Publishers own websites couldbe mightier than the almighty news feed when it comes to impact for advertisers, according to newneuroscience research comparing social platforms and premium sites.

Neuro-Insight, a neuro-marketing company, examinedcontent from four major publishersCond Nast, Forbes, Time Inc., and The Atlanticand found that test subjects were 16 percentmore likely to find web postsrelevant or engaging than similar content in social feeds.Tounderstand how readersrelated to different types of content, Neuro-Insight connected 100 people with neuro-mapping technology and showed themvideos inaFacebook newsfeed or a publishers website.

Along with being more personally relevant, publishers websites might be more memorablethey had a 19 percent greater impact on the rational left side of the brain, and an 8 percent greater impact on the emotional right side of the brain, the study found. Memories of video ads were also more detailed on the websites, with 8 in 10performing better than in a social feed.

The results shouldbe welcome news for publishers, which continue to struggleto monetize contenton mobile and social platforms. Some estimates saymajor tech players like Google and Facebook get as much as 85 cents for every new digital dollar spent on advertising.

What weve always understood is that there is strong engagement, said Caryn Klein, Time Inc.s vp of research and insights. But how is that halo to an advertisers message? Thats always been a question. We know there is high engagement, but what were seeing here is that when you go into what the brain is doing, were proving here that there is a lot more resonance of the message from a memory standpoint.

Teads chief marketing officer Rebecca Mahony said the goal was to give publishers a better view of how effective their ads really are.

Time Inc. is increasingly betting on the future of video. The company saw a 150 percent growth in video starts from 2015 to 2016for a total of 4.6 billionaccording to its fourth-quarterearnings.

The study, commissioned by Teads, anonline video advertising firm, featured 15-second ads abouteverythingfrom tech and CPG to fashionand food. Teads chief marketing officer Rebecca Mahony said the goal was to givepublishers a better view of how effective their ads really are. She said in-depth, long-form storiesalso make a reader more invested, which in turn helpsthem recalladsbetter than when theyre passively scrolling.

Certain brands also perform better than others across platforms. For example, health food, coffee and hospitality brands advertising on publishers sites had a big impact onthe detail-oriented left-side of the brain. However, ecommerce and consumer electronics brands resonated withthe right side of the brain. An interesting caveat:hospitality brands and ads for TV programsfaredbest on Facebook.

Advertising can drive a skew, said Matt Engstrom, Teads director of content and insights. It either impacts the detailed left side of the brain more stronglyor the right side of the brain more strongly. And when that sort of imbalance aligns with the reaction of the content on the brain, that makes the advertising more likely to be impactful.

Continued here:
This Neuroscience Study Says Ads Are More Effective on Publishers' Websites Than Social News Feeds - FishbowlDC (blog)