MOST POPULAR

News

TV ads consistently cause spike in website visits

TV ads consistently cause spike in website visits

TV ads consistently cause spike in website visits

A new report shows that website traffic rises and falls in direct correlation with TV advertising for the majority of call-to-action brands, which depend on immediate results from marketing efforts. 

The report, from the Video Advertising Bureau, examines a cross-section of 125 brands in six categories (restaurants, retail, travel, telecommunications/location-based mobile apps, financial, insurance) representing more than $30 billion in TV advertising in 2014.

Fully 82% of these brands showed a direct correlation between TV advertising and website traffic. Of the 85 brands with visitor increases, 87% had upped TV spending – an average of 22% increase in spending and 24% increase in visitors. Of the 40 brands with visitor decreases, 70% had lowered TV spending – an average of 10% less TV spending and 9% decrease in visitors.

“TV is the great activator in Internet commerce,” said Sean Cunningham, President & CEO of the Video Advertising Bureau, which published the report as the second in a What’s Driving Digital series. “A majority of brands with the most on the line for big sales now see their website traffic follow the curve of their investment in TV advertising. TV advertising does more than generate awareness; it triggers the most important action at a time when the Internet functions as a brand’s storefront to the world.”

Tags:

We welcome reader discussion and request that you please comment using an authentic name. Comments will appear on the live site as soon as they are approved by the moderator (within 24 hours). Spam, promotional and derogatory comments will not be approved

Post your comment

Facebook, Instagram and Sky case study: Game of Thrones

BT at IBC: 'unlocking the power of fibre IPTV'

IP&TV News tries out 4G Broadcast at the FA Cup Final

Thomas Riedl: “Google TV has evolved into Android TV”

Tesco and blinkbox: what went wrong?

Reed Hastings and 2030: is he right?