外文翻譯--網(wǎng)絡(luò)廣告任何人都看嗎？

1、<p><b>　　中文3788字</b></p><p>　　標題：Internet Advertising: Is Anybody Watching?</p><p><b>　　原文：</b></p><p><b>　　Abstract</b></p><p>

2、;　　Click-through rates have emerged as the de facto measure of Internet advertisingeffectiveness. Unfortunately, click-through rates are plummeting. This decline prompts fourcritical questions: (1) why do banner ads seem

3、 to be ineffective; (2) what can advertisers do toimprove their effectiveness; (3) does an immediate measure such as click-through rate undervalueonline advertising; and, (4) are memory-based measures such as recall or a

4、wareness moreappropriate? To address these questions, we utiliz</p><p>　　Our research suggests that the reason why click-through rates are low is that surfers actually avoid looking at banner ads during thei

5、r online activities. This suggests that the larger part of a surfer’s processing of banners will be done at the pre-attentive level. If such is the case,click-through rate is an ineffective measure of banner ad performan

6、ce. Our research also showsthat banner ads do have an impact on traditional memory-based measure of effectiveness. Thus,we claim that advertisers </p><p>　　Finally, our study shows that although repetition l

7、eads to lower click-through rates, it has a beneficial impact on brand awareness and advertising recall.</p><p>　　Introduction</p><p>　　As the Internet matures into a viable commercial medium, m

8、any web sites (e.g., Lycos,Go Network, Yahoo!) rely on advertising to finance their operations. The lure of advertising is such that some companies provide users with free Internet access (e.g., NetZero.com, FreeI.com)an

9、d even free computers (e.g., Free-PC.com) in exchange for their eyeballs (Berst 1999). This should not come as a surprise as advertisers have long used every conceivable vehicle to display their messages in front of the

10、ga</p><p>　　As the Internet becomes more mainstream, many companies are budgeting significant dollar amounts for online advertising. The Internet Advertising Bureau (1999) reports 1998 online advertising exp

11、enditure of $1.92 billion, more than double 1997 revenues. The bulk of this expenditure is allocated to banner ads. Banner ads typically consist of rectangular images displayed at the top of web pages and contain the mes

12、sage that the advertiser wants to send to web surfers.</p><p>　　The most widely used measure of online advertising effectiveness is the percentage of the total number of ad exposures that induce the surfer t

13、o actually click on the banner in response to the advertised message. This measure is known as the click-through rate (Novak and Hoffman 1997). Click-through rate has become such a dominant measure that in 1996 Procter a

14、nd Gamble made a deal with Yahoo! in which P&G would pay only for click-throughs and not for exposures (Associated Press 1996). The abili</p><p>　　Click-through rates started in 1996 at around seven perc

15、ent. However, they have declined steadily to around 0.6% in 1999 (Nielsen//Netratings 1999). This is problematic because advertisers typically do not knowingly allocate budgets to media that are not effective.Does this t

16、rend suggest that the online advertising community is going to fritter along with the decline in click-through rates? Should one sell his or her stocks in Yahoo!? Not necessarily.Many authors (Ambler 1998, Batra, Lehmann

17、, Bu</p><p>　　Briggs and Hollis’ study, combined with the decline in click-through rate, begs the questions (1) why do banner ads seem to be ineffective; (2) what can advertisers do to improve their effectiv

18、eness; (3) does an immediate measure such as click-through rate under-value online advertising; and, (4) are more traditional measures such as recall or awareness more appropriate?The purpose of this paper is to answer t

19、hese four questions. We intend to show that because banner ads operate mostly at the pr</p><p>　　The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. The first section discusses the results of a study which u

20、tilized an eye-tracking device to determine whether web surfers see banner ads and which factors increase or decrease the probability that a banner ad is seen. We use the results from this first study to generate hypothe

21、ses about the characteristics of banner ads that might increase or decrease viewers’ attention. The following section relates the results of the follow-up study that test</p><p>　　Study 1: Eye-tracking</p

22、><p>　　The Internet differs from traditional media in at least one significant way. When an advertiser uses Television or Radio to deliver his messages, he preempts the program being broadcast (e.g., a sitcom o

23、r song) and uses all the bandwidth of the medium to transmit his message. This means that by default, the viewer or listener is paying attention to the advertisers,and the message is only interrupted if the listener zaps

24、 away. Zapping, however, is quite infrequent. Siddarth (1999) reports zapping</p><p>　　Shared bandwidth might explain why click-through rates are low, but not why they are declining. There is some evidence t

25、hat some online surfers dislike banner ads (Bass 1999). This dislike is widespread enough that various software exist that actually prevent browsers from downloading ads (AdsOff!, @Guard, JunkBuster...). One can thus hyp

26、othesize that, as surfers gain more familiarity with the medium, they learn to differentiate informational content from advertising. Ultimately, this would give</p><p>　　Given this possible learning and avoi

27、dance behavior, we start our investigation by measuring the extent to which surfers pay attention to banner ads. We begin by formulating the following two hypotheses:</p><p>　　H1: Internet users avoid lookin

28、g at banner ads.</p><p>　　H2: The more time users have spent on the Internet, the less they pay attention to</p><p>　　banner ads.</p><p>　　To test these hypotheses, we asked a group

29、 of subjects to look at various web pages while hooked up to an eye-tracking device that records their eye movements and fixations. Eyetracking studies are not new. Javal (1878) used eye-tracking to study reading pattern

30、s more than 100 years ago. Although reading studies are still being conducted through eye-tracking (Hyönä 1995), a growing number of eye-tracking studies have recently addressed marketing problems.For instance,

31、 Russo and Leclerc (1994) st</p><p>　　Study design</p><p>　　Our study was conducted using information portals as a background. The cover study was an ergonomic research on the design for one of

32、the largest French portals: Voilà(www.voila.fr). The subjects were asked to perform five searches using three portals: Voilà, an alternate layout for Voilà (henceforth called Voilà Bis), and Voilà

33、;’s largest competitor. Three of the searches related to general topics (e.g., find information about ‘Le Louvre’), the other two r，elated to individuals (e.g., find the p</p><p>　　Our first study was very r

34、evealing. It provides us with an answer to the first question motivating this study (Why are banner ads not effective?) and a hint of an answer to the second and third questions (What can advertisers do to improve banner

35、 effectiveness? Does clickthrough rate under-value online advertising?). The study shows that one of the problems hindering banner ad effectiveness is that half of the banner exposures are not attended to. The problem is

36、 not only that surfers do not look</p><p>　　There are at least two possible explanations for this apparently clairvoyant behavior. First, site designers have traditionally located banner ads at the top of th

37、eir web pages. This might lead web surfers to treat as a potential ad every item that is located at the top of the screen.Second, as has been noted by Janiszewski (1998), peripheral vision allows subjects to recognize ob

38、jects that are located outside their focal point of attention (as measured by the eye-tracking device). This ability,</p><p>　　That only half the banner ads are looked at is highly detrimental to click-throu

39、gh rates.One cannot click on something one does not look at! It does not mean, however, that half of the banner exposures are wasted. Research has shown that consumers do not need to fully process a message in order to b

40、e influenced by it. Janiszewski (1990a, 1990b, and 1993) has researched the topic extensively. Among other things, his research shows that incidental exposure to advertising can enhance a consumer’s l</p><p>

41、;　　Our study also reveals that experts are more efficient at processing web pages than novices and that young surfers are more efficient than older ones. This does not, however,translate into fewer banners seen by expert

42、s or young surfers.</p><p>　　As to what factors might help improve banner effectiveness, we found that location, size,and zone content are important factors when trying to predict whether a zone is attended.

43、 We will further investigate these factors along with the relevance of traditional advertising effectiveness measures in Study 2.</p><p>　　Putting what we have learned from this study in perspective, we woul

44、d be inclined to say that the medium Internet advertising resembles most is outdoor billboards. As with banner ads,drivers encounter billboards while engaging in other activities. Billboards occupy only a small portion o

45、f their field of vision and typically consist of a simple message and visual. As Donthu,Cherian, and Bhargava (1993) have shown, billboards influence awareness and recall even if they only rarely prompt consumers</p&g

46、t;<p>　　出處：Xavier Drèze Internet Advertising: Is Anybody Watching? [J].Journal of Interactive Marketing Volume 17, Issue 4, pages 8–23, Autumn (Fall) 2003</p><p>　　標題：網(wǎng)絡(luò)廣告：任何人都看嗎？</p>&l

47、t;p><b>　　譯文：</b></p><p><b>　　摘要：</b></p><p>　　點擊率事實上已經(jīng)成為網(wǎng)絡(luò)廣告施行有效性的重要判別工具。而不幸的是，點擊率直線下降。這種下降反映了四個關(guān)鍵問題：（1）為什么橫幅廣告是無效的；（2）做什么可以提高網(wǎng)絡(luò)廣告效力；（3）是否點擊率作為一個即時措施不足以評估在線廣告；（4） 是否以記

48、憶為核心的措施例如喚醒或使之記得更為有效？為了解決這些問題，我們利用了一個眼球追蹤裝置，在線調(diào)查網(wǎng)友們注意的在線廣告。然后，我們對用戶關(guān)于這些在互聯(lián)網(wǎng)上的橫幅廣告的回憶，認知，進行了大規(guī)模的調(diào)查。</p><p>　　我們的研究表明，之所以點擊率很低，是網(wǎng)上沖浪者事實上在他們進行網(wǎng)絡(luò)活動時經(jīng)常尋求避免橫幅廣告。這表明，很大一部分沖浪者對于橫幅廣告并不關(guān)注。如果如此，點擊率就是一個無效的的橫幅廣告效果的衡量標準。我

49、們的研究還顯示，橫幅廣告確實有一個傳統(tǒng)的基于內(nèi)存有效性措施的影響。因此，我們要求廣告客戶應(yīng)該依靠傳統(tǒng)的品牌宣傳和廣告召回。</p><p>　　最后，我們的研究表明，雖然網(wǎng)絡(luò)橫幅廣告的重復(fù)導(dǎo)致了較低的點擊率，但其對品牌的認識和召回廣告仍產(chǎn)生了有益的影響。</p><p><b>　　簡介：</b></p><p>　　隨著網(wǎng)絡(luò)作為一個可行的商業(yè)

50、媒體的成熟，許多網(wǎng)站（如Lycos公司轉(zhuǎn)到網(wǎng)絡(luò)，雅虎）更多的依靠廣告來支持他們的運營。廣告的誘惑如，有些公司提供免費的上網(wǎng)服務(wù)（如NetZero.com，F(xiàn)reeI.com）甚至提供給用戶免費的電腦（如自由PC.COM），來吸引他們的眼球（Berst 1999）。對之無需感到驚奇，因為廣告商長期使用一切能想到的方式無論是雜志，電視或者賽車來將其信息展示給潛在客戶。</p><p>　　隨著互聯(lián)網(wǎng)逐漸成為主流，許多

51、公司都在編制在線廣告所需要的資金的預(yù)算計劃?；ヂ?lián)網(wǎng)廣告局（1999）報告1998年的在線廣告支出為19.2億美元，是1997年的兩倍之多。這筆開支的一大部分被分配給了橫幅廣告。橫幅廣告通常由矩形圖像組成顯示在網(wǎng)頁的頂部，包含著廣告商希望傳遞給網(wǎng)民的信息。</p><p>　　網(wǎng)絡(luò)廣告最有效的措施是用戶實際點擊的橫幅廣告并由廣告所包含的信息對客戶其產(chǎn)生影響的情況在總量中所占的百分比。這項措施被稱為點擊率（諾瓦克和霍

52、夫曼，1997年）。點擊率已經(jīng)成為一個主要的衡量標準，例如在1996年寶潔與雅虎達成協(xié)議，只需要支付點擊率，而不是貸款額（美聯(lián)社，1996）。一個網(wǎng)站產(chǎn)生點擊率的能力影響了其廣告的價格（漢密爾頓，1998）。</p><p>　　點擊率在1996年開始大約維持在7%左右。然而，點擊率在1999年下降了0.6%（Nielsen//Netratings ，1999）。這個問題是因為廣告商在對不同的媒介分配廣告預(yù)算時并

53、不能明確哪一媒介能產(chǎn)生最大的效益。這一趨勢是否表明網(wǎng)絡(luò)廣告如同其下降的點擊率一般逐漸沒落？而我們是否需要出售持有的雅虎股票？我看未必。許多學(xué)者（安布勒1998年，巴特拉，萊曼，伯克和佩爾 1995）認為好的廣告是能夠?qū)ζ放瀑Y產(chǎn)產(chǎn)生長期影響的，而不一定是有助于短期銷售的。他們爭辯說，股權(quán)如品牌或廣告意識變量廣告效果更好的評價標準。在這一精神指導(dǎo)下，布里格斯和霍里斯（1997）通過使用米爾沃德的品牌動態(tài)系統(tǒng)（戴森，法爾和霍里斯，1996）顯

54、示橫幅廣告能夠提升顧客的點擊從而影響消費者對品牌獨立的態(tài)度。</p><p>　　布里吉和霍里斯結(jié)合點擊率下降的研究回避了以下的問題（1）為什么橫幅廣告是無效的；（2）做什么可以改善廣告的效力；（3）是否點擊率作為一個即時措施不足以評估在線廣告；（4） 是否以記憶為核心的措施例如喚醒或使之記得更為有效？本文的目的就是要回答這四個問題。我們準備展示由于大部分橫幅廣告并未被仔細的處理，傳統(tǒng)有效的措施較之點擊率更為合適

55、。然后我們會運用這些手段來研究幾個可能會影響橫幅廣告效果的因素。</p><p>　　本章的其余部分如下。第一部分討論得出的結(jié)果中其中一項研究是利用一個眼球追蹤器，以確定網(wǎng)民是否能看到橫幅廣告，以及哪些因素會增加或者減少一個橫幅廣告被關(guān)注的概率。我們憑借這個研究結(jié)果，發(fā)現(xiàn)一個具有特色的橫幅廣告有可能增加或減少網(wǎng)民的注意力。下面部分涉及后續(xù)研究的結(jié)果，即在更廣泛的樣本即網(wǎng)民（807人）中對第一項研究中產(chǎn)生的假說進行

56、測試。這項研究還探討了網(wǎng)絡(luò)廣告對于記憶，承認和認識產(chǎn)生的影響。然后，我們必須得考慮兩種研究結(jié)果并討論其與管理的相關(guān)性。最后，總結(jié)發(fā)言，討論我們的方法和結(jié)果以及對未來的研究方向。</p><p><b>　　研究1：眼球追蹤</b></p><p>　　網(wǎng)絡(luò)不同于傳播媒介至少顯著的表現(xiàn)在一個方面上。當廣告商使用電視或電臺來提供信息，他的廣告方案被搶占著（例如，一個情景喜

57、劇或歌曲）并使用所有具有介質(zhì)的通道并傳送其所想表達的信息。這意味著在默認的情況下觀眾或者聽眾對于廣告的注意力只會被受眾換臺所打斷。但是換臺是相當少見的。Siddarth (1999)的報告說明因為廣告而換臺的比率低于3%。相比之下，網(wǎng)絡(luò)上的橫幅廣告與網(wǎng)頁上的其他元素共同分享著網(wǎng)頁的帶寬。橫幅廣告在一個VGA電腦屏幕（640 × 480像素）上通常占不到10%的網(wǎng)頁面積。因此，該網(wǎng)頁的瀏覽者一般會更側(cè)重于關(guān)注頁面上的其他元素。橫

58、幅廣告的首要任務(wù)是先吸引到網(wǎng)民的注意，其次再來誘導(dǎo)網(wǎng)民點擊廣告。如果網(wǎng)民從來沒有注意到橫幅廣告，他們當然也不可能來點擊這一廣告。</p><p>　　共享的帶寬或許可以解釋為什么點擊率很低，但卻不能解釋點擊率的下降。這里有一些數(shù)據(jù)表明，一部分網(wǎng)民并不喜歡橫幅廣告（巴斯，1999）。這種討厭其實非常普遍，以至于各種軟件中事實上有著防止瀏覽器下載廣告的程序。(AdsOff!, @Guard, JunkBuster..

59、.)因此，人們可以假設(shè)如果網(wǎng)民們更為熟悉網(wǎng)絡(luò)媒介的增益，他們就能學(xué)會從網(wǎng)絡(luò)廣告中辨析內(nèi)容。最終，這將使他們能夠無視橫幅廣告。</p><p>　　鑒于這種學(xué)習(xí)回避的可能性，我們開始了關(guān)于網(wǎng)民們對于橫幅廣告關(guān)注程度的調(diào)查。我們首先制訂了以下兩個假設(shè)：</p><p>　　假設(shè)1：網(wǎng)絡(luò)用戶避免觀看橫幅廣告。</p><p>　　假設(shè)2：網(wǎng)民越多的將時間花費在網(wǎng)絡(luò)上，同時

60、他們將越少的注意橫幅廣告。</p><p>　　為了測試這些假設(shè)，我們要求了一個研究網(wǎng)頁的小組借助眼球追蹤裝置來記錄網(wǎng)民視線的移動和鎖定。眼球追蹤技術(shù)并不新穎。Javal（1878）早在100多年前就使用了眼球追蹤技術(shù)來研究閱讀模式。盡管閱讀模式的研究通過眼球追蹤仍在進行(Hyönä，1995)，對眼球追蹤技術(shù)的研究的發(fā)展在最近越來越多的解決了營銷問題。例如，魯索和勒克萊爾（1994）對店內(nèi)品

61、牌選擇的研究，費舍爾等人（1989）對煙草廣告標簽的研究，Janiszewski（1998）對目錄搜索習(xí)慣的探索，克羅伯 瑞爾（1979）對廣告文案處理效果的研究和洛斯（1997）對黃頁廣告的研究。</p><p><b>　　研究設(shè)計：</b></p><p>　　我們的研究是利用門戶網(wǎng)站的信息作為背景。封面研究即對一個法國最大的門戶網(wǎng)站之一的www.voila.f

62、r的設(shè)計符合人體工程學(xué)的程度進行調(diào)查。受試者被要求使用三個門戶網(wǎng)站即Voila，Voila的交替布局（之后被稱為Voila Bis）以及Voila的最大競爭對手進行五次搜索。其中三個搜索有關(guān)于一般主題（例如尋找有關(guān)盧浮宮的信息），另外兩個搜索則有關(guān)于個人（例如找到杜邦公司的電話）。三個一般主題的搜索使用了不同的門戶網(wǎng)站。另外兩個檢索則使用了Voila以及Voila Bis。</p><p>　　我們的第一個研究很

63、說明問題。它為我們第一個問題（橫幅廣告為什么沒有效果）提供了答案，同時向第二和第三個問題（如何提高網(wǎng)絡(luò)廣告的效用，點擊率評價網(wǎng)絡(luò)廣告時是否有所低估）提供了暗示，推動了這項研究的發(fā)展。其中一項研究表明，阻礙橫幅廣告發(fā)揮作用的問題之一是有一半的橫幅廣告并不想?yún)⑴c風(fēng)險競爭。問題不僅僅只是網(wǎng)民不關(guān)注橫幅廣告，同時他們也在故意避免注意網(wǎng)絡(luò)廣告（假設(shè)1）。</p><p>　　這里顯然有兩方面的可能來解釋這種遠視的行為。首先

64、，網(wǎng)站設(shè)計者通常讓橫幅廣告位于網(wǎng)頁的頂部。這可能導(dǎo)致網(wǎng)民認為所有的潛在廣告都是位于屏幕的頂部。其次，正如Janiszewski（1998）指出的那樣，受試者的余光使得他們記住位于關(guān)注焦點之外的對象（作為衡量眼球追蹤的方法）。這種能力，加上大多數(shù)橫幅廣告事實上具有相同的形狀（468×60像素）使得網(wǎng)民們逐漸具有識別哪些橫幅廣告實際上并不需要加以關(guān)注的能力。所有這些解釋都假設(shè)網(wǎng)民隨著對網(wǎng)絡(luò)學(xué)習(xí)了解時間的推移和策略的發(fā)展，會逐漸避免

65、對廣告產(chǎn)生關(guān)注。不幸的是，我們并沒有發(fā)現(xiàn)對于假設(shè)2的支持。這意味著需要少于25次的網(wǎng)絡(luò)課程來學(xué)習(xí)避免橫幅廣告。</p><p>　　其中一半的網(wǎng)絡(luò)橫幅廣告的點擊率看起來非常不利。甚至一些沒人關(guān)注的橫幅廣告根本沒有點擊率。然而這并不意味著，有一半的橫幅廣告是浪費資源。研究表明，全面的信息內(nèi)容過程對于影響消費者來說并不是必須的。Janiszewski (1990a, 1990b, 1993)對這一觀點有著廣泛的研究。

66、除此之外，他的研究顯示附帶偶然顯示的廣告能夠加強消費者對于廣告和品牌廣告的好感，盡管消費者依然不能識別以前看過的廣告和品牌（一種類似我們的情況）。其他的研究人員（例如夏皮羅，麥金尼斯和黒克勒，1997）也得出了類似的結(jié)論。這意味著很大一部分消費者對于橫幅廣告的處理接受將會處于一個粗略的水平而不是充分的重視。此外，它意味著點擊率并不能充分的衡量廣告的有效性因為粗略的接受過程并不會導(dǎo)致立即的行動。</p><p>　

67、　我們的研究還表明，專家們相較于菜鳥能更為高效的處理網(wǎng)頁同樣的年輕的網(wǎng)民相比于年紀大的更為高效。但是這并不是讓我們創(chuàng)建較少的能被專家和年輕網(wǎng)民看到的橫幅廣告。至于考慮哪些因素有助于提高橫幅廣告的效率時，我們發(fā)現(xiàn)廣告的位置，大小，區(qū)域內(nèi)容是當預(yù)測該區(qū)域是否值得嘗試時的重要因素。我們將在研究2中根據(jù)傳統(tǒng)廣告的相關(guān)性將這些因素進一步調(diào)查。</p><p>　　我們從這個角度的研究經(jīng)驗出發(fā)，我們更傾向與認為網(wǎng)絡(luò)媒體的大部

68、分廣告與戶外廣告牌有一定類似。正如橫幅廣告的情況一樣，司機也可能在從事其他活動時遇到戶外廣告牌。戶外廣告牌只占據(jù)他們的一小部分視野，通常只是一個簡單的信息和視覺感應(yīng)。正如Donthu,</p><p>　　Cherian, 和 Bhargava (1993)所提出的觀點，戶外廣告牌對消費者的意識回憶產(chǎn)生影響即使其很少使消費者立即采取行動。考慮到這些因素可能有助于更好的了解，研究，設(shè)計未來的網(wǎng)絡(luò)廣告并制定相關(guān)的機制