Online ad types are to website users as antibiotic types are to bacteria.
1. “Run of site” ads lack targeting but are good at reaching a large swath of the user population, just as broad spectrum antibiotics lack specific killing power but are generally good at impairing most types of bacterial infection.
2. Behaviorally or demographically targeted ads are good at reaching specific users, but you need to know which users you’re trying to reach. Similarly focused “narrow spectrum” antibiotics are good at killing specific bacteria types, assuming you can first identify the bacteria you’re trying to kill.
3. Finally, “takeover ads” (the really aggressive ads that drop down or fly up and cover the homepage of the site you’re visiting) are great at reaching and impacting a huge proportion of the user population at a single time but, just like the new class of “super antibiotics” (e.g. Cipro which is used against Anthrax) which tend to have some negative side effects for the patient, these ads tend to negatively impact user satisfaction. They’re simply too overt.
What does this silly analogy tell us? In my opinion it suggests that, just as antibiotics are more effective when used sparingly, ad scarcity improves ad effectiveness. Let’s have less ads. They’ll work better and publishers will be able to charge advertisers more and annoy users less.
