I read on a blog about the lack of rich media ads and not many ads that are considered rich media are not rich at all. If the Flash ad does not contain video nor animation, then it recommended, not to bother. So what do you think about that?
An excerpt:
# There's a lot of rich media being served – but most of it's not very rich. DoubleClick says that in 2008, less than 40% of the impressions it served were GIFs or JPEGs. So does that mean the other 60% were rich media? Not according to DoubleClick: it says 55% of its 2008 impressions were "simple Flash" ads. Just 6% of the impressions served in 2008 were rich enough to be labeled "rich media."
Rich Media is now defined as: advertisements with which users can interact (as opposed to solely animation and excluding click-through functionality) in a web page format. These advertisements can be used either singularly or in combination with various technologies, including but not limited to sound, video, or Flash, and with programming languages such as Java, Javascript, and DHTML. These Guidelines cover standard Web applications including e-mail, static (e.g. html) and dynamic (e.g. asp) Web pages, and may appear in ad formats such as banners and buttons as well as transitionals and various over-the-page units such as floating ads, page take-overs, and tear-backs.
No one has posted to this discussion for at least three months. Please let old threads die and do not reply to them unless you feel you have something new and valuable to contribute that absolutely must be added to make the discussion complete. Otherwise, please start a new thread in this forum instead.
Unsolved 
