the effectiveness of display advertising

on a desktop pc vs. a tablet device

august 2012 ° Mediative.com

new eye-tracking research from Mediative and tobii

2

about MediativeMediative is a digital marketing company providing performance services and access to media platforms.

Organizations who want to significantly enhance their digital presence and influence buyers turn to us to help generate revenue by quickly moving their targets from awareness to purchase.

Location and research-based data fuels our insight, which we leverage across our consultative performance services, online properties, and location-based marketing platforms in the dynamic digital world.

With precise and unmatched knowledge of how “shoppers and clients buy”, we take a consultative and holistic approach, based on our people’s passion for insight and results, to provide the outcomes you need now, and for the future.

3

summaryTablet usage has exploded. eMarketer estimates there will be nearly 70 million tablet users in the US by the end of 2012, an increase of more than 100% over 2011, and it is a growth that is expected to continue through 2015.

Comparison Between Ad Type Performance

1. Leader board ads were the most effective ad type overall on the PC and iPad, being seen quickest, with fewest fixations before being noticed, and having the highest percentage of people noticing/fixating on them.

2. On the iPad, leader board ads had a 44% longer average total visit duration compared to the next best performing ad, with a higher fixation duration and a higher total number of visits.

3. It’s interesting to note, however, that, on the PC, the skyscraper ad outperformed the leader board ad for engagement metrics with a 27.5% longer total average visit duration, and a 22% longer average fixation duration. This shows that skyscraper ads are still viewed and noticed - not as quickly, or by as many people as the leader board ad, but they receive more engagement once noticed.

key findings

Comparison Between PC and iPad Ad Performance

1. Leader board ads on the PC were seen over twice as fast on average compared to the iPad, with less than half the fixations on other elements on the page before the leader board ad was noticed.

2. A slightly higher percentage of users fixated on the leader board ads on the PC vs. the iPad (39% vs. 37%), but leader board ads on the iPad held attention for longer, with an average total visit duration 22.5% longer.

3. The skyscraper ad on the iPad was fixated on by 31% of users vs. 13% on the PC. However, the skyscraper ad was noticed more quickly on the PC, and held attention for an average of 82% longer in total.

4. 26% of users fixated on the big box ads on the iPad compared to 23% on the PC.

5. Despite the higher number of total people fixating on the big box ads on the iPad, it was the ads on the PC that attracted attention more quickly, with almost half the time to first fixation, and 35% fewer fixations before.

6. Engagement with the big box ads was also higher on the PC. The average fixation duration was 26% longer, and the total visit duration was 15% longer.

Ad Unit Sizes Defined

• Leader Board: 728 x 90

• Skyscraper: 160 x 600

• Big Box: 300 x 250

Clearly a huge opportunity exists for advertisers to reach audiences through the tablet as an additional digital marketing medium.

Using eye-tracking technology, the purpose of this study was:

1. To determine what differences, if any, there were in the views and glances captured by display advertising on a traditional desktop PC compared to a tablet computer (in this case, the Apple iPad).

2. To provide some insight into how people observed web pages containing advertising elements in various formats such as leader boards, big boxes, and skyscrapers.

3. To measure the performance of ads on different website verticals to determine if ads on one type of vertical website perform better than those on another.

4

Methodology

31 participants viewed display ads on a desktop PC, and 27 participants viewed the ads on the iPad.

3 different ad types were tested:

1. Leader board (728 x 90)2. Skyscraper (160 x 600)3. Big box (300 x 250)

8 different website content categories (verticals) were tested with ads shown on the web page:

1. Automotive2. Entertainment3. Finance4. Lifestyle5. News6. Retail7. Technology8. Travel

Data was collected using the Tobii X60 Eye Tracker with the Mobile Device Stand for the iPad, and the Tobii T60 Eye Tracker for the PC.

The desktop exposure was on a 1280x1024 screen, and the iPad was in landscape orientation (1024x768 screen).

tasks

Depending on the content vertical being tested, participants were asked:

“You ______. Could this site help give you the information you need?”

1. are thinking about buying a car2. are trying to decide what movie to

go see3. are wondering how the economy

is doing4. are looking for some new recipes5. have a few minutes and want to

catch up on today’s news6. are looking to buy a new toaster7. are thinking about getting a new

cellphone8. are thinking of doing some travel

in Canada this summer

Participants viewed 5 different sites in each vertical, and were given 5 seconds to view the page after it had finished loading.

The order that the verticals were presented was randomized between participants.

Metrics Measured

1. attention capturing Metrics

Time to First Fixation: The time (in seconds) before the participant noticed an ad.

Fixations Before: The number of fixations elsewhere on the page before the participant noticed an ad.

Percentage Fixated: The percentage of the total participants who fixated on the ad at least once during the session.

2. engagement Metrics

Fixation Duration: The average duration of a fixation (in seconds).

Total Visit Duration: The total time (seconds) of all visits (consecutive fixations on an area of interest).

Visit Count: The number of visits participants made during the session. e.g. if they looked at the ad twice, looking at something else in between, that counts as two visits.

Heat Map Gaze Map

These images show how the eye tracker can create heat maps (areas of highest gaze concentration), and gaze maps (showing the path a user’s eyes took across the page).

5

key takeaways

The results solidify the expectation that the top portion of the page, where leader board ads are commonly placed, continues to be a privileged region, generally registering very strong attention on both the desktop PC and iPad.

If a large portion of the traffic coming to your website is using a tablet device, consider investing more of your display advertising spend into leader board ads rather than skyscraper or big box ads. Leader board ads take up a large portion of the page (often the whole width) and are not likely to be masked by hands/fingers when scrolling. Tablet behaviour may evolve, but given the physical dimensions of the device and the way users interact with it, it makes sense that this will continue to be an effective advertising unit.

The results of the performance of ads on different verticals suggest that if you are advertising on a site that perhaps is not as relevant to your ad, it might be better to focus on creating an ad that will capture attention faster, but that might not keep visitors engaged for as long. However, if you are advertising on a site that is highly relevant to your ad, it might be better to go with a format/placement that you know is going to get better engagement.

Overall, the findings indicate that ads on a PC are seen quicker, and hold engagement longer than ads on an iPad, with a few exceptions. Therefore, the differences in design characteristics should be taken into consideration when creating display ad campaigns in order to optimize attention and engagement on each platform.

engagement Metricsattention capturing Metrics

6

all ads by typeleader board ads

key takeaways

• Leader board ads on the PC were seen quicker than those on the iPad, but the leader board ads on the iPad held attention for longer, and were looked at by almost as many people.

• Therefore, leader board ads on tablets have the potential to be more effective than those on the PC.

In this image of the PC screen, the leader board ad takes up 5% of the screen space.

Leader board ads on the PC:

• Caught visitors’ attention over twice as fast on average with fewer than half (47%) of the fixations elsewhere on the page before the ads were noticed (Fixations Before metric).

• Captured the attention of 39% of the participants vs. 37% on the iPad.

Leader board ads on the iPad: • Held attention for longer, with an

average Total Visit Duration 22.5% longer than on the PC.

This suggests that while people are familiar with the traditional dimensions of websites on a PC and use the information at the top for navigation, they are spending more time viewing the leader board ads on the landscape-oriented iPad, possibly because the tablet ads occupy a relatively larger percentage of the total screen area (see images below).

In this image of the iPad screen, the leader board ad takes up 8.1% of the screen space.

leader board ads: pc vs. ipad

7

all ads by type

Leader board ads were the most effective type of ad overall on the PC and iPad.

Leader board ads were seen quicker, with fewer Fixations Before than any other type of ad, and had the highest percentage of people noticing/fixating on them.

Leader board ads on the PC:

Compared to the next best performing ad type, leader board ads:

• had a 2.52 second faster average Time to First Fixation.

• had an average of 8.6 fewer Fixations Before.

• were fixated on by 41% more participants.

• had a Visit Count 15% higher.

leader board ads

key takeaways

• On both the PC and iPad, leader boards were the most effective ad, being seen quicker and with fewer Fixations Before than other ad types on the page. This ad type also had the highest percentage of people noticing/fixating on them. This solidifies the notion that top and centre ad placement remains a strong and privileged place to be.

• On the iPad, leader board ads had better engagement metrics than all other ads types on the page. Fixation Duration, Visit Duration and Visit Count were all greater for leader board ads.

On the iPad, leader board ads were the most effective ad, being seen quicker than other ads on the page, with better engagement metrics.

Leader board ads on the iPad:

Compared to the next best performing ad type, leader board ads:

• had a 1.61 second faster average Time to First Fixation.

• had an average of 3.26 fewer Fixations Before.

• were fixated on by 16% more participants.

Leader board ads were more effective than other ads on the iPad for metrics associated with interest and engagement:

• Over 12% longer Fixation Duration on average.

• Over 44% longer Total Visit Duration on average.

• Over 13% higher Visit Count on average.

leader board ads vs. other ads

8

all ads by type

skyscraper ads: pc vs. ipad

Skyscraper ads on the PC:

The skyscraper ad performed better on the PC than on the iPad in terms of:

• Time to First Fixation (average of 1.87 seconds faster on the PC).

• Fixations Before (2.79 fewer on the PC).

The slower time taken to notice the skyscraper ad on the iPad is, perhaps, because on the iPad people scroll with their finger over where the skyscraper would be, posing an opportunity for the obscuring of the ad by their finger. Once scrolling is complete, and the finger is moved, the ad is exposed for viewing.

Skyscraper ads also performed better on the PC in terms of engagement, holding attention for longer:

• 37.5% longer Fixation Duration on the PC.

• 82% longer Total Visit Duration on the PC.

Skyscraper ads on the iPad:

The only metric where the skyscraper performed better on the iPad was Percentage Fixated. 31% of participants fixated on the skyscraper vs. 13% on the PC.

The higher percentage of people fixating on the skyscraper ads on the iPad could partly be due to the fact that on the PC, the presentation

format is familiar to users - they know which areas contain advertising as opposed to content, however people are not so used to the format and presentation on the iPad.

Another potential factor is that the skyscraper ads on the iPad occupy a relatively larger percentage of the total screen area which can cause them to capture a higher percentage of people’s attention, but not necessarily more quickly, or for longer.

skyscraper ads vs. other ads

Skyscraper ads on the PC:

Once users’ attention is captured, there is more engagement with skyscraper ads than leader board ads (and all other ads) on the PC in terms of:

• Average Fixation Duration (over 22% longer than leader board ads).

• Average Total Visit Duration (27.5% longer than leader board ads).

This, once again, indicates that the ads are still viewed and noticed, but not as quickly, or by as many people as other ad types.

Skyscraper ads on the iPad:

Skyscraper ads on the iPad did not perform as well as the leader board ads, which was to be expected. Again we could speculate that this

skyscraper ads

key takeaways

• The embodied nature of tablet presentations should be a consideration in the effective design of adverts and their placements on websites. The implications for ad placement, especially regarding the element of visual interference by the hand, is a variable that is not relevant on the PC. Skyscraper ads on an iPad are more likely to be obstructed by the scrolling finger.

• Skyscraper ads (on the PC in particular) do hold and retain user attention but take longer to be noticed, therefore the focus should be on creating a strong, eye catching message and design.

Skyscraper ads on an iPad are more likely to be obstructed by the scrolling finger.

is because the scrolling finger can obscure the skyscraper on the iPad, whereas the leader board ad on the iPad is much more visible.

9

all ads by typebig box ads

big box ads: pc vs. ipad

Big box ads on the PC:

Big box ads attracted attention more quickly on the PC than the iPad, with an average of:

• 9.52 fewer Fixations Before.

• 4.65 seconds shorter Time to First Fixation.

Big box ads also work better at holding attention and creating engagement on the PC vs. the iPad.

• Fixation Duration on the PC was 26% longer.

• Total Visit Duration on the PC was almost 15% longer.

key takeaways

• The PC format for big box ads seems to be better than the iPad at both attracting attention more quickly, and holding it.

• Therefore, as with the skyscraper ads, the focus should be on creating a strong, eye catching message and design for big box ads for consideration when viewing on the tablet format.

Big box ads on the iPad:

The percentage of participants who fixated on the big box ad, however, was slightly higher on the iPad at 26% compared to 23% on the PC. As with the skyscraper ad, this could partly be due to the fact that the PC presentation format is familiar to users - they know which areas contain advertising as opposed to content.

Again, another potential factor is that the big box ads on the iPad occupy a relatively larger percentage of the total screen area which can cause them to capture a higher percentage of people’s attention, but not necessarily more quickly, or for longer (see images below).

In this image of the PC screen, the big box ad takes up 5.7% of the screen space.

In this image of the iPad screen, the big box ad takes up 9.3% of the screen space.

10

ads by vertical

The results presented so far show the average performance of ads across all verticals. Here, the vertical categories are broken out to indicate specifically how the average of all ad types performed in each category.

on the pc

• Ads on Retail sites were the most effective, performing well on all metrics, followed closely by Entertainment. The ads on both of these verticals were strong at capturing and holding interest compared to the other verticals.

• Technology websites on the PC were better at keeping interest rather than capturing it. Ads on Technology sites had the highest Fixation Duration, tied with Retail at 0.2 seconds, and the second highest Total Visit Duration behind Retail at 0.46 seconds.

• News and Finance sites were among the worst performing verticals on the PC. It’s interesting to note that nearly all the finance sites had very long preload times suggesting something consistent in the nature of the construction of those sites. We noticed that one

We also measured the performance of ads on different categories of websites (verticals) to determine if a user is more influenced by ads on a specific website category than others.

site loaded slowly but the stock ticker loaded early. It is possible that resource-intensive elements that load early can affect the loading of subsequent elements.

• Travel, Lifestyle, News and Auto sites were better at attracting attention than keeping users interested or engaged.

11

ads by vertical

on the ipad

• Despite the poor performance of ads on News and Finance sites on the PC, these verticals were the best all round performers on the iPad.

• News sites performed well at generating attention to the ads with a below average Time to First Fixation. Engagement metrics were also good, with a higher than average Total Visit Duration and the second highest average Visit Count, behind Entertainment, at 5.62.

• Finance sites also performed well at generating attention to the ads - the average Time to First Fixation was below average, and the Fixations Before was the third lowest behind Travel and Lifestyle. Finance sites were also good at keeping interest and engagement with an 11% longer Fixation Duration than the next highest vertical, and a higher than average Total Visit Duration.

• Ads on Travel and Lifestyle sites captured attention the quickest. The average Time to First Fixation, and the Fixations Before were over 50% less than the average of all verticals, with 92% of participants fixating on the ads. However ads on Travel and Lifestyle sites did not keep the user engaged or interested as much as other

verticals - Total Visit Duration and Visit Count were slightly below the average of all verticals.

• Ads on Entertainment sites were not powerful attention attractors but when people finally found them, they stayed on them for a long time. The ads had the highest Total Visit Duration at 2.72 seconds, a 63% increase over the next highest vertical (Auto), and the highest Visit Count at 7.35, a 30% increase over the next best performing vertical (News).

• Unlike the performance on the PC, ads on Technology websites had the worst performance on the iPad. Ads did not capture attention or interest, and did not generate

engagement.• The results suggest that when

advertising on a site that perhaps is not as relevant to your ad, it might be better to focus on creating an ad that will capture attention faster, but that might not keep visitors engaged for as long. However, if you are advertising on a site that is highly relevant to your advert, it might be better to go with an ad format/placement that you know is going to get better engagement.

• These results also highlight the importance of audience segmentation and targeting. Consider the differences in the profile and intent of the visitor for each of the website verticals tested in this study (e.g. a News site vs. an Entertainment site). Visitor intent can vary largely between each vertical category which can have a significant effect on the success of an advertising campaign.

• For more accurate audience segmentation and targeting, consider data advertising which can deliver highly qualified leads to your campaign by targeting your ideal consumer profile throughout their web journey. Data advertising can boost conversion rates and deliver a positive return on your marketing investment.

key takeaways

• The vertical category of the website on which ads are placed must be taken into consideration when planning advertising strategies. Ads will not necessarily perform as effectively on one category of website compared to another. Additionally, ads can perform differently on the same vertical website depending on whether they are viewed on an iPad vs. a desktop PC.

12

conclusion

The aim of this eye-tracking study was to provide some insight into how people observed web pages containing advertising elements in various formats on both the traditional PC vs. the tablet format. Does the new on-the-go user impact display ad effectiveness?

We also wanted to measure the performance of ads on different website verticals to determine if ads on one type perform better than those on another.

The study revealed that across both platforms, leader board ads were the best performing type of ad in terms of attention capturing metrics, solidifying the notion that top and centre ad placement remains a strong and privileged place to be.

• Leader board ads on the PC were seen quicker than leader board ads on the iPad, but the leader board ads on the iPad held attention for longer.

• Leader board ads performed best in terms of engagement metrics on the iPad, while on the PC, skyscraper ads performed better for engagement metrics.

Generally speaking, all ad types on the PC outperformed ads on the iPad for the majority of metrics. However, the skyscraper and big box ads on the iPad were better at capturing a higher total percentage of fixations, possibly due to the larger relative percentage of viewing area.

The embodied nature of tablet presentations should be considered

in the effective design of websites and the placement of ads on them. The implications for ad placement, especially regarding the element of visual interference by the hand, is a variable that does not exist on the PC.

summary of key Metrics

PC vs. iPad

• Leader board ads were seen over twice as fast on average, with half the Fixations Before on the PC vs. the iPad.

• Leader board ads on the iPad held attention for longer, with an average Total Visit Duration 22.5% longer compared to the PC.

• Skyscrapers performed better on the PC vs. the iPad for almost all metrics. Time to First Fixation averaged 22% faster, Fixations Before averaged almost 13% fewer, Fixation Duration averaged 37.5% longer, and Total Visit Duration averaged 82% longer.

• 31% of participants fixated on the skyscraper on the iPad vs. 13% on the PC.

• Big box ads performed better for almost all metrics on the PC. Time to First Fixation averaged 45% fewer, Fixations Before averaged 35% fewer, Fixation Duration averaged 26% longer, and Total Visit Duration averaged almost 15% longer.

• 26% of participants fixated on the big box ad on the iPad vs. 23% on the PC

Leader Board Ads

• Leader board ads on the PC had a 45% faster average Time to First Fixation, had almost half the Fixations Before, were fixated on by 41% more participants, and had a Visit Count 15% higher, compared to the next best performing ad type.

• Leader board ads on the iPad had a 24% faster average Time to First Fixation, had an average of 15% fewer Fixations Before, and were fixated on by 16% more participants, compared to the next best performing ad type.

• The Fixation Duration on leader board ads compared to other ads on the iPad was over 12% longer, Total Visit Duration was over 44% longer, and Visit Count was over 13% higher on average.

Skyscraper Ads

• Skyscraper ads on the PC had an average Fixation Duration of over 22% longer vs. leader board ads, and had an average Total Visit Duration of 27.5% longer.

vertical summary

• Ads will not necessarily perform as effectively on one category of website compared to another.

• Ads can perform differently on the same vertical website depending on whether they are viewed on an iPad vs. a desktop PC.

digital Marketing Questions?Ask one of Mediative’s Digital Marketing Strategistsinfo@mediative.com

Mediative.comAugust 2012

1.800.277.9997 info@Mediative.com

subscribe to Mediative’s newsletter to receive more insights and studies.

download our latest whitepapers > The Impact of Display Advertising At-Retail on Influencing Customer Buying Behaviour Featuring Walmart> The Brand Lift of Paid Search Featuring Walmart> From the Creation to the Evolution of Location Based Marketing

download our quick wins guide> 50 Quick Wins for Optimal Website Performance

> about tobiiEye tracking and gaze interaction by Tobii Technology is revolutionizing computer interaction and research. Gaze interaction helps thousands of people with special needs to communicate and is advancing into mainstream computers. Eye tracking has transformed research and human behavior analysis and is now industry standard in many fields.

> tobii Mobile device testing solutions

> Usability eye tracking case studies

eye tracking Questions?Contact Tobii sales.us@tobii.com