The GDPUK.com Blog

All that's new in the world of dentistry
OCT
26
0

What makes a successful banner ad?

What makes a successful banner ad?

 

 

A few basic things are always needed in a banner ad to ultimately give you an excellent click through rate. (CTR) We have collected our experiences and thoughts together to produce a short blog on what makes a successful banner advert.

 

A clear call to action (CTA), has to make sense for your product or service. Such as “Shop Now”, “Learn More” etc. A call to action always has to be included.

Secondly the banner ad can be compared to the billboard in the street, the consumer has a split second to decide if they are interested in the product or service. So you need to decide what you want the consumer to see and take away in those few seconds you have to grab attention to your product or service. This can be a catchy headline, an aspirational image or a hybrid of the two!

Basic animation is also always recommended. Animated GIF is therefore recommended over a static image. Keep it simple and to the point, telling a story rarely works. But the advantage of the animated GIF is that you can put together a  series of frames then combine them in such an order that will eventually form some sort of animation and attract attention.

A theme I always go back to when talking to customers is the landing page. The clickthrough needs to land on a landing page that delivers what the banner ad promises. So that when you do secure the click from the consumer, you make sure they get the information the consumer desires. So basically you need to ensure you promote a product or service and not a website / homepage!

This blog - http://www.boxofads.com/blog/always-fine-tune-your-landing-page/ sums up the value of a landing page quite nicely. While designing a campaign think about it as a whole, an ad makes the first impression, and a landing page is a continuation of this impression.

We also recommend that our clients don’t just have one version of the their banner ad. We always say to test the colours, the CTA or the headline and see what works in line with the branding of your business. The software we use (DFP) can handle more than one ad in the space you book, so it's always worth testing a few banners and seeing what performs best. The same can also be said of landing pages as well.

Thanks for reading, hope this short guide to what makes a successful banner is useful.

 
  1910 Hits
1910 Hits
SEP
15
0

GDPUK is 20 years old.

GDPUK is 20 years old.

 

Today is the 20th anniversary of the first posts by four members of GDPUK, by email.


Yes, that is how we started, unbelievably before Google and Facebook!

I do love telling this story, and I'd like to share it with you. I was online from 1996, in those days it was dial up with those nostalgic modem sounds. The web was much more simple in 1997, and I taught myself, as many of you did, how to write a web page, rudimentary html, including how to upload it and make it display. I was interested in email communication, and before the ease of modern social media, email lists were the best method, using an internet protocol older than the WWW.

I was a member of an American dental group, IDF, which is still going, but it was very US centred, not particularly useful for a UK dentist. In April 1997, I got the idea of founding a mailing list for UK dentists, and thought about how to get a group together. The BDJ was the way forward.

So, I wrote a letter on my word processor software, posted to BDJ that month and carried on with work and my family. This was the pace of life only 20 years ago. Then in June, [only 8 weeks later :) ] I received a postcard [!!] from the editor of BDJ, saying yes, we will publish your letter. So, in the second August magazine, my letter was published, three colleagues replied, and we got started in the September. Here is the Medline link to that letter .... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9293127

 

I must have the hard copy somewhere, ready for the GDPUK museum!!

We are celebrating the anniversary of GDPUK with our Conference in November. Early bird discounts available here https://www.gdpuk.com/conference/ I am looking forward to an interesting and unique day in Manchester - meeting colleagues old and new... all are welcome.

Looking forward to a celebratory drink with you all at the end of that day… cheers.

Thanks for reading and helping GDPUK grow for 20 years.

 

Tony

 
  4372 Hits
4372 Hits
SEP
15
0

GDC Watch Summer 2016

GDC Watch Summer 2016

Having been somewhat distracted by the school holidays, my latest blog considers some of the cases that managed to pique my interest, and gathers my collective thoughts during the months of both July and August. So that you are looking through the same lens, I’ll start off with the ‘legal definitions’ of misconduct:

Lord Clyde described misconduct in Roylance v the GMC (2002):

‘misconduct is a word of general effect, involving some act or omission which falls short of what would be proper in the circumstances. The standard of propriety may often be found by reference to the rules and standards ordinarily required to be followed by a medical practitioner in the particular circumstances’.

This definition was expanded in Nandi v GMC (2004), in that misconduct means a serious departure from the acceptable standard that is not just below the acceptable standard but:
 

‘conduct which would be regarded as deplorable by fellow practitioners.’


It has been further clarified in Meadow v GMC (2006) that misconduct sits at the same threshold for disciplinary intervention as the historic phrase ‘serious professional misconduct’:
 

‘As to what constitutes "serious professional misconduct…..it is inconceivable
that "misconduct" – now one of the categories of impairment of fitness to practise…..
should signify a lower threshold for disciplinary intervention’


On reading some of the recent charge sheets it appears that we have perhaps lost sight of misconduct, and moved on from the days where urinating in the spittoon, assaulting nurses or openly breaking wind in front of staff in the surgery sat at the threshold of deplorable conduct. If you have ever accidentally squirted water from the 3 in 1 towards a patient, you ought to be extremely concerned. We now have examples of unprofessional behaviour individually and collectively leading to a charge of misconduct such as:

  • on occasion spraying water on the patient’s bib;
  • throwing gloves at a patient;
  • drinking out of a glass left in the surgery.

And let’s not forget the beauty from a couple of months ago about bouncing balls of impression material down a corridor. How the panels keep a straight face through these types of charge is beyond me, but well done to them. Truthfully, I feel it is a bit embarrassing for the GDC to have it in the public domain. I may be wrong, but I believe that the barristers instructed by the GDC are involved in setting the final charges. With that thought in mind, I took a look at the Bar Standards Association and barristers’ fitness to practice hearings to see what allegations of professional misconduct are levied against them. Here is an example of a concluded Bar fitness to practice tribunal:
http://www.tbtas.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/hearings/3390/Outcome-Posting-Behanzin1.pdf

Observe how it is kept to one side of A4, extremely succinct, and there is nothing in it that may give any third party reading it anything to chuckle about? I also noted the lack of any published charges before the hearing for the sum total of 3 barristers presently listed as awaiting a hearing. This, along with the MPTS hearings begs the question of why does our regulator operate on a different set of rules that on the face of it appear more punitive to their registrants than those applied to equivalent professionals? Although it may give me nothing to write about, I would really urge the GDC to look at paring down their charge sheets and not making them public until after the facts have been determined in both their interests and those of the registrants facing a hearing.
One hearing saw a registrant face a charge of failing to:

adequately treat an on-going adverse oral hygiene condition.

It may just be me, but I can’t work out what this charge is supposed to mean and there is no explanation in the determination. In 17 years of practise I have not been aware I was obliged to ‘treat’ an adverse oral hygiene condition; I was taught that my duty was to offer appropriate preventative advice and oral hygiene instruction. It is, I believe, the patient’s duty to ‘treat their oral hygiene condition’ and I can think of at least one periodontist who would take issue with this allegation. I am not sure how anyone can ‘treat an adverse oral hygiene condition’ save for pitching up at the patients house a couple of times a day and doing the cleaning for them, or bringing them to the surgery daily to see the hygienist. Nevertheless, as is often the case with these hearings, we are made to feel that we have been doing it wrong all along, and nobody bothered to tell us until a hearing.
On that note, charges relating to alleged radiographic record-keeping failings have also been appearing more and more of late including not adequately or properly recording in the clinical record:
 

  • the justification for taking a radiograph;
  • the grading of the quality of a radiograph;
  • and even: the justification for not taking radiographs.

I looked at IRMER(2000), and the NRPB Guidelines which are the legally authoritative documents on radiation last month having been asked to consider the validity of this type of charge. In my opinion, the charges indicate a misunderstanding of what justification is; because it is not the same as the clinical indication for taking a radiograph. In the words of an RPA (with a PhD in clinical physics) I consulted over the matter of justification:

‘ "Justification" as required by IRMER is the process of weighing the probable benefit of a radiation exposure against the probable detriment. It is quite separate from "indication" - the clinical history, provisional diagnosis and intended treatment - and "authorisation" - the decision by the Practitioner that the proposed exposure is of sufficient merit. Both indication and authorisation must be recorded, because these are data, but not justification, which is an intellectual process.’


And his reply with regard to the question of where does IRMER(2000) state that we have to record QA score in the clinical record?:

'Nowhere. However Clinical Audit 8. The employer’s procedures shall include provision for the carrying out of clinical audit as appropriate. and The written procedures for medical exposures shall include— (e)procedures to ensure that quality assurance programmes are followed; Thus it is incumbent to occasionally review image quality, patient dose and clinical relevance, and since there is no other means of assuring the quality of the next image, it is important to check the quality of each image and resolve any anomalies before taking the next one. It can be argued that in order for audit to be properly objective, there should be no contemporaneous written assessment of quality: you audit by picking past images at random and assessing them "cold"'.

You should therefore record any faults or failures that demand corrective action, to provide an audit trail for that action, but images deemed acceptable should be filed without comment in order not to prejudice the audit.

Interesting stuff. I am baffled as to why anyone should be criticised for not recording an intellectual process. It is also clear that we do not have to record a grade in the clinical record, in fact we do not even have to grade every radiograph it seems, just check that the quality is acceptable in preparation for the next exposure and do an audit from time to time. So not only do we face issues with the bar of misconduct being stealthily raised, we are now also being tried and tested on doing things that are not actually required of us. This is why every registrant should be represented at a hearing in my opinion, and should only agree to charges that are indefensible. To admit to a frivolous or spurious charge purely to be seen to be ‘showing insight’ is not a position registrant should ever be put in, but I sadly suspect that is where we presently are.

There was, however, some positive evidence of a panel flagging up a GDC-appointed expert using non-mandatory guidelines as non-negotiable standards:

‘The Committee considered that Ms K’s approach was, at times, rather academically orientated and inflexible. In particular, she relied on a number of guidance sources, including the Faculty of General Dental Practice (FGDP) 2006 guidelines and the British Society of Periodontology guidelines relating to Basic Periodontal Examination (BPE), which, the Committee noted, are not mandatory. Furthermore, when alternative approaches regarding clinical matters were put to Ms K, she did not seem to acknowledge that it might be acceptable to deviate from these guidelines.’

It was last October I recall that the issue of guidelines and misappropriate use was raised by Dental Protection. This, along with the ‘gold standard bar’ really means that too many registrants are having their careers put on the line when there is a lack of clarity over where the threshold for misconduct really sits, and no universally agreed clinical guidelines. I remain in hope that the GDC FtP department is looking at this closely in the pursuit of proportionate regulation.

Moving on to some other cases, in the High Court, a registrant erased earlier in the year was successful in having his case remitted back to the PCC for reconsideration of an erasure. The registrant had got himself in to bother that might have been avoided by having to reapply to the register after his direct debit had failed, and was found to have been dishonest by fudging responses over two convictions for driving whilst under the influence of alcohol. It was held that the PCC had failed to consider relevant mitigating circumstances, namely that the employer had been informed of the convictions but the appeal failed on the challenge of the findings of dishonesty. You can find the judgement here.


Another noteworthy case involved a newly qualified dentist who wound up at an FtP hearing based on performance issues that arose within months of qualification. The question that I am sure on everyone’s minds is ‘how could this happen when the GDC-accredited dental school have allowed him to pass finals?’. Nevertheless, it is nice to see that whilst the GDC-instructed barrister recommended he should be given a reprimand for being let out of dental school too early, there was good evidence of remediation so no current impairment was found. The chap has now completed his VT year and is understandably ‘elated’.

The final case I am going to look at involved another registrant who was erased. This was the second GDC hearing Mr Idris has faced in his career. Having been told by his indemnifiers team during the first hearing that he was facing erasure and this having come rather as a shock they parted company. He instructed his own legal team and the case concluded with conditions. However, self-funding representation for the next hearing was not viable so after several years of reported wrangling with the GDC Mr Idris declined to attend this particular hearing, advising the GDC by email that he would be cleaning up his dogs’ mess instead. As a dog owner I can empathise with this and agree it is a taxing and time consuming task. Mr Idris’s absence was very diplomatically written up into the determination, but should anyone would like to read the unedited version of the email, it can be found here:

http://drtariqidris.co.uk

I’ll leave it here for now. My dog is barking to go out. Duty calls….

  7959 Hits
7959 Hits
AUG
01
0

Online abuse

Online abuse

 

As you all disappear on your long errant holidays – take note.

Finally the GDC have issued a small puff of white smoke from their chimney in Wimpole Street.

After much personal hard work by our colleague Dr Vicky Holden, and an uncertain amount of work by our representative body at the other end of Wimpole Street, the Council of the GDC voted to remove all address details from their on line register.  60,000 mainly female DCPs will I suspect be mightily relieved.  20,000 odd female dentists will rest a little easier.

If you have not been on the end of unwanted attention, it can be many things. Embarrassing … alarming … irritating … flattering …  laughable …  but worst of all of course is when it becomes frightening … perhaps even sinister.

Many of us will have had nurse as employees who find themselves on the receiving end of unwanted attention from some admirer- in-waiting.  Some of us may have even had to step in on occasion

How the previous CEO of the GDC even thought there was any justification in the first place remains a mystery.  But then the workings of the previous CEO were a mystery of course.

Our patients are entitled to know we are registered. In fact 99% of them assume we are.

Perhaps we should put our GDC Number on all correspondence … estimates, invoices, letters etc. I know many do. It’s not a secret.

But it is right that patients with ulterior motives should not be able to pursue an alternative and unwanted agenda.

So hats off to our GDC.  Of course you might ask why the Council did not do this 2 years ago when it still scorchingly obvious to anyone with half a brain that the matter needed addressing, so to speak.

The Council

This episode suggests that the new senior executive management at the GDC are quite different. There is a sense that their agenda may well be one we could subscribe to.

But perhaps this whole ‘address’ saga says more about the Council. It was those 12 Members, 6 of whom are Registrants, who ducked the issue 2 years ago.

It rather confirms in my mind that we have a better Executive in place at the GDC but we still lack a strong Council who will do the right thing at the right time.

Ah yes ...  that brings me to ‘ole Billy boy.  The Old Guard still sitting in that position at the middle of the table I see. Still writing twaddle-blogs! 

Good job he has been able to keep his address secret all these last few years what with all the FtP debacle!!  Perhaps we can look forward to a new method addressing Dr Moyes in the near future:  The Former Chairman …  Then we might see some real changes.

Have a great holiday. May your sun shine on your upturned cheeks!

  5812 Hits
5812 Hits

Please do not re-register if you have forgotten your details,
follow the links above to recover your password &/or username.
If you cannot access your email account, please contact us.