Sign up for my email newsletter

Get new updates, usually once a week – it features long-form essays on what’s going on here in Silicon Valley.

I’ve written 550+ essays which have been featured and quoted in The New York Times, Fortune, Wired, and WSJ. The topics range from mobile product design to fundraising to “growth hacking.”

Thanks for reading. -Andrew

Close

@andrewchen

Subscribe · Featured · Recent essays

The Law of Shitty Clickthroughs


The first banner ad ever, on HotWired in 1994, debuted with a clickthrough rate of 78% (thanks @ottotimmons)

First it works, and then it doesn’t
After months of iterating on different marketing strategies, you finally find something that works. However, the moment you start to scale it, the effectiveness of your marketing grinds to a halt. Sound familiar?

Welcome to the Law of Shitty Clickthroughs:

Over time, all marketing strategies result in shitty clickthrough rates.

Here’s a real example – let’s compare the average clickthrough rates of banner ads when debuted on HotWired in 1994 versus Facebook in 2011:

That’s a 1500X difference. While there are many factors that influence this difference, the basic premise is sound – the clickthrough rates of banner ads, email invites, and many other marketing channels on the web have decayed every year since they were invented.

Here’s another channel, which is email open rates over time, according to eMarketer:

While this graph shows a decline, the other graph (which I don’t have handy) is that the number of emails sent out has increased up to 30+ billion per day.

All these channels are decaying over time, and what’s saving us is the new marketing channels are constantly getting unveiled, too. These new channels offer high performance, because of a lack of competition, big opportunities for novel marketing techniques, and these days, the cutting edge is about optimizing your mobile notifications, not your banner placements.

There are a few drivers for the Law of Shitty Clickthroughs, and here’s a summary of the top ones:

  • Customers respond to novelty, which inevitably fades
  • First-to-market never lasts
  • More scale means less qualified customers
Let’s examine each in more detail, and then discuss the options for combatting this force of gravity in marketing.

Novelty
Without a doubt, one of the key drivers of engagement for marketing is that customers respond to novelty. When HotWired showed banner ads for the first time in history, people clicked just to check out the experience. Same for being the first web product to email people invites to a website – it works for a while, until your customers get used to the effect, and start ignoring it.

One of the most important tools you have at your disposal is the creative and calls to action that you use in your marketing – this might be like “X has invited you to Y” or it might be the headline you use in your banner ads. Recently, Retargeter posted an interesting analysis on the Importance of Rotating Creatives, which showed how keeping the same ad creative led to declining CTRs over time:

Publishers often have a similar problem in consumers ignoring the advertising on their site, which drives down clickthrough rates for both of them (bad for CPMs). This problem is often described as banner blindness, and you can see it clearly here in an eye-tracking study by Jakob Nielsen:

You can see here how users, almost comically, avoid looking at any banners.

The point is, humans seek novelty yet are pattern-recognition machines. Your initial marketing strategy will work quite well as your users try it for the first time, but afterwards, they learn to filter your marketing efforts out unless they are genuinely useful (more on that later).

First-to-market never lasts
It’s bad enough that your own marketing efforts drive down channel performance, but usually once your marketing efforts are working, your competitors quickly follow. There’s a whole cottage industry of companies that provide competitive research in the area of how their competitors are advertising and give you the information needed to fast-follow their marketing efforts.

For example, with a quick query, I know how much Airbnb is spending on search marketing (turns out, millions per year) what keywords they are buying ads on, and who their competitors are. And this is just a free service! There are much more sophisticated products for every established marketing channel:

Airbnb Search Engine Marketing

  • Daily ad budget: $10,638
  • Keywords: 62,729
  • Example ad: Find Affordable Rooms Starting From $20/Day. Browse & Book Online Now!
  • Main competitors: Expedia.com, booking.com, hotels.com, Marriott.com

Any clone of their business can quickly fast-follow their marketing efforts and use the same ads in the same marketing channels. This quickly degrades the performance of the marketing channel as the novelty wears off and clickthroughs plummet.

Any product that is first to market has a limited window where they will enjoy unnaturally high marketing performance, until the competition enters, in which case everyone’s marketing efforts will degrade.

More scale means less qualified customers
Another important way to think about the available market for your product is in terms of the popular Technology Adoption Lifecycle, in which early adopters actively seek out your product, while the rest of the mainstream market needs a lot of convincing. The quant marketing way to look at this is that early adopters respond better to marketing efforts across any given metric (signup %, CTR, CPA) than the later customer segments. In the TAL framework, the early market seeks out novelty, whereas the mainstream market just cares if you solve a problem for them.

As a result, a marketing strategy focused on early adopters is bound to look better than what you get later. You can get some limited traffic from PR and targeted advertising from niche communities and media properties. However once you get past this group, the CTRs can drop substantially.

If you’re a SaaS or ecommerce company that’s road-tested your marketing strategy by acquiring limited batches of customers, the problem is that whatever assumptions and projections you make off of this base end up fundamentally skewed positive. If your model indicates that you can acquire customers at $10 and break even within 6 months, it’s not hard for a 30% increase in CAC and 30% decrease in LTV to double the time it takes to get to profitability. This could be the difference between life and death for a company.

Lesson to investors is: Beware marketing metrics done at a small scale, and beware marketing tech companies that facilitate momentary marketing opportunities without a bigger vision. These are arbitrage opportunities that will disappear over time.

How to fight the Law of Shitty Clickthroughs
I call it a Law, of course, because I really believe it’s a strong gravitational pull on all marketing on the web. You can’t avoid it, and in many ways, it’s counter productive to try.

You can always get incrementally better performance out of your marketing by taking a nomad strategy – always keep developing new creative, testing new publishers, and so on. That’s all easy, but is mostly about maintaining some base level of performance. This can push the Law of Shitty Clickthroughs to act over years rather than degrading your marketing efforts over months.

Similarly, this law provides a litmus test as to the difference between advertising and information. When you are marketing with useful information, then CTRs stay high. Advertising that’s just novelty and noise wrapped in a new marketing channel has a limited shelf life.

The real solution: Discover the next untapped marketing channel
The 10X solution to solving the Law of Shitty Clickthroughs, even momentarily, is to discovery the next untapped marketing channel. In addition to doubling down on traditional forms of online advertising like banners, search, and email, it’s important to work hard to get to the next marketing channel while it’s uncontested.

Sometimes I get asked “have you ever seen someone do XYZ to acquire customers?” Turns out, the highest vote of confidence I can give is, “No I haven’t, and that’s good – that means there’s a higher chance of it working. You should try it.”

Today, these (relatively) uncontested marketing channels are Open Graph, mobile notifications, etc. If you can make these channels work with a strong product behind it, then great. Chances are, you’ll enjoy a few months if not a few years of strong marketing performance before they too, slowly succumb.

Like this post?
Get new updates via newsletter..

  • http://egypt.urnash.com Egypt Urnash

    Mobile notifications? Ugh. The Android subreddits have someone bitching about those ever week. The will just generate bad will.

  • http://twitter.com/GarrettSmith Garrett Smith

    Andrew, this was great, but keywordspy.com data isn’t accurate in my experience. They’ve never came close to an accurate daily spend, etc for any site I’ve worked on…even very large ones. So if anyone thinks they can simply look at keywordspy and then recreate a business (or it’s marketing), that won’t happen.

  • http://kikin.com theschnaz

    One way to fight against this law (and I don’t buy that btw) is the notion of earned media. Bands (Radiohead), VCs (Fred Wilson), and companies (37 Signals) have all done this well.

    If you can create some type of community, it’s much easier to market to them.

    I’m all for acquiring users through many different channels, I spend most of my day doing that!

  • http://robertclarkmtfs.com/ Robert Clark

    Just read your article on Business Insider and loved it so figured I would drop by your blog to tell you in person, great post man!

  • http://twitter.com/SeanEllis Sean Ellis

     Good point.  I also think freemium is a form of earned media.  You give away something through which you build a relationship to sell other stuff.  If the thing you are giving away is valuable enough, word will spread.

  • http://letter.ly/startupdailydigest Jim Shook

    I remember fondly the days of being able to get $0.15 clicks on Facebook. Totally agree that the key is finding new channels before market reaches equilibrium, and before the big, less ROI focused brands raise prices too much

  • http://blog.jdconley.com JD Conley

    “The real solution: Discover the next untapped marketing channel” — A big reason Zynga won early on Facebook.

  • http://chiguai.tumblr.com/ Michael Wills

    These are good points. In the past few days I have heard mentioned “you have to give a lot to get a lot” in reference to growing businesses. Building communities, freemium products that are strong enough to bring people to paid products, marketing with information all provide value to users even before “the sale” which builds enough trust that you/your product will in fact provide the implied value. Not necessarily what you say you will provide but what I think you will provide. These methods all seem to reflect that. 

    Those are all after the first click, though. As you mentioned in your recent tweet http://twitter.com/SeanEllis/status/188065653691920384 once you get that first click, you can greatly influence what happens after that.Getting that first click, though, is the clincher. “As the novelty wears off” getting that first click is like cold calling using a phone with hides your caller ID and the user is blocking all calls with a hidden caller ID, specifically in reference to the eye-tracking study above. Completely ignored.

    Facebook’s Open Graph, for now, does seem to provide a lower cost way to present targeted calls to action anywhere you can place content, tap into a person’s world, and invite them into yours. So even though the impact will lessen with time you can still experiment with less risk and the chance for wider adoption from trusted referrals.

    This of course assumes a strong product providing real value. :)

  • http://twitter.com/car_buzz carbuzz.co.uk

    I’d be surprised if AirBnB’s keyword list was only c62,000. It seems fairly small considering the number of cities they are strong in. 

  • http://httpcolonslashslashwww.www.startupjerkfest.com StartUpJerkFest

    I’d argue that it’s content & promise of your marketing message that gets attention & CTR, followed by consistently high value of your content, that results in continual opening of emails etc.

    I’m not talking about those stupid ads for some strange trick to lose belly fat, but for “real” businesses that have legs.

    If I’m a stock market investor and my goal is to make money, then an ad that promises me a way to make money will get my attention. Then quality of the landing page, along with my perception of their trustworthiness & credibility will influence my action to signup for emails. The quality of the product & my experience while using it influences my future interaction & referral to others.

  • http://twitter.com/raunakguha Raunak Guha

    Need a blue ocean strategy  for web marketing! Its so tough to get attention of users and the span is so limited, often the whole exercise goes for a toss. And business often get their social media strategy wrong which adds up to the woes. So SEM + Social Media + SEO have to be in unison and convey the same message. I believe that the online adverts should end up communicating the brand more than lame products. However, as stated, its a challenge and continuous newer channel are needed to stay ahead of the curve.

  • Kit Brown-Watts

    You mention these stats:HotWired CTR, 1994: 78%Facebook CTR, 2011: 0.05%
     
    But I think it would be useful to put these numbers in the context of total number of users of each service…. 0.05% of 1 billion users is still 5,000,000 people. Meanwhile less than 16 million people even HAD internet back in 1994.

    Therefore, saying there is a 1500x difference seems like a bit of a red herring. I see where you’re going with this, but we have to consider that even small amounts of a massive population can be considered a success to some advert agencies.

    What do you think?

  • http://andrewchenblog.com Andrew Chen

    Yeah, I agree- same issue with Alexa versus a paid/premium service like Nielsen, the former just isn’t as comprehensive and good as the latter. I just wanted to link to them as an example.

  • http://andrewchenblog.com Andrew Chen

    I think keywordspy just provides a sample- I also saw that all the ads are localized to NYC where they are based. So I bet it’s actually much, much more, and on top of that, Google broad matches an even larger set of keywords.

  • http://andrewchenblog.com Andrew Chen

    Yep, totally agree- I wrote in the above blog post “Similarly, this law provides a litmus test as to the difference between advertising and information. When you are marketing with useful information, then CTRs stay high. Advertising that’s just novelty and noise wrapped in a new marketing channel has a limited shelf life.”

  • http://andrewchenblog.com Andrew Chen

    You’re right that the reach of ad campaigns has increased, even while their per unit effectiveness has gone down. I don’t think one comparison is better than another, just making the point that the per unit effectiveness has gone down historically across all marketing channels and the reasons behind that.

  • AccessIPD

    Great article Andrew! I think that the branded infographic has still to see it’s glory days, it’s Pinterestible and contains the right mix of info and branding… that and video, for the same reasons.

  • Brad White

    Consumers are smart and getting smarter. Too many online markets are just plain dumb, focusing on traffic volume and click-throughs. Those things are indicators, not goals! It is no longer good enough to advertise your product – your advertising should BE a product in and of itself! This may be some form of content marketing, gently-encouraged word-of-mouth, a game, etc. I think the real key is to get out of the mindset of trying to figure out how to get more people to buy and instead concentrate on how to push more value to more people.

    Great article!

  • http://www.livinginthailand.net/ Neale

    Thanks Andrew lots to think about, after reading this.. makes total sense as the exact same affect was had with selling products back in the 90s.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_HX2UPSM353L7MK6KYLWLM32QUY Tom Avon

    It’s not clickthroughs.  It’s keeping people interested in reading your emails.  Write great content, keep the conversation moving forward.  

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Ronnie-Holt/33201070 Ronnie Holt

    This article makes some good points but…
    1. Of course any particular marketing channel will experience an unexpectedly high click through rate at first. However, I think the initial decrease is more of a regression to the mean or ‘Marketing Effectiveness – Novelty Effect’. That doesn’t mean that established methods are necessarily shitty, but have reached a market efficiency in their effectiveness. This is true of TV commercials as well, but companies are still investing millions in that advertising platform.2. The beauty of the internet is that you can target your advertising very specifically. Numbers such as overall average click through rates don’t take into consideration things like the relevance of your specific ad campaigns and the commercial intent of the people targeted. Plus I think FB is a poor example because in my experience, the commercial intent of people using FB is very low. You can sometimes make up for that through better targeting and increased exposure to your ads.

    3. On the other end of the spectrum, these numbers are skew by what I shall dub as the “Spam Effect.” Overall click through rates of more legitimate marketers will likely be higher than the click through rates of spammers. Of course emails advertisements sent to people who didn’t opt in will fail, but again, highly targeted lists will be successful.

    4. There is a learning curve and changeover costs to adopting new marketing channels (for your customers too). I agree that you should be always on the lookout for what is on the horizon, but if what you’re doing works for your market, always jumping on the next bandwagon might not be the best ROI for your business. For instance, there are several old-school copy writers and direct response marketers that come to mind (many of whom cut their teeth before the internet) who still make boatloads of cash using pre-internet sales letter techniques on websites that look like they were designed in the ’90s.

  • Kishore Dharmarajan

    Shitty click through rates are not a threat, but a great opportunity. Ads that answer the hidden questions in the consumers mind always get consistent ctrs and conversions. 

  • Xiaolong Dai

    This is very impressive article

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=555430058 Tom Larkin

    Great Article….We totally agree that brands need to focus on new mediums of content delivery. Our company Share Magnet gives consumers the opportunity to share their personal experiences with their friends and get rewarded for the value that they create. So far, so good.

  • http://www.respondhq.com Guy Cookson

    It’s great to read this, your points are pretty much spot on. In fact, around a year ago we actually created a product to solve this problem. 
    It’s called Respond - in a nutshell we use call to action buttons to display a message by relevant content across a network of quality publishers. 

    The buttons are usually placed just above and below articles, where you’d like the Facebook Like button. 

    It works. We’re seeing some incredible response rates, and because our performance algorithm keeps things fresh we’re not seeing a drop off – quite the opposite in fact. 

    Take a look at http://www.respondhq.com or on Slideshare (where we coincidentally use both the Jakob Nielsen eye-tracking screen caps and the Hotwired first banner ad image you use in the above post): http://www.slideshare.net/Respond/welcome-to-respond-9855019 

    Thanks for the post. 

  • http://chiguai.tumblr.com/ Michael Wills

    I just had a chance to review your slide deck. I can see why users would click through. You can’t ignore the ads defeating banner blindness since it is in the content. But since it isn’t clear it’s a button, or rather since it isn’t clear it isn’t an add, I wonder how effective it will be over time as people become desensitized to it? Granted as @StartUpJerkFest:disqus  and @google-2ed58a64aec8feb2afa8dc05e5884be3:disqus noted, if it’s relevant enough it’ll get clicked.

    Because these buttons stand out as different from the content, unlike some text ads that are also displayed inline, and necessarily marked as an ad to not be confused with the content, would they eventually start being skipped over because we naturally want to skip seemingly irrelevant ads? To use the eye tracking example, you might start noticing gaps where the buttons are because people get accustomed to seeing it there, know it’s not content and an ad, and skip over it.

    That said, for that brief moment because it does have to be visually processed and decided upon (skip this or read this), there is still a better positioning than the standard banners. I’ll be looking into it more.

  • http://www.respondhq.com Guy Cookson

    Thanks for your comments Michael, it’s always good to hear different perspectives. 

    I don’t think there’s any issue with users not realising Respond call to action buttons are ads – the messages they display make that clear, and the downstream conversions our advertisers are seeing are evidence that people are clicking with intent.

    In terms of avoiding our own form of banner blindness in the future, I think that comes down to ensuring the buttons are always as relevant as possible – our algorithm looks at a number of signals to determine this (context, location, device etc) and we’ll keep innovating here. The goal is to do more than just present an ad, it’s to add value to the user by displaying a call to action message that’s genuinely useful, without being interruptive. 

    Thanks again for your thoughts – if you’d like to know more just let me know (guy.cookson@respondhq.com)

  • John Schmitt

    Very insightful, & spot-on with my experience.  I think also, you can “ride that novelty” to bootstrap a company’s presence, and then you can & should fall back into more organic growth. 

    Meaning:  Initially you BUY awareness/users.  After that, you delight those users enough, and they will spread the word for you to gain the rest of your users FREE.

    Just take your huge marketing budget (that’s underperforming anyway) & invest that in stellar customer service, stellar product features, stellar user experience, and that will get you growth beyond your initial “bought” user base.

  • Steven Harris

     ”Creative” is a noun?

  • http://andrewchenblog.com Andrew Chen

    “ad creative”

    Sent from iPhone

  • http://ideafaktory.com ideafaktory

    The other part of the consumer getting smart equation is ad-blocking I wrote a piece called Confessions of an Ad Blocker, where I captured some mindblowing stats the top ad-blocker downloads. I’m surprised visual ads have any effectiveness at all without a major technological revamp.   http://www.ideafaktory.com/technology/ad-blocking-web-of-lies/

Want more? Featured essays and book recommendations