I do not see them (like the one below this comment-field).

For the same reason I only use text-Adsense on my websites.

In my professional life pre digital epiphany, I spent years planning and analysing brand and direct response campaigns using press, tv, outdoor etc and it’s fair to say that the majority of the truisms of the traditional disciplines apply to digital activity, crucially starting with setting of the objectives and KPI’s.
The fundamental difference is the increased visabality and dynamism of the response.

In certain instances it is possible for a display creative with a near 0% ctr to be deemed a success depending on how the media buy has been negotiated and if performance is viewed in context with a thorough engagement mapping/click share analysis.

I would be very wary of applying Ogilvy’s advice on “double-truckers” to Apple’s ad; you’re dealing with two different animals. A magazine is (for the most part) a linear medium. Even if you don’t carefully read every page, you still flip through all the pages from start to finish. So most readers are just as likely to see a whole page ad as they are to see a double truck spread. Actually, depending on what content is opposite the single page ad, readers may even spend more time looking at it than at a double truck. So Ogilvy’s advice had to do with maximizing exposure for your ad dollar.

Websites aren’t linear and banner ads, by their very nature, can’t be “single page” ads. An online ad that takes up a whole page isn’t an ad – it’s a website. So with a banner ad, the major challenge is ensuring that people don’t entirely tune it out. So purchasing additional page space and then having the ad on the side interact with the ad at the top of the page probably purchases many times the viewer engagement that a single banner or side ad would have purchased. So Ogilvy’s advice to get the most effective ad space for the dollar would likely end up in favor of Apple’s tactics.

That’s my take on it anyway.

- Jeff

Good point. I guess the analogy I was really trying to draw is that you have to buy at least double the banner space to get the effect of buying a full page ad. Most banner ads are the visual equivalent of buying a half or quarter-page print ad.

This post from The Ad Contrarian (great blog, definitely worth subscribing, I just disagree with him on this point) illustrates the attitude I’m talking about: http://adcontrarian.blogspot.com/2009/05/you-just-dont-get-it-do-you.html

Apple’s banners prove that it’s possible to a) be compelling, b) entertain, c) do an engaging animated ad, d) integrate a campaign across channels.

We may not know what Apple’s direct ROI is from the web portion of the “Get a Mac” campaign, but, from a branding perspective, they’re doing it right.

It’s like buying magazine ads. Buying a half-page is stupid. Buying a 1/4 page is an even worse idea. If you want your ad to be effective, you do a “double-trucker” (2 page) spread at the very beginning or you buy the back cover. But taking over the NYT homepage is even smarter than that, because you’re guaranteed attention and — unlike a magazine ad — you can link directly to a landing page.

I would love to see the ad myself, but it doesn’t appear to be on the nytimes.com site anymore.