News
Film Ad Debate: Web's Rich vs. Flash?
By Robert Marich
Oct. 19, 2007 -- Web marketers are injecting more pizzazz in their web banner ads, which leaves film distributors to ponder this question. Which is the better choice for web display ads, the old standby “flash” ad or the newer, more elaborate “rich media” ad? There are pros and cons to both.
The common flash ad is fairly static and usually provides just a single “click through” element for viewers to get more information. But flash is cheaper so it can stretch media buys over more websites.
“If the goal of the movie campaign is simply to raise title awareness and release date information, then a flash ad is often the most cost-efficient and effective option,” believes Jason Klein, co-CEO of interactive agency Special Ops Media that employs both rich and flash ads. “Depending on the habits of the target audience in question, such as older demos who may not be interested or likely to interact in a rich media environment, it might be more appropriate to use flash.”
The alternative rich media ad is more elaborate, integrating audio, floating elements and interactive components such as mini-games. These also can incorporate click boxes that enlarge the ad and video windows. Further, a rich media usually offer multiple click throughs, which are hyperlinks that call up another website, giving viewers easy access to additional info.
“If you are trying do something never done before,” said Kevin Campbell, executive vice president-marketing at 20th Century Fox Filmed Entertainment, “then certainly rich media offers more flexibility to communicate a really creative message.”
With all that “eye candy,” click through rates can reach a lofty 8-10% for entertainment-oriented rich media ads, versus under one percent for comparable flash ads. Donald Buckley, Warner Bros. senior VP interactive marketing, notes that the rich ad units “allow us to create virtual mini-sites within -- with streaming video, galleries, in-ad gaming and other experiential content – making a visit to the official website far less important than it might have been just a couple of years ago.” (See the related “Changing Roles of Official Film Websites” Aug. 31, 2007 also in the News/Features directory).
While it’s easy to get excited about rich media ads, they have drawbacks. Typically, they cost much more to produce than flash ads, ad serving costs can be higher and some websites charge more for rich media ad placement. Also, some websites restrict unwanted rich media features, such as floating elements that some consumers find annoying. Finally, older demographic web browser are less likely to engage rich media, so economical flash is sufficient for them.
Want a final reason not to diss on flash ads? Nobody would argue that TV commercials in Super Bowl TV are ineffectual just because viewers can’t “click” them. #