Do You Prefer Video Ads or Static Creatives for Cold Audiences?

[Zephyrella]

I wondering which works better for cold audiences: video ads or static creatives. lIseen both being used, but I amcurious about what works best in real campaigns. What do you guys prefer and why? Would love to hear your experiences!

 

[NeonFalconX]

In my opinion, static ads are easy to test because you can make few versions without spending much time.

 

[trent bolt]

In my opinion, videos would be more effective in introducing your product to a cold audience; however, static creatives would likely be cheaper and faster to test. I would run tests with both and allow the CTR and conversions decide.

 

[RynoxaPPC]

I think the platform matters too. Some audiences respond better to images, while others watch short videos.

 

[EchoBanana]

I wondering which works better for cold audiences: video ads or static creatives. lIseen both being used, but I amcurious about what works best in real campaigns. What do you guys prefer and why? Would love to hear your experiences!

I think the first few seconds of a video matter a lot. If nothing interesting happens, people just scroll past.

 

[lighteigami]

I usually prefer video for cold audiences, gets attention quicker if done right.

 

[harborline]

For cold audiences, I choose to use video ads due to their ability to create immediate attention and describe product benefits.

 

[roydan]

Video ads takes less time to produce than static ads took a year ago. No reason to "test with statics" anymore.

 

[SnorbiVale]

Depends on the offer tbh, both can work.

 

[Hacker buddy]

I think both can work, but I'd lean towards video ads for cold audiences because they grab attention and explain the product better. Still, a simple static creative with a strong message can work really well too.

 

[ArcticMango31]

I like video ads to target cold audiences since they capture attention and describe the product very fast.

 

[ARQENfinance]

I wondering which works better for cold audiences: video ads or static creatives. lIseen both being used, but I amcurious about what works best in real campaigns. What do you guys prefer and why? Would love to hear your experiences!

From my experience, it heavily depends on the vertical and the traffic source, but for gambling, video ads almost always outperform statics.

Gambling is all about emotions and adrenaline. It's much harder to trigger that kind of emotional response with a static image, whereas a video gives you a few seconds to hook the viewer, unfold a solid angle, and show real dynamics or gameplay elements.

Of course, everything should be tested based on your specific funnel, but video usually takes the lead when you need to drive emotional engagement for cold audiences.

 

[nsclock]

I've generally had better results with static creatives when the image catches attention straight away. A good video with strong editing can outperform them, but I find statics quicker to test and get useful results from. For cold audiences, I'd usually start with images, though I wouldn't rule out video.