I read a piece last week from David MacGregor called – Ban the Banner. It got me thinking – is the space and delivery to blame, or the creative execution? Ironically when you visit the link above you’ll notice three ad-units flickering and “doodling” away around David’s article and that certainly seems like overkill. But what of single ad units on a page, lovingly positioned in large formats like 300×600 pixels? Surely this is akin to the full-page press and magazine ads that made “Mad Men” famous back in the fifties. There are numerous examples of fantastic banner advertising produced overseas, but our creative fodder locally seems to be resigned to micro-sites and “viral” video pieces.

David brings up the subject of “banner blindness” and it’s reduction in click-thru rates, but there’s plenty of evidence to retort this - just take a look at a recent post I did which included display advertising’s affect on branded search activity etc. Perhaps it’s not the banner that’s making you blind David, rather it’s the shitty creative that the art department put in the space ;D. Can anyone name a specific NZ online campaign in which the creative was purpose built for the banner? Our experience is that they are generally re-purposed from TV or Press creative concepts, so of course they’re not emotive or compelling.

I’d hazard a guess that the more budget gets thrown online, the better banner creative will be. It’s not a question of search or social media being more relevant or effective, but rather a question of the creative talent pushed into the concept in the first place. Surely this is the same for TV or Press, because there’s plenty of rubbish in both that can cause the consumer momentary blindness. So maybe we need to blame the banner less and encourage our senior creatives to take another look at the creative opportunity. After all the audience is there, more so than at a random microsite heavily promoted through TV or Press, why not think harder about how we engage them?