Obvious, then silly

Over at Ad Age, they have the first of a two part article on how to make engaging ads based on research by Starch and Pretesting (great name guys.)

Anyway, today's edition begins with the shocking revelation that research now shows that engaging ads are less about whether they appear in high involvement media, and more about having interesting content.  Better go and lie down after that bombshell:)  It shocks me that this is trotted out like news.  After all, not only is it common sense but as Gossage said nearly half a century ago:  "Nobody reads advertising.  People read what they want to read and sometimes it's an ad."

Then comes the silly bit (if that isn't silly enough).  Like many of the unhelpful research debriefs I have endured Starch go on to  talk about how to make an engaging ad:

"For both print and online ads, the principles behind high engagement are roughly the same: Keep it simple; show the benefit ASAP; use attention-grabbing colors such as reds, yellows, greens and gold; and employ contrast. For example, on websites with white backgrounds, ads with black backgrounds pop, appearing almost three-dimensional in comparison with their surroundings."

How about offering people the gift of an idea?  An idea that in itself is inherently interesting, fresh and useful?

Comments

[caff]

Useful? Heh. Their non-useful tips go along with their non-useful/non-groundbreaking news. I've noticed quite a few people gain fame/notoriety for stating the obvious - I don't get why that is.

[Steve Woodruff]

Sound less like "research debriefs" than "research debris"

[[ paul isakson ]]

Yet another reminder why I call it 'Ad Aged'