(Why web banners advertising currently doesn't work, when it will.)

Web banners have become the industry standard for web based advertising. Companies such as LinkExchange and SmartClicks have helped the web banner become standard issue on almost every web page. Hotmail also uses web banners, and recently Homepage.com entered into web banner advertising.

Why, then, after recent studies and usability experts insist that the web banners don't work, do advertisers keep using them?

Three main obstacles stand in the way of web banners, all of which are common practice for web users.

The first, and least significant, are the new plugins that scan out banner shaped images from the web.

The second is the fact that people ignore them. Eyes-scan studies suggest that most web users, especially experience ones (those that have spent more than six months online) simply do not see web banners. They will scroll them out of site, having not viewed them on the page. For instance, I would not be suprised if people ignored the Bump main navigator by mistake. These studies also suggest that animations are also ignored by web pages. This begs the question, why are animated banners so popular?

The third obstacle is the fact that people don't click through banners. Yes, as small percentage of people will inevitably click though to visit the advertised site. Most won't. It is simply not worth their time, and they have come to the original page to view it's content, not to browse on through.

These obstacles centre around one fact: that web banners cannot capture the focus of a web surfer for any length of time, if at all. They can never capture the entire focus of attention (such as television or radio), and can never take up a large amount of space (such as print media). The best they can do is sit at the top of a web page and hope to be seen.

The best thing to compare web banners with is the advertising to be found on the side of buses. Both banners are approximately the same size ration (long and squat), they have the same amount of time to catch the audience's attention (about two seconds), they often scroll (drive) away quickly, and they are easy to ignore.

But there is one big difference. When you look at a banner on the web, you are expected to click through to the advertised product/site. When you look at the banner on a bus, you are never expected to get on the bus and travel to the advertised product/place. And that's because people don't do that in the "real world". And people don't do it on the web either, even though advertisers expect them to.

Of the three main obstacles faced by web, the plugin scenario is the easiest to work around. This is simply done by unconventional naming methods and shapes, although this too has its problems. Also, ad-technology will inevitably find a way around the plugins, and the plugins will catch up and block them again; this ongoing struggle been what can be shown and what can be hidden will last as long as the advertising does.

The second and third obstacles are the tricky ones. But they can be overcome, and it will happen when web banners are treated in the same was as bus banners.

Bus banners need to capture their audience quickly and send the message in under two seconds. The audience is made up of random people, a disadvantage not faced by web advertising. These people are usually paying attention to other things, hopefully the road. Why, then, do companies pay for a sign on the side of a fast moving vehicle that won't be even casually looked at by anyone?

For the same reason that they advertise on the web; the ability to get the advertising message through to an extremely wide audience. The simple flash of the brand name and product is all that the advertiser is after, usually to reinforce a wider marketing campaign. Bus advertising is usually short and humorous, and for obvious reasons contains no animation. It delivers the message swiftly and effectively, but is never seen as a be-all-and-end-all marketing strategy.

There are already web banner marketing strategies that make sense. Content based banners are usually more effective, for example advertising mail probes on a virus information web site. Targeting the audience is more possible on the web than on the side of the bus. So why are buses more effective? Web banners expect to capture an audience with ineffective methods to produce unrealistic results. The click-through focus should be alleviated.

Banners that include the words "click to go to…" are not going to work (except incidentally). Banners which simply state brand name/product in a effective manner are. The focus for click through, once removed, allows banners to work to their full potential; not to direct traffic, but to do what all good advertising does; reinforce the overall marketing message.

Banners that expect the user to instantly purchase the product (click to buy…") are not going to work. Banners that reinforce the overall brand/product are. Traditional advertising has always recognised the fact that people simply do not see an ad and then go out and buy the product. Why it's expected on the web is an unknown. It is recognised, however, that a good overall marketing campaign that reinforces the product/brand works very effectively.

Banners that stand alone (we only advertise on the web…) are never going to work. Banners that are part of an overall marketing strategy are. Much like bus banners, people will simply ignore web banners, or register them subconsciously. They cannot stand alone to get people to buy a product.

This is understood by large internet companies such as Lycos and Altavista, who use traditional advertising media so promote themselves rather than rely on the web. They sell web banners space, but do not buy it.

I challenge anyone to place a web campaign based around a new product and afterwards prove effective results. However, by ensuring the web banner is part of an overall marketing strategy alongside traditional advertising in print media, on television and on the radio, it will help to bolster a product's or brand's success.