Case Study: Winning With Online Branding

By 2002, the average banner ad click-through rate had fallen well below one percent, down from the two to three percent that was common when banner advertising was still a novelty in the mid-1990s. Users had learned to tune banners out entirely, a phenomenon the industry had started calling banner blindness. At the same time, Jakob Nielsen’s widely circulated critique of all-Flash homepage intros (“Flash: 99% Bad,” published in 2000) had pushed usability into the branding conversation: a splashy animated intro that made visitors wait before they could find anything was actively hurting the impression a site left, no matter how polished it looked.

Against that backdrop, a lot of businesses in 2002 were still trying to solve declining brand recall by spending more on the same banner placements that were no longer working. A more useful case is the business that stopped trying to shout louder and instead fixed the inconsistency that was undermining trust in the first place.

The composite case

Picture a regional financial services firm (an illustrative example, not a real named company) that had built its online presence in pieces over several years: a homepage with a heavy Flash introduction, a separate contact page built by a different vendor with mismatched fonts and colors and an email newsletter template that looked like it belonged to a different company entirely. Individually none of these were disasters. Together they made the business look smaller and less trustworthy than it was, at a moment when online trust signals mattered enormously for a financial services company trying to convince visitors to hand over personal information.

What changed

The firm did not run a bigger banner campaign. It ran an audit of every page and email template a customer might encounter and fixed the inconsistencies: one color palette, one typeface family, one clear statement of what the company did and who it served, repeated identically across the homepage, the contact page, the email footer and the printed materials that fed traffic to the site. The Flash intro was removed entirely in favor of a page that loaded quickly and told a visitor within seconds what the business offered.

None of this was expensive. It was mostly a matter of deciding on a consistent presentation and then applying it everywhere, rather than letting each new page or campaign be designed in isolation.

The result

Visitors who arrived through search, referral or a printed ad now encountered the same look and the same message no matter which page they landed on first, which meant the brand was reinforced by every touchpoint instead of being diluted across several inconsistent ones. The firm did not report a single dramatic spike in traffic. What it reported was a steadier lift in repeat visits and referral business over the following two quarters, the kind of result that comes from visitors trusting what they see rather than from any one campaign going viral.

Why this held up

The broader lesson from 2002 was that online branding was not primarily a spending problem. Banner fatigue had already proven that louder advertising was hitting diminishing returns. What still worked, and what cost relatively little to fix, was consistency: making sure that everywhere a customer encountered the business, they saw the same clear promise. That is a less exciting story than a clever ad campaign, but it is the one that produced businesses customers remembered and trusted.

---

Keep exploring: browse more Marketing Strategy guides, see everything we published in 2002 or check out the Digital Business Marketing Awards.