Everyone loves videos: how to create converting creatives

What are the advantages of video creatives?

Expert opinion

Different types of creatives convert differently across different audience segments, so it is crucial to rotate approaches and see how they perform in terms of lead conversion and quality from the advertiser's perspective.

Our main source is Facebook*, so I can answer specifically about it. Depending on the GEOs we work with, for European countries, the age group is 25+ and above. Naturally, it's challenging to separate the response by gender since both male and female audiences respond and convert differently. As for teenagers, it depends on the target audience, but we generally focus on ages 25 and above.

We have now moved away from targeting under 30 in the weight loss niche. In other niches, we start from 35-45 years old, so I cannot say much about teenagers. Regarding gender/age, it's highly subjective as it depends on the video itself. If you follow the right script in the video, you will effectively capture the attention of both genders.

I wouldn't say that there is a specific audience that clicks only on videos or mostly on images. No. The strength of your offer matters, and if it's good, you will get effectiveness from the advertising campaign.

It's individual, but conventionally - up to 15 seconds.

The optimal video duration for Facebook* is 30 seconds or more; it all depends on the buyer's preference and the way information is presented in the creative.

There's a cool format of 6 seconds where we make a super accent on the problem but don't offer a solution and don't show the result. Such videos achieve excellent ratios of complaints to normal reactions, and their average watch time is higher than the length of the video itself, creating a "viral" effect as people watch them repeatedly. And logically, the fewer elements in the video, the less chance of rejection. Of course, the structure is problem/pain_solution_benefit_result. It's a classic recipe that fits within 12-15 seconds.

Depending on the approach, the optimal video length is determined. But generally, it is up to 13-16 seconds.

If we are talking about native placements, there is no difference here. After all, it's arbitrage, and standard marketing methods work less explicitly. The main task is to hook the user at any cost and make them take action. Typically, two mechanics are used - "wow" and "scary," meaning attracting the user with a beautiful picture and a story (for example, how a janitor won a million at a casino) or scaring them with something (there are plenty of examples in teasers).

Certainly, the creative should "hook" the user so that they further convert on our offer, which is why buyers often use emotional approaches to elicit the desired response.

We aim for maximum virality and high CTR. Our goal is to push as many people as possible to the next element of the funnel. We try to walk the line between success and failure, pushing the boundaries.

It is crucial to understand the purpose behind doing this. Why do you not allow the user to skip the video and make them watch it? Is it because your offer is at the end? Why not think about how to capture the user's attention from the first few seconds so that their desire to watch your video is natural, not forced. By forcing the average view duration to increase by preventing users from skipping, you are unlikely to achieve any effectiveness. If a person wants to skip the video and you don't allow it, all you will get is a complaint from them. The effectiveness of such views is not something you can expect. The first rule of advertising is to capture the user's interest in the first 3 seconds and then keep them engaged with the content. This way, your campaigns will be maximally effective.

Lately, I have reconsidered my approach to creating creatives, and based on my experience, I can say just one thing: getting too deep into theory and trying to come up with a brilliant creative based on social engineering in arbitrage is mostly pointless. It takes up a tremendous amount of time and effort, which could be better spent on running and optimizing traffic, yielding much greater results. The best scheme of all is to check the spy, recreate the creatives from there in your own style (basically just redesigning), monitor the performance, and then fine-tune or fix something based on the results obtained.

I am inclined to always prefer high-quality and beautiful creatives because the subsequent conversion and traffic quality depend on them. So, I am always in favor of high-quality creatives!

Story and visuals triumph over editing. Our target audience includes all women/men who read everything similar to what is popular in the CIS. Yellow press, soap operas, some wild shows. Look at how they manage their social media - most likely, their content will resemble what was popular on VKontakte back in the 2008s. Therefore, the main thing is what we show, not how we show it.

It depends on the message you want to convey to the users. There are approaches where you simply can't do it poorly or unprofessionally, but there is also the opposite side when you need to show not a professional shoot but rather the result of using the product/service in, for example, home conditions. Therefore, making a highly professional shoot in this story will not be trustworthy for the user's eyes because these types of advertisements are distinguishable.

It depends on what is invested in the word "advantageous" =) Naturally, if you do it yourself, it will cost you $0, and if you hire a designer, you will either pay per creative or a fixed salary. If we consider that the buyer/team runs a lot of campaigns and requires a constant influx of new quality creatives, then having an in-house designer is essential. It is faster, more cost-effective, and safer (projects are kept within the company).

Definitely, having an in-house creative specialist is essential because such a professional is better able to understand the needs of the buyers and execute tasks promptly. As for the costs, it all depends on the volume of work: if you need 5-10 creatives per month, then it's easier to outsource them remotely. However, when you have 50-100 creatives, having an in-house creative specialist is essential.

In the long run, your in-house production will win, but ordering custom creatives can help thoroughly test all hypotheses and build a database of successful approaches. The professionals there already have the experience, but if you don't come up with different approaches, that's a problem.

Of course, having in-house designers simplifies the task of working with creatives since you don't have to, firstly, wait in line for creatives, and secondly, it's cheaper in bulk, and you can assign a lot of tasks to the designer within a single day. At the end of the month, with a substantial team of employees, it becomes more cost-effective and efficient because everyone can focus on their respective tasks.

Conclusion