higher than average CTR. These higher performing sites contain focused content
such as automotive, technology and travel. On the other hand, more general environments such as social networks and lifestyle tend
to have lower Conversion Rate and CTR.

9
Chart 6: Standard Banner Ad Size and Performance
1.2% 350,000
300,000
250,000
200,000
150,000
100,000
50,000
0
1.0%
0.8%
0.6%
0.4%
0.2%
0.0%
CTR/ConversionRate
Size(Pixels)
88x31
120x90
234x60
160x90
125x125
300x60
429x43
180x150
468x60
300x100
250x250
728x90
120x600
300x250
336x280
160x600
930x180
300x600
425x600
640x480
Click Through Rate Conversion Rate Size (Pixels)
2 Larger ads – higher trafﬁc
In Rich Media, visibility stems from various creative features such as the use of ﬂash and video. For Standard Banners, visibility
is largely determined by the size of the banner. Bigger online real estate yields higher visibility and increases the likelihood
that users click or convert after seeing an ad. Chart 6 shows that larger Standard Banners tend to achieve both a higher
Conversion Rate and a higher CTR.

10
Chart 7a & 7b: Creative Optimization
CTR
+73%
CTR
0.14%
0.12%
0.10%
0.08%
0.06%
0.04%
0.02%
0.00%
Other Automatic
Optimization
ConversionRate
+40%
Conversion Rate
0.18%
0.16%
0.14%
0.12%
0.10%
0.08%
0.06%
0.04%
0.02%
0.00%
Other Automatic
Optimization
3 Automatic Creative Optimization – improved sales generation
Creative Optimization enables advertisers to leverage the wisdom of the crowds to find better creatives that engage users. By
constantly comparing the results from each version of the ad, Creative Optimization will serve the most effective ads.
It is a learning algorithm that receives constant feedback from actions that users take while interacting with the ad. The
algorithm changes the creative depending on the users’ feedback and can display the versions of creatives that are more likely
to receive clicks, conversions, interactions or Dwell.
Creative Optimization assists advertisers who don’t have to guess which creative is better or which image, copy, or font to
consider. Advertisers can upload all of their creative ideas and let the algorithm serve the versions that users respond to the
most.
Creative Optimization can even differentiate between minute differences among similar versions. Imagine two calls to action:
“Click here for a one dollar discount” and “Click here for 10% discount.” Even if the two are financially equivalent, one may be
able to generate more clicks. Without Creative Optimization, by the time you choose the right version that works the best, it
may be too late to make any significant impact on the campaign’s overall performance. However, with Creative Optimization,
the algorithm can select the most effective version in real time. Advertisers can then reduce the risk of running unsuccessful
creatives, and take a bolder and more innovative approach to online advertising.
Results indicate that Creative Optimization actually works. An analysis of campaigns that used Creative Optimization in the past year
indicates that they achieved 73% increase in CTR as compared to other Standard Banners and a 40% increase in Conversion Rate.

11
4 Retargeting the underexposed – getting your message across
Effective frequency is the average number of times that the prospect is exposed to the message to maximize the likelihood
that he or she takes action. In practice, effective frequency means that users have to be exposed to the marketing message
several times before going down the marketing funnel to the intent to purchase and ultimately to a purchase. At the first and
second exposure, users are typically still in the awareness phase and only after more exposures do they slide down the funnel
to favorability, intent to purchase and finally purchase.
At first glance, repetition may seem wasteful – why waste another impression on a user who did not respond the first time?
However, it is the underexposure and overexposure that are actually wasteful. Underexposed users remain at the top of the
funnel and may not take action following the marketing message, preventing the campaign from realizing its full potential.
Overexposed users have seen enough exposures to act on the message and any additional impression may not have incremental
effect, or worse, it may actually annoy users.
As Chart 8 indicates, users are more likely to click on an ad that they have already seen. In addition, CTR almost does not decline until
the fifth exposure. The challenge is that studies by MediaMind Research show over and over again that the majority of online users are
underexposed. An analysis of hundreds of airline campaigns served by MediaMind show that an average 61% of users received only
one exposure over the campaign’s lifetime, while an overwhelming majority of 82% of users received three impressions or less.
Chart 8: Airline CTR by Frequency - Standard Banners
Source: MediaMind Reaserch. Data Q4 2008 to Q3 2009, Airlines, Worldwide.
0.25%
0.20%
0.15%
0.10%
0.05%
0.00%
ClickThroughRate
Frequency of Exposure
Average
1 2 3 4 5

12
This problem is exacerbated by the difﬁculty of increasing exposure
frequency via traditional media buying. Online users are highly
unpredictable, and browsing patterns change constantly. Throwing
more impressions at the problem may be wasteful and expensive,
as it increases frequency to some, but more likely reaches new
users and actually creates more underexposed users.
Enter Retargeting. In Retargeting, users who were previously exposed
to the campaign, and are now located on a site linked to the exchange
can be served another exposure. This is a user speciﬁc solution that
serves impressions only to those users who are underexposed, to
make sure that they have the opportunity to go down the funnel,
thus complementing the traditional media buy.
Chart 9: Average Frequency in Airline
Campaigns by Cookie Data
Source: MediaMind Research. Data Q4 2008 to Q3 2009, Airlines, Worldwide.
1
2
3 4
5 or More

13
Benchmarks Overview
The following benchmark tables provide a summary of the results of campaigns that were served by MediaMind between Q3 2009 and
Q2 2010. To produce these benchmarks, MediaMind Research analyzed the results of over 200 billion impressions delivered in six different
regions and more than 50 different countries.
Overall global CTR is 0.21%. Rich Media tends to be X3.5 higher CTR as compared to Standard Banners—0.32% as compared to 0.09%.
As far as regional differences are concerned, there is a clear rule of thumb. If you are a former English speaking British colony, your CTR
and Dwell are likely to be lower. Thus, the US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand have lower CTR performance as compared to other
regions. This is mainly due to differences in user behavior and market maturity.
Chart 10: Standard Banner and Rich Media by Region
ClickThroughRate
0.60%
0.50%
0.40%
0.30%
0.20%
0.10%
0.00%
Australia and
New Zealand
North
America
East Asia South Asia Europe Latin America
Rich Media Average Standard Banner AverageRich Media Standard Banner
Source: MediaMind Research. Data Q3 2009 to Q2 2010.

14
Chart 11: Regional Rich Media Performance
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12%
AverageDwellTime(Sec)
Dwell Rate
North America
East Asia
Europe South Asia
Latin America
Australia and New Zealand
Source: MediaMind Research. Data Q3 2009 to Q2 2010.
Latin America, South Asia and Europe tend to have the highest Dwell Rate, while Latin America also has the highest Average Dwell
Time. Europe tends to have a significantly higher Dwell Rate as compared to North America, Australia and New Zealand, mostly due to
differences in user behavior, though in part could be seen in differences in current publisher restrictions.
The benchmark tables contain benchmark averages on interactions, Dwell, clicks, expansions and video metrics. Data is broken down
by formats, sizes and verticals. The next 46 pages contain information on 6 regions and 38 countries. The last two pages contain a full
description of each vertical and a definition for each of the metrics used.
One important caveat about using these benchmarks is that they only present the average performance, while the deviation in performance
between ads is very large. We have tried to slice the data into as many categories as possible in order to assist users in finding the most
relevant benchmarks. Still, the averages contain campaigns that are different in their nature, goals and execution. Therefore, these
benchmarks should be used as a reference only, and not with the aim of trying to “beat the benchmark.”
retweet this

15
Regional benchmark tables

MediaMindGlobalBenchmarkReport
StandardBanners–Non-StandardResults
16

17

18

19

20

21
Country benchmark tables

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

MediaMindGlobalBenchmarkReport
StandardBanners–Non-StandardResults
31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

Media mind global_benchmark_q4_2010

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Was ist angesagt?

Was ist angesagt? (20)

Ähnlich wie Media mind global_benchmark_q4_2010

Ähnlich wie Media mind global_benchmark_q4_2010 (20)

Mehr von Stephane Allard

Mehr von Stephane Allard (9)

Kürzlich hochgeladen

Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)

Media mind global_benchmark_q4_2010