Display Network Advertising

I often talk about, and write about Search Network Marketing. Today I want to give a little time to Display Network Marketing. Let’s start with the key difference between the two.

The Search Network is mostly a TEXT based format. You enter a query into a search engine and receive textual links to websites which relate to that search. Yes there are a few visual elements that display in blocks here and there, but for the most part, the search network has always been (and remains) a text based network, where advertising is text based, hence the name Ad WORDS.

The display network is a VISUAL format. It is the realm of “banner ads” though certainly not in the old school sense of buying a banner on a single website. There are thousands of websites in the Google Display Network, grouped by topical categories (and other elements).

Google Display Network
Google Display Network Partner Sites – Just a few of many thousands!

While search marketing is a powerful advertising means, some products or services do well in a visual format vs, just plain text. Both text and display ads will send you to an advertiser’s website when clicked, but visual ads that have motion and color and other forms of visual appeal, could get your attention, and may entice you to click where text alone does not.

Display Network advertising also works well for new technologies and new or unique ideas. A business may have a really cool offering that would excite you once you saw it. Yet it’s not something you’d ever search for (because you don’t know it exists). That’s where Display Network advertising outperforms search marketing. Where the Search Network delivers ads in response to a search, the Display Network delivers ads in response to prospect affinity.

Case in Point

Let’s say you’re a business that sells a product that really appeals to sports car enthusiasts. You have your ads appear in sports car blogs, forums and in sports car sections of Display Network sites. Your prospect clicks your ad, visits your site and finds the product interesting. He may purchase then and there, but let’s say he moves on … then, the following morning he visits his favorite news site.  If the site is a Display Network partner, he may see your same (or a similar) ad there.

The news site has nothing to do with sports cars, but he clicked your ad yesterday and visited your site, a cookie was accepted in his browser, and that partner site read his cookie and served up another of the your ads today. That’s how the ad “followed him” from his prior visit. This is an example of re-targeting. You are targeting site visitors to see your display ads elsewhere. The repetition helps your message to sink in, or remind your prospect of that great offering.

This is just the tip of the Display Network iceberg, but it’s enough to give you an idea of what lies beneath the surface. To learn more, call or email us, and … don’t forget to spread the love below if you found this post interesting.

Has Facebook been TRUMPED?

You know how this post is going to start right? You’re either ONE OF THEM, or ONE OF US!

Well … this may not be quite what you expect. I recently read this article at the HUFFINGTON POST written by Derek Powell nearly a year ago. He then made the claim that people who complain about political postings on Facebook are “part of a problem”. And the problem, he infers, is “complacency”. That’s right, back in February of 2016 he made the argument that people who criticize political postings are just too invested in the status quo.

Has Facebook been Trumped?
FFFFFFACE BOOK !!!

I can’t help but to wonder how Derek feels about the subject today.

Less than a month after the election of a new President and newly forming cabinet, the tone and frequency of political posts (in my feed at least) have changed quite markedly since a year ago.

It has really been surprising to see certain people making some very strong accusations and insulting remarks about political opinions or policy decisions that are very heated and oppositional right now. Probably a good deal more so than in 2016.

Maybe it’s a sign of Constitutional freedom and Democracy that political debate is alive and well, uncensored and quite vigorous in America, even if it is a little bit messy.

But … I have to say … folks who post really mean and nasty things, almost daily, are a bit annoying whether you’re invested in the status quo or not.

To turn down the volume a bit, and think logically for a moment, it’s hard not to conclude that either these folks are 1) absolutely sure that every friend in their feed agrees with their political views, or 2) anybody that doesn’t agree deserves to hear the opposition to their beliefs. I mean …  I’m trying hard to escape from that conclusion, but … there it is.

Politics does involve beliefs and values – just like religious, or cultural beliefs. And different people have different beliefs. And one would think people could respect each others beliefs within their own social network. Otherwise, I’m back to the paragraph above this one, scratching my head again.

We all know that people with like beliefs feel comfortable being together in a group. That’s why there are churches, synagogues, clubs, political groups, business associations, alumni organizations and so on. We know from the name and type of group we join what the group stands for, and what it does not.

I think it’s also quite important and socially beneficial if these groups can get along and respect each other (or if they can’t, at least stay out of each others way).  Otherwise, we’ll have open confrontations between them – which we sometimes do. And when that happens, I don’t really condone the violence – which by the way usually starts with accusations. It escalates from there.

There ARE political forums on the web. They are a natural fit for political discussion. The audience there knows what to expect just like a person joining an organization does. A person joining Greenpeace does not expect to attend a meeting dominated by board members of British Petroleum. If that were to happen, I suspect the membership would quickly be canceled.

Likewise, when I joined Facebook, I did not plan to be bombarded with confrontational political rhetoric.  If friends within our social networks cannot tolerate opposing views or beliefs, then I would suggest that they are limiting they’re social interaction to people who only think like they do.

We may be comfortable having only like-minded friends, but debate which reveals opposing points of view and different beliefs can be interesting and even enlightening. It certainly deserves to be approached respectfully and considerately on Facebook.

After all this IS our social network. I leave you with this quote:

“It is not our differences that divide us. It is our inability to recognize, accept, and celebrate those differences.”
Audre Lorde