The average Internet user was exposed to an estimated 950 banner ads in 2005. Most receive little attention, as evidenced...
GMAT Reading Comprehension : (RC) Questions
The average Internet user was exposed to an estimated 950 banner ads in 2005. Most receive little attention, as evidenced by the 0.5 percent click-through rate in 2003 (the percentage of website visitors who click on a banner ad), and the click-through rate has been in steady decline from 1996 at least through 2007.
The decline in click-through rates has led many researchers to explore ways of increasing online advertising effectiveness. This has led, in turn, to more interest in conversion rate (percentage of click-throughs that result in purchases of the advertised product) and view-through rates (visits to advertised e-commerce websites prompted by banner ads viewed without click-throughs). In fact, one online-marketing firm reported that in a study of banner-ad campaigns, 85.7 percent of those generating the highest click-through rates generated lower conversion rates than those with lower click-through rates.
Recently, several researchers have shown that banner ads affect consumers' attitude toward a brand independent of click-through rate. They help build brand equity (the brand's monetary value as a business asset) and can improve brand awareness, brand preference, and consumer purchase intentions. Researchers Dreze and Hussherh have successfully shown that much processing of banner ads occurs at the pre-attentive level, which results in low click-through rates—despite favorable effects on users' recall, recognition, and level of awareness of the ads.
Which of the following most accurately describes the primary purpose of the passage?
1. Passage Analysis:
Progressive Passage Analysis
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
|---|---|
| The average Internet user was exposed to an estimated 950 banner ads in 2005. | What it says: People saw about 950 banner ads that year What it does: Establishes baseline - sets up the sheer volume of banner ads Source/Type: Statistical fact Connection to Previous Sentences: This is our opening - no previous information to connect to yet Visualization: Imagine seeing 950 banner ads spread across an entire year - that's roughly 2-3 ads per day Reading Strategy Insight: Simple statistical opener - authors often start with concrete numbers to ground us in the topic What We Know So Far: Banner ads are everywhere What We Don't Know Yet: Whether people actually pay attention to them |
| Most receive little attention, as evidenced by the 0.5 percent click-through rate in 2003 (the percentage of website visitors who click on a banner ad), and the click-through rate has been in steady decline from 1996 at least through 2007. | What it says: Despite seeing many ads, people barely click on them (only 0.5%), and this rate keeps getting worse What it does: Answers the natural question from sentence 1 - provides the "but here's the problem" follow-up Source/Type: Statistical evidence with definition Connection to Previous Sentences: This directly builds on sentence 1's setup. Sentence 1 told us people see lots of ads; NOW sentence 2 tells us they ignore most of them. Perfect logical flow. Visualization: Out of 1000 people who see a banner ad, only 5 people click on it. And this tiny number keeps shrinking year after year from 1996 to 2007. Reading Strategy Insight: Feel confident here - the author is setting up a clear problem-solution structure What We Know So Far: Banner ads are everywhere but largely ineffective What We Don't Know Yet: What researchers are doing about this problem |
| The decline in click-through rates has led many researchers to explore ways of increasing online advertising effectiveness. | What it says: Because click-through rates are dropping, researchers are looking for better ways to make online ads work What it does: Logical transition - introduces the research response to the problem Source/Type: Factual observation about research trends Connection to Previous Sentences: This is the natural "so what are people doing about it?" response to the problem established in sentences 1-2. Perfect cause-and-effect relationship. Visualization: Picture researchers in labs and universities saying "These 0.5% click rates aren't working - we need new approaches" Reading Strategy Insight: This is classic RC structure - problem identified, now we're moving to solutions What We Know So Far: Banner ads have low effectiveness, prompting research into alternatives What We Don't Know Yet: What specific alternatives researchers are exploring |
| This has led, in turn, to more interest in conversion rate (percentage of click-throughs that result in purchases of the advertised product) and view-through rates (visits to advertised e-commerce websites prompted by banner ads viewed without click-throughs). | What it says: Researchers are now focusing on two new metrics: how many clicks actually lead to purchases, and how many people visit websites after seeing ads without clicking What it does: Provides specific examples of the "new approaches" mentioned in the previous sentence Source/Type: Factual explanation with technical definitions Connection to Previous Sentences: This elaborates on sentence 3. Sentence 3 said researchers are exploring new ways; NOW sentence 4 gives us the specific new metrics they're using. Visualization: Instead of just counting clicks (like the old 0.5% rate), researchers now track: (1) clicks that turn into actual purchases, and (2) people who see an ad, don't click, but visit the website later Reading Strategy Insight: The author is helping us by defining technical terms right away - this shows consideration for readers What We Know So Far: Researchers moved beyond simple click-through rates to more sophisticated metrics What We Don't Know Yet: What these new approaches are revealing |
| In fact, one online-marketing firm reported that in a study of banner-ad campaigns, 85.7 percent of those generating the highest click-through rates generated lower conversion rates than those with lower click-through rates. | What it says: A surprising finding: ads with high click rates often have low purchase rates, while ads with low click rates often have high purchase rates What it does: Provides concrete evidence that challenges assumptions about click-through rates Source/Type: Research finding from an online-marketing firm Connection to Previous Sentences: This gives us the payoff for the new metrics introduced in sentence 4. The conversion rate concept just defined is now showing surprising results. Visualization: Campaign A: 100 clicks, 5 purchases vs Campaign B: 50 clicks, 15 purchases. Campaign A has higher click-through rate but Campaign B has better conversion rate. Reading Strategy Insight: This is a classic "conventional wisdom is wrong" moment - more clicks doesn't necessarily mean more sales What We Know So Far: Click-through rates can be misleading - they don't predict actual purchases well What We Don't Know Yet: What other benefits banner ads might have |
| Recently, several researchers have shown that banner ads affect consumers' attitude toward a brand independent of click-through rate. | What it says: Banner ads influence how people feel about brands, even when people don't click on the ads What it does: Introduces a completely different way to measure ad effectiveness - psychological impact rather than behavioral response Source/Type: Multiple research findings Connection to Previous Sentences: This builds on the theme from sentence 5 - we're learning click-through rates don't tell the whole story. Now we're seeing ads have value even WITHOUT clicks. Visualization: Person sees a Nike banner ad, doesn't click, but later thinks more positively about Nike when shopping Reading Strategy Insight: The passage is systematically dismantling our assumptions about banner ad effectiveness What We Know So Far: Banner ads work in ways that click-through rates don't capture What We Don't Know Yet: What specific psychological effects these are |
| They help build brand equity (the brand's monetary value as a business asset) and can improve brand awareness, brand preference, and consumer purchase intentions. | What it says: Banner ads increase brand value and make people more aware of, prefer, and intend to buy from brands What it does: Elaborates on the previous sentence with specific examples Source/Type: Research findings with helpful definition Connection to Previous Sentences: This is pure elaboration - sentence 6 said ads affect attitudes; NOW sentence 7 lists exactly how they affect attitudes. Visualization: After seeing McDonald's banner ads (without clicking): people recognize the brand faster, prefer it over competitors, and are more likely to plan a visit Reading Strategy Insight: Feel relieved here - this is simplification, not new complexity. The author is breaking down the abstract concept from sentence 6 into concrete benefits. What We Know So Far: Banner ads have measurable psychological and business benefits beyond clicks What We Don't Know Yet: The mechanism behind these effects |
| Researchers Dreze and Hussherh have successfully shown that much processing of banner ads occurs at the pre-attentive level, which results in low click-through rates—despite favorable effects on users' recall, recognition, and level of awareness of the ads. | What it says: Two specific researchers proved that people process banner ads subconsciously, which explains why click rates are low even though the ads improve memory and recognition What it does: Provides the scientific explanation for everything we've learned so far Source/Type: Specific research study with named researchers Connection to Previous Sentences: This is the "aha!" moment that explains the entire passage. It connects back to: sentence 2 (why click rates are low), sentences 6-7 (why ads still affect attitudes), and sentence 5 (why clicks don't predict effectiveness). Visualization: Like humming a jingle you heard on the radio - you weren't consciously paying attention, but your brain processed and remembered it anyway Reading Strategy Insight: This is a classic RC conclusion that ties everything together - the passage has been building to this explanation all along What We Know So Far: Banner ads work through subconscious processing, which explains their low click rates but positive brand effects What We Don't Know Yet: Nothing major - the passage has completed its argument |
2. Passage Summary:
Author's Purpose:
To explain how our understanding of banner ad effectiveness has changed as researchers discovered that click-through rates don't tell the whole story about how well ads actually work.
Summary of Passage Structure:
The author builds their argument in clear steps:
- First, they establish that banner ads are everywhere but seem ineffective because people rarely click on them and click rates keep dropping
- Next, they explain how this problem led researchers to look for better ways to measure ad effectiveness beyond just counting clicks
- Then, they present surprising findings that ads with high click rates often don't lead to many sales, while ads can still influence people's feelings about brands even without clicks
- Finally, they provide the scientific explanation that people process banner ads subconsciously, which explains why click rates are low but the ads still work to build brand awareness and preference
Main Point:
Banner ads are actually more effective than click-through rates suggest because people process them subconsciously, which means the ads can successfully build brand awareness and influence purchasing decisions even when people don't click on them.
3. Question Analysis:
This is a primary purpose question asking us to identify what the author's main goal was in writing this passage. We need to look at the overall structure and flow rather than getting caught up in specific details.
Connecting to Our Passage Analysis:
Our progressive analysis reveals a clear pattern:
- The passage starts by establishing a problem (low click-through rates on banner ads)
- It then shows how researchers responded by exploring new measurement approaches
- It presents research findings that challenge conventional assumptions about ad effectiveness
- It concludes with scientific explanations for these surprising results
The passage analysis shows this is fundamentally about "exploring results of research findings" - we see multiple studies mentioned (the online-marketing firm study, various researchers' work on brand attitudes, and Dreze and Hussherh's pre-attentive processing research).
Prethinking:
The author's primary purpose is to present and explain various research findings about banner ad effectiveness. The passage doesn't advocate for one particular measurement method, doesn't argue that banner ads are unsuccessful, and doesn't focus narrowly on click-through improvement strategies. Instead, it systematically explores what researchers have discovered about how banner ads actually work, culminating in the insight about subconscious processing that explains the apparent paradox between low click rates and actual effectiveness.
Why It's Wrong:
- The passage doesn't advocate for one "best" measurement method but rather explores multiple approaches (conversion rates, view-through rates, brand equity measures)
- The author presents various metrics as complementary rather than identifying a single superior approach
- The focus is on explaining research findings rather than making prescriptive recommendations
Common Student Mistakes:
- Did the author recommend specific measurement approaches like conversion rates?
→ The author described what researchers are exploring, not what they personally recommend as "best" - Doesn't the passage suggest better ways to measure ad impact?
→ Suggesting doesn't equal identifying "the best way" - the passage shows multiple valid approaches
Why It's Wrong:
- The passage actually argues the opposite - that banner ads are MORE successful than click-through rates suggest
- The research findings show ads have positive effects on brand equity, awareness, and purchase intentions
- The conclusion emphasizes that ads work through subconscious processing, making them effective despite low click rates
Common Student Mistakes:
- Doesn't the low 0.5% click-through rate show ads are unsuccessful?
→ The passage uses this as a starting point to show why click rates are misleading measures of success - Isn't declining click-through rate evidence of failure?
→ The author shows this decline led to discovering other forms of effectiveness that experts had missed
Why It's Wrong:
- The passage actually explains why focusing on quick click-through rates is problematic
- The research shows that ads with higher click rates often have lower conversion rates
- The focus shifts away from click-through rate improvement toward understanding broader effectiveness
Common Student Mistakes:
- Doesn't the passage discuss new measurement approaches that could improve click rates?
→ The new approaches (conversion rates, view-through rates) measure different things, not ways to improve clicks - Isn't exploring effectiveness the same as improving click-through rates?
→ The passage shows effectiveness can exist independent of clicks through subconscious processing
Why It's Wrong:
- While the passage mentions recall, recognition, and awareness, these are supporting details rather than the primary focus
- The author doesn't provide extensive data about consumer recall abilities
- The recall information appears only in the final sentence as part of explaining subconscious processing
Common Student Mistakes:
- Doesn't the mention of "recall, recognition, and level of awareness" make this about consumer memory?
→ This data supports the larger point about subconscious processing rather than being the main focus - Isn't understanding how people remember ads the key point?
→ The key point is how research findings changed our understanding of overall ad effectiveness
Why It's Right:
- The passage systematically presents multiple research findings: the online-marketing firm study, research on brand attitudes, and Dreze and Hussherh's work on pre-attentive processing
- The structure moves from problem identification to research responses to specific findings to explanatory theory
- The author's role is consistently that of an objective presenter of research results rather than an advocate or critic
Key Evidence: "The decline in click-through rates has led many researchers to explore ways of increasing online advertising effectiveness. This has led, in turn, to more interest in conversion rate... Recently, several researchers have shown that banner ads affect consumers' attitude toward a brand... Researchers Dreze and Hussherh have successfully shown..."