It is possible that the next World War will not be fought by proud countries, but rather be a heroic battle for global dominance between the two true gladiators of our time: Target and Google.
Like much of the rest of corporate America, Target is on a 'good citizen' kick lately. Racking up comp points with talk of philanthropic programs and charitable causes.
Jump to: These online ads (above) driving traffic to their 'do good' page.
Cute design, right? But quite misleading and a good cautionary tale for other Web advertisers.
Three AVOIDABLE sins of banner advertising:
- Misleading call to click: We're a nation of multimedia. We toggle sound and video on and off. We've been trained by advertisers to believe 'click to watch' means just that - a video will begin playing in the window. And, we appreciate that functionality - because it gives us the choice rather than overwhelming us with noise and causing us to smack the mute button on our laptops.
But, this target ad is actually a flat banner. Click to watch takes us to target.com. The resulting community page features a few rollovers and a lot of reading. None of the promise of the call-to-action is fulfilled. - Missed opportunity for interaction: The graphic is a door. The words are open the door. The strategy is to evolve consumers overall categorization of the Target brand. Come on, show us something. Let's slide open the door to change. Let's rollover to interact. Let's re-purpose that experience on the Web site in a much more in-content way.
Here it is: Meet Pointroll. Meet Eyewonder. Do better. - Or, a possible alternate to #2: Not optimizing message to the medium. Once an ad is approved, it's all too common to simply route it universally. If 80% of your media buy accepts the multimedia ad designed, the other 20% just gets a flat JPG of the same creative.
- Fully branded page, not fully integrated page: Target definitely owns share of voice on this page. They have covered it with banners. But, are they saying anything with that megaphone? And are the impressions building on one another to say something about the brand? We've all seen the darn-near-perfect Apple ads. And, surely there are learnings there that can be applied cost effectively.
I can't comment on the content of what you've written, but I can say that as a consumer? After their ad in Times Square (http://www.parentsforethicalmarketing.org/blog/2008/01/09/an-open-letter-to-the-target-corporation-or-is-this-what-you-meant-by-targeting-women/) I don't know if I would ever believe they wanted to act "responsibly."
Sorry about the long URL.
Posted by: Lisa @ Corporate Babysitter | January 10, 2008 at 10:27 PM
Couldn't have put it any better myself Leigh.
Posted by: Stan Lee | January 08, 2008 at 07:47 PM
Too many brands out there still throwing anything in a banner and patting themselves on the back for being ‘interactive.’ Scary.
Posted by: bg | January 08, 2008 at 12:55 PM