Adver­tis­ers are “often wrong about what attracts our atten­tion” is the con­clu­sion of a usabil­ity study look­ing at how users inter­act with online advertising.

The study, pub­lished in the report Eye­track­ing Web Usabil­ity by the Nielsen Nor­man Group (a usabil­ity con­sul­tancy firm from Jakob Nielsen and Kara Per­nice), sug­gests that text-only adver­tis­ing is the most effec­tive adver­tis­ing method for many web­sites.

Do you think you’re more likely to look at an online ad if it con­tains 1) a pic­ture, 2) an ani­ma­tion or 3) just text? The answer: just text. […]

The head­line result: sim­pler is bet­ter (not to men­tion prob­a­bly cheaper to pro­duce). Par­tic­i­pants in the study looked at 52% of ads that con­tained only text, 52% of ads that had images and text sep­a­rately and 51% of spon­sored links on search-engine pages. Ads that got a lot less atten­tion included those that imposed text on top of images (peo­ple looked at just 35% of those) and ones that included ani­ma­tion (it might seem move­ment is attention-grabbing, but only 29% of these ads gar­nered a look). […]

Peo­ple in the study saw 36% of the ads on the pages they vis­ited — not a bad hit rate. The aver­age time a per­son spent look­ing at an ad, though, was brief — one-third of a second.

This is an evo­lu­tion of what Nielsen called ban­ner blind­ness, right?

via @contentini