Images or videos in advertising content

[Martinsx]

Advertising is the process of processing messages in such a way that it's going to be very persuading and influencing towards swaying people's minds in preferring a particular product and services over other rivals in the market. Now, a well marketer wouldn't just use words alone to try and convince people but he or she would incorporate images or videos which buttress the content message. Remember the saying that a picture is worth more than a thousand words and videos leaves a more lasting impression.

Between images and videos, which is more effective in making an advertisement message more persuasive and influencial? If you are a marketer, would you use one from either of them or both of them?

 

[fishbate]

I would go for videos.. i think video as an advertiser makes a significant result in terms of profitability. Videos are very interactive and enticing at the same time. Also the content in a video is more flexible in terms of advertising. You can almost add everything in a video as long as its legal. Lastly videos nowadays can be integrated in other media which makes it more reliable.

 

[bellaciao]

Definitely video. It takes time and more resources, and requires you to have a good sense of direction and content for your video advertisement. It's not for everyone, but a good video ad is better than a good picture ad most of the time.

 

[EfficientNinja]

I would go with video too. It utilizes both visual and hearing senses of the people. If they hear a part of the ad that catches their attention, it could attract them to watch the whole ad. The bad thing about a video ad is if it is not engaging in the first seconds of the video, the ad will lose the audience because it will no longer pay attention to it.

 

[Martinsx]

I would go for videos.. i think video as an advertiser makes a significant result in terms of profitability. Videos are very interactive and enticing at the same time. Also the content in a video is more flexible in terms of advertising. You can almost add everything in a video as long as its legal. Lastly videos nowadays can be integrated in other media which makes it more reliable.

There is no doubt about video being more effective in getting the message across and as well having a good persuasive pressure point on its viewers but the question is does everyone actually have that patience to watch a video advertisement till the end? I read somewhere a while back that most times, people don't actually give into watching videos as looking through pictures seems to be more swift for them. What do you make of such analysis?

 

[J53772]

If I am a marketer, I would take the time to explore my options and if possible, I would utilize both of them since both also has its individual advantages. However, since almost all answered that video is more effective, I want to highlight the advantages of using images or photos. I have to say it outright, not every ad needs a video. Sometimes, a high quality image is all that you need in order to attract the attention of the target audience and convey your desired message or content. Image ads are also more cost-effective than video ads. Yes, videos can be powerful and are crowded in everyone's news feeds, but they can also be very time consuming. If it's poorly done, the viewers can easily say it was a waste of time.

 

[mitan143]

Well, I'd go for video as well because I think it already contains images as well as it also gives sounds which is whether a voice message or/and just a sound effects. I have noticed too that making a video as a tool for advertising is very useful and essential because millennial nowadays are visual people. Advertisement via videos gives people more ideas and they can easily react with moving objects and continuous motion of explanation since it is easier to understand.

 

[kd06]

Videos for me too. As they all stated, videos already contains images in it along with audios. What good in videos is that it engages even the laziest person or customer here is, most people are too busy to read all the product contents so with video ads it'll be more easier for them, you just have to make sure that the ad is not just visual catchy but at the same time should be good in the ears as well. And in addition to this videos are shareable, so you can expect your video ad reach more targeted customer. But keep in mind that people share because of emotions, so make sure to catch their emotion. Try this video ad from Korea which is so hilarious its going viral in our country.

 

[fishbate]

There is no doubt about video being more effective in getting the message across and as well having a good persuasive pressure point on its viewers but the question is does everyone actually have that patience to watch a video advertisement till the end? I read somewhere a while back that most times, people don't actually give into watching videos as looking through pictures seems to be more swift for them. What do you make of such analysis?

I think its not about watching a video till the end. A full video add would be boring to watch, that's why some brands kept it straight by bringing the title of the product mostly at first glance. Usually product adds last only about 15 secs specially when it's embedded on another video or content.

I read about a study that explains repeated visual representations actually is a form of brainwashing, i forgot about the articles origin but somehow i agree with it.

 

[Martinsx]

I think its not about watching a video till the end. A full video add would be boring to watch, that's why some brands kept it straight by bringing the title of the product mostly at first glance. Usually product adds last only about 15 secs specially when it's embedded on another video or content.

I read about a study that explains repeated visual representations actually is a form of brainwashing, i forgot about the articles origin but somehow i agree with it.

It's true what you mentioned, if the video ad is made short and with details of the advertisement well discussed in the shortest possible time, I believe that most people would make use of such video but when it's too long, they won't likely make use of it. Personally, I don't watch any ad that is more than 30 seconds long.

 

[Martinsx]

Videos for me too. As they all stated, videos already contains images in it along with audios. What good in videos is that it engages even the laziest person or customer here is, most people are too busy to read all the product contents so with video ads it'll be more easier for them, you just have to make sure that the ad is not just visual catchy but at the same time should be good in the ears as well. And in addition to this videos are shareable, so you can expect your video ad reach more targeted customer. But keep in mind that people share because of emotions, so make sure to catch their emotion. Try this video ad from Korea which is so hilarious its going viral in our country.

If the video is appealing to viewers emotions, there are definitely going to share it after watching and such would widen the reach of the advert video clip thereby giving it more possibility of getting more viewers.

 

[Martinsx]

If I am a marketer, I would take the time to explore my options and if possible, I would utilize both of them since both also has its individual advantages. However, since almost all answered that video is more effective, I want to highlight the advantages of using images or photos. I have to say it outright, not every ad needs a video. Sometimes, a high quality image is all that you need in order to attract the attention of the target audience and convey your desired message or content. Image ads are also more cost-effective than video ads. Yes, videos can be powerful and are crowded in everyone's news feeds, but they can also be very time consuming. If it's poorly done, the viewers can easily say it was a waste of time.

I think that you have made a valid point here. The nature of the advertisement needed goes a long way in determining the best tool to use for the adverts. If Pictures are going to be more effective than videos, it's best to choose it ahead of video and if videos are better, It's better to use it ahead of pictures.

 

[Martinsx]

Well, I'd go for video as well because I think it already contains images as well as it also gives sounds which is whether a voice message or/and just a sound effects. I have noticed too that making a video as a tool for advertising is very useful and essential because millennial nowadays are visual people. Advertisement via videos gives people more ideas and they can easily react with moving objects and continuous motion of explanation since it is easier to understand.

It's true that video advertising seems to carry more impact than just pictures but it takes more to put in a good video advertisement and when it's not properly done, it would be a complete waste of time and effort, and it's likely to have a negative impact on the products and services being advertised.

 

[jaybee19]

I would go with video too. It utilizes both visual and hearing senses of the people. If they hear a part of the ad that catches their attention, it could attract them to watch the whole ad. The bad thing about a video ad is if it is not engaging in the first seconds of the video, the ad will lose the audience because it will no longer pay attention to it.

Exactly. I also prefer videos because it can cater most of our senses. For images, it will always depend with the design and if the design is not too eye-catching, it would be a waste of resources to fund print ads.

 

[Barida]

I would go for videos.. i think video as an advertiser makes a significant result in terms of profitability. Videos are very interactive and enticing at the same time. Also the content in a video is more flexible in terms of advertising. You can almost add everything in a video as long as its legal. Lastly videos nowadays can be integrated in other media which makes it more reliable.

Using exciting videos for advertising is simply the best thing that anyone can do since many people are now getting tired of the buzz around written words. I prefer the video type of advertising since it has proven to bring better results over time.

 

[Martinsx]

Using exciting videos for advertising is simply the best thing that anyone can do since many people are now getting tired of the buzz around written words. I prefer the video type of advertising since it has proven to bring better results over time.

Video advertising is a very good one but it's only going to be effective when you have made a very good video production of what you are advertising. This is where most people fail in video marketing, they believe that it's something that you get to do just anyhow and because it's a video advertisement, it would be successful but sorry to break it to such person that it doesn't work that way.

 

[Martinsx]

Exactly. I also prefer videos because it can cater most of our senses. For images, it will always depend with the design and if the design is not too eye-catching, it would be a waste of resources to fund print ads.

There is no doubt about how good and effective videos when it comes to passing messages to the targeted audience. They are most likely to understand and remember the advert information easier than the words or image only advertisements.

 

[Marako0406]

Both is better of course, but use video first and make it unconventional with the twist at the end of it like leaving something that imprints the one who will watch. Y'all know what they say, "first impression last". I thought it would really be nice if your going to make it simple and not lengthy. Then add some photos that could not be seen in the video. I bet it would be really effective since people in the now tend to watch photos and videos most of the time.

 

[martinsmith]

Both image and video look good in the advertisement, but it depends on the type of ad we should choose. Select unique images and genuine video content...

 

[zeeshan]

I think video advertising is the best choice.