if obama wins the election, it won't be because he took out banner ads in video games?*

* A sentence from an IM conversation this morning. I really like Google's "In Quotes" thing. It reminded me of advertising vs. "facts" or, if you like this better, advertising vs. ROI situation (yep, apparently, it is a "vs" deal). It all starts with the really old question of wasted advertising. Are your ads effective? More importantly, perhaps, what does it even mean to be effective? (to drive sales? um, ok). If this is really the case, “typically what consumers do is they remember they saw the ad for a discounted fare to Vegas, but they can’t remember who it was from,” [so they type it into Google] (a statement by Michael Hayes). All (online advertising) roads seem to lead to Google. (But forget not Microsoft "engagement mapping" initiative - it works only when your cookies are on. a tricky situation - no cookies, no tracking which ads consumers had seen). What I am actually wondering is if does it really matter than if someone creates a super-fun display ad, with a ton of flash (+ little aliens), or a video game? In short, how much does it really matter if consumer is exposed to brand message throughout a *fun* display experience? Would it make her go to the store and buy a product? Even if she soundly memorizes what the brand was, how that little fun piece of engagement has anything to do with the sale of a product? Can an advertiser really claim that higher "engagement score" mean higher purchase intent? I guess I am wondering if there can ever be a hard-core facts list, like the one above, that correlates the engagement score with a purchase intent & product sales, which would give an idea of a ROI?