Dive Brief:
- Teads, Time Inc. and The Atlantic commissioned Neuro-Insight, a neuro-marketing firm, to study the difference in impact of content on publishers’ websites and similar content on social media feeds, as reported by Adweek.
- The test used neuro-mapping technology to test the reactions of test subjects’ brains to video ads from four publishers: Conde Nast, Forbes, Time Inc. and The Atlantic.
- The research found that content was 16% more likely to be deemed relevant on publishers' websites, and publishers' websites had a 19% greater impact on the rational left side of the brain and 8% greater impact on the emotional right side of the brain.
Dive Insight:
For brands struggling to figure out how to breakthrough in the crowded digital landscape and address consumer concern over unsubstantiated and low-quality news, the results suggest advertising on traditional publishers' websites may better received than on social media. However, brands still need to take into consideration issues like volume, with social media feeds typically able to get an ad in front of more people than a publisher's website.
For publishers, the results should give provide some optimism at a time when most are struggling to chase online revenue. The rise of ad block software adoption and a seemingly ever increasing dilution of how content is shared from the publisher’s website to social media platforms and even walled mobile experiences like Apple’s Instant Articles presents diminishing returns for marketers.
The research also points to the value in video ads for publishers, even though the format of the ads wasn’t a tested element as social media platforms, such as Facebook, have been making a major push toward video content. The study demonstrated that video content on publishers’ websites carries more weight with viewers than the same content on social media platforms.