or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Adobe survey finds readers 'engaged' with ads on Apple's iPad
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Adobe survey finds readers 'engaged' with ads on Apple's iPad

post #1 of 27
Thread Starter 
Adobe on Monday released the results of a new survey which found that advertisements in digital magazines on devices like the iPad can "more effectively engage readers and create stronger purchase intention" than in print.

Dave Dickson revealed the results of the survey in an official post on the Adobe Digital Publishing blog/ The research paper, entitled "Digital Ad Engagement: Perceived Interactivity as a Driver of Advertising Effectiveness," was conducted by Alex Wang, Ph.D. at the University of Connecticut.

The test studied readers between ages 18 and 32, and had them view print and iPad versions of advertisements featured in a past issue of a digital magazine. Participants were asked to rank their perceived interactivity, engagement, message involvement, attitude toward the adds, and purchase intent.

"The result is a new brand advertising paradigm where advertisers can engage customers with a brand in the immersive context of a digital magazine -- in contrast to the interruptive, templatized, and commoditized nature of current digital display ad inventory," Dickson wrote.

Participants ranked ads in each category from a score of one to nine. Interactive ads on the iPad carried a purchase intent significantly higher than their static counterparts, as the interactive ads earned a score of 3.98, compared to just 2.50 for print.

"The study also found clear statistical connections among the five measured categories in the experiment," he wrote. "By using interactivity such as motion graphics, sound, slideshows and animation, advertisers can engage readers and create favorable attitudes toward their brands.

"Once engaged, readers are then more likely to interact with the ad, resulting in a higher probability that they will purchase the product or service being promoted."



While the advertisements might be more effective, details of magazine purchases in late December indicated that they have significantly declined since many of them debuted earlier in 2010. For example, Wired -- a magazine powered by Adobe -- launched in May and sold more than 100,000 copies, but the more recent issues had much lower sales of 22,000 and 23,000 in October and November, respectively.

Publishers are said to be anxiously awaiting the ability to offer recurring subscriptions on the App Store for iPad versions of their magazines. Currently, publishers must make due with a pay-per-issue approach, something they believe has hurt sales.

Like Adobe, Apple has bet in the interactive advertising market potential on the iPad with its own mobile advertising network dubbed iAds. The iAd network on the iPad launched in late 2010 with just one advertisement, but is expected to significantly expand in 2011.
post #2 of 27
This can't end well.
post #3 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

This can't end well.

Huh?
post #4 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvidia2008 View Post

Huh?

What?
post #5 of 27
Boy that is a no brainer, Of course it is more affective since are someone is reading through and article and they see an ad of interest they click on and go and find out more. Not so easily done in a print ad, if you have to stop ready the Magazine and go look it up online, ore remember the ad and remember to look it up later...

So of course it is going to be a better.

I can not way until I can get a app like Saft or Little snitch that allows you to block the annoying ad on a mobile device.
post #6 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigerpro View Post

What?

Eh???
post #7 of 27
Does anbody take such surveys seriously these days. Talk about having a vested interest in the outcome!

I probably shouldn't say this but if I had a choice between running into a marketing person and a drug crazed whore on the street I think I'd pick the whore. After all she still has some value to society and stands a better chance to reform into a good member of society. Some of the stuff you see these days really makes you wonder.
post #8 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvidia2008 View Post

Huh?

Quote:
Originally Posted by tigerpro View Post

What?

Quote:
Originally Posted by nvidia2008 View Post

Eh???

"Engaging" Flash ads all over the web. Click2Plugin won't be any help when full-window Flash ads are the intermediaries between real webpages and the link to the next page is embedded in the Flash file itself.
post #9 of 27
It's a new product. Over time the ads on the iPad will be like any other ads. Whether less annoying, or not - people will eventually learn to ignore the ads their too.
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of the rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of the rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
post #10 of 27
I thought that said "enraged".
post #11 of 27
ROFL. You can shove your ads where the sun don't shine. How's that for engaged
post #12 of 27
Quote:
Adobe survey finds readers 'engaged' with ads on Apple's iPad

Translation: Adobe wants everyone who advertises stuff to push Apple to allow Flash so they can sell more of their authoring software and ruin my browsing experience with annoying animated advertisements.

Did Adobe ever research how much of a difference it makes if an ad is static instead of animated? I know for a fact that I don't ever click any advertisements that are spinning, flashing, popping up, making sounds or any other way of grabbing my attention that involves animation. I do occasionally click text-only or non-obtrusive static image ads if they are relevant to my interests.
post #13 of 27
So now we can play with our ads like we play with our food. But that still doesn't mean we want to eat our green beans.

In other words, I'm not convinced more interactivity directly translate to more sales. I actually avoid tapping on ads even more now since I know they will take over my whole phone once activated. All the interactivity proves is that you have a really motivated customer. But I think less people will tap on ads now.
post #14 of 27
Why are there any ads in the first place? You're paying a premium price for these paperless magazines anyways. Ads only make sense on the internet because its free.
post #15 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

..."... -- in contrast to the interruptive, templatized, and commoditized nature of current digital display ad inventory," Dickson wrote. ....

Like those interruptive, templatized, and commoditized Flash banner ads? That we have been trained to ignore for decades?

Or the dreaded Flash-damaged splash pages that have us all desperately seeking the Skip Intro button?

Sent from my iPhone Simulator

Reply

Sent from my iPhone Simulator

Reply
post #16 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by steve-p View Post

ROFL. You can shove your ads where the sun don't shine. How's that for engaged

For those who haven't yet seen Bill Hick's take on advertising:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDW_Hj2K0wo
post #17 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

"By using interactivity such as motion graphics, sound, slideshows and animation, advertisers can engage readers and create favorable attitudes toward their brands.

I really don't mind ads as long as they are static and don't move around while I'm trying to read. Those are easy enough to ignore and are not distracting. It's the ones that animate when they load and keep refreshing. Those are a pain in the ass. If they animate after you click on them then that is a different story. Then you have intentionally engaged the advertisement.

Funny thing is, advertisers are not very sophisticated since they continue to try to deliver Flash ads when it would be simple to check my plugins and see that I'm blocking it. If they were smart they would put a gif or jpeg in as a div background and if I clicked on it they could show some animated interactive content in Flash since the click would trigger click2Flash. Or just send a static image since that is obviously better than a gray box.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #18 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by steve-p View Post

ROFL. You can shove your ads where the sun don't shine. How's that for engaged

Then get ready to pay for every web page you access. Without advertising that scenario is inevitable. Nothing is free, even the web costs money. You just don't know how you're paying for it. Commercial advertising is as American as Apple Pie.
post #19 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkrupp View Post

Then get ready to pay for every web page you access. Without advertising that scenario is inevitable. Nothing is free, even the web costs money. You just don't know how you're paying for it. Commercial advertising is as American as Apple Pie.

I thought apple pie was French?
post #20 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by SockRolid View Post

Like those interruptive, templatized, and commoditized Flash banner ads? That we have been trained to ignore for decades?

Or the dreaded Flash-damaged splash pages that have us all desperately seeking the Skip Intro button?

And what's up with all the restaurant web sites? As a class, these have to be the worst designed sites on the Web, and Flash is a big part of that. (Although, just generally horrible design is a big part of their problem.) How did an entire industry never get the memo on what makes for a good website?

Daring Fireball had a link related to this a while back: http://daringfireball.net/linked/201...urant-websites

An amusing read and it only touches the surface.
post #21 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland View Post

It's a new product. Over time the ads on the iPad will be like any other ads. Whether less annoying, or not - people will eventually learn to ignore the ads their too.

Now that I think about it, I've never encountered an iAd. I have an iPhone and an iPad and I download apps, but I have either never encountered an ad or I am just so conditioned to ignore ads that I have just not ever clicked on one.

One difference between the iPad and magazines I will comment on is that a magazine does not let me google up an item that catches my interest, research it, and perhaps even mosey over to Amazon and order one. All from the same device. Talk about a total marketing slam dunk.
post #22 of 27
Amid all the predictable Flash-bashing (yawn) probably the most ridiculous comment was the one that went something like "I bought the publication why should I be subject to ads".

The media model put in place after the industrial revolution was simple: advertising subsidized the creation of unique content......newspapers, magazines, TV. The internet has bollixed this up because you can now get a lot of this content for "free" and web-advertising is not as lucrative as print advertising for publishers.

If you want unique content to thrive on iPad you better hope that what Adobe says is true.
post #23 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by iLiver View Post

Why are there any ads in the first place? You're paying a premium price for these paperless magazines anyways. Ads only make sense on the internet because its free.

+1 I completely agree with you. There should be no ads in this situation. As you said, we are paying for that luxury. But, they realize that consumers have a very high tolerance for ads and will accept them to some degree even if we have to pay for them. Its a case of them testing the waters and we accept their advances they will push more ads down our throats until we finally are fed up. If there is money to make and people are willing to accept this nonsense, there will always be ads even if we pay to not have them. $$$$
post #24 of 27
What a ridiculous survey. "Here look at these ads and evaluate them" instead of what you normally do, which is ignore them! Also, if they would have conducted this survey with the ads running in flash on an iPad the respondents would have responded "flash sucks - its slow, buggy and draining my battery, get this crap off my ipad" - how's that for survey results?
post #25 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magic_Al View Post

I thought that said "enraged".

Me too

I thought it must be Adobe proclaiming that non-Flash ads are just as enRaging as Flash ads

Quote:
Originally Posted by iLiver View Post

Why are there any ads in the first place? You're paying a premium price for these paperless magazines anyways. Ads only make sense on the internet because its free.

See also: why I’ll pay for iTunes rentals and Netflix streaming, and will tolerate Hulu ads since that’s free... but I will NOT pay for cable TV!
post #26 of 27
Hmmmmm....imagine that. Steve Jobs was right!
post #27 of 27
This is a null test because they are not including number of
participants or any social or environmental factors.
If this was donein a college town, more than likely there is a more intelligent to
pick their subjects from.
In addition, participants could have never seen/used an iPad before, so everything looks enticing on one. They are also comparing static to one version of an interactive device.
Apple being the amazing industrial design power in the computing world has
prettier products.
I would like to see the same study with some of the
other devices available. The neutrality factor would be introduced and
the numbers will go down significantly. It may be higher for the iPad,
but not for the interactive messages.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPad
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Adobe survey finds readers 'engaged' with ads on Apple's iPad