Compare
Playable ads vs static and video creative
This is not a comparison of suppliers but of formats. Static and video buy attention. A playable buys a decision, which is a different and usually more valuable thing.
| Static and video creative | Make It Playable | |
|---|---|---|
| What the viewer does | Watches, or scrolls past | Operates the product for a few seconds |
| Signal before the click | None — the click is the first signal | Interaction reveals intent before the click |
| Traffic quality | Broader, noisier | Fewer clicks, better qualified |
| Production cost | Low for static, high for good video | One credit per build |
| Reach | Every placement, every channel | Networks and placements that accept interactive units |
| Iteration | New shoot or new edit | New version from the same brief in minutes |
| Measurement | Impressions, views, clicks | The same, plus what people did inside the ad |
Where the other option is better
Video still wins on raw reach and on emotional storytelling. Do not replace it.
Playables need a decision worth simulating. If your product has none, a strong static will out-perform a contrived mini-game.
The usual winning mix is video for the top of the funnel and a playable for the channels that reward interaction.
Add a playable next to what you already run, and judge it on cost per qualified action rather than cost per click.
Other comparisons