Besides the novelty factor (which others have mentioned), his 'paint' version is also much simpler, and therefor much easier to understand at a quick glance.
- Large text
- Not very much text
- A single image
- A single visual flow (top to bottom)
- A concise color palette (greens and black)
Compare to the 'standard' ad, where:
- Text is too small
- Too much text
- Too many images competing for attention
- Muddled visual flow
This is what I wanted to say. I kinda mentally block ads* and I saw the Paint drawing in the article before the "actual" ad, even if it is in the reverse order in the page flow.
* A few years ago I missed a question in an exam that was framed and underlined. The goal was to emphase the question because it was important. When I learned that I missed the question (while discussing the exam with other student), I took a new look at the question and my only guess can be that it looked too much like a Google Ad at that time and despite the fact that it was on paper I unconsciously ignored it… This is how stupid I can be.
I might have skipped that question too, but I would guess it's because frames and underline typically denote instructions on a test rather than an actual question.
Definitely agree the fancy ad is filtered out subconsciously as it's an obvious ad.
I disagree that the simple ad looks like part of the content (unless the rest of the page is kindergarten kid's drawings). It's unique and an eye catcher. Until everyone starts doing it and then it'll become filtered just like the "fancy ad".
Even more importantly, a high CTR with lower conversion rate would drive up your costs while lowering your sales.
In this case the first ad is very clearly for a game with a very clear target market. If I am in to racing games, I may click it and I may buy it.
The second ad could appeal to people strickly on novelty which means you may get a lot of customers who do not care about the product.
While the results of this post are very interesting and the conclusion to test everything is still good, we should look at the conversion rate to see which ad is actually more effective.
Interesting point. Obviously makes a big difference depending on whether you're the advertiser (selling products) or the publisher (getting paid for clicks)
CTRs aren't irrelevant, since they're a concrete proxy for conversions that ad networks can relay back to publishers quickly, but nobody actually pays by clicks anymore. That was common fifteen years ago, but CTRs plummeted circa 2002 and never recovered. Display ad revenue is now invariably calculated from impressions.
I work in Facebook app monetization and mobile ads, it is almost all CPC and CPI. The ad ecosystem is diverse enough that different pricing models apply in different situations.
I think another big factor is probably a white background vs. a black background. Bill Watterson said he avoided making strips with dark backgrounds too often because the human eye is drawn away from dark to light.
I would like to see an A/B test of the same basic artwork on a black background vs. the white one.
I do as well, but we're outliers. In an A/B test, the version which emphasizes free usually wins. I've even seen it beat an offer of getting paid to do something.
