There are relevant studies and findings on this topic, though direct apples-to-apples comparisons of ad click-through rates (CTR) specifically for the same ads on regularly visited (“familiar/loyal”) sites versus rarely visited (“new/unfamiliar”) sites are limited. Most research examines related concepts like site familiarity, banner blindness, ad repetition/frequency effects, brand familiarity, and contextual factors (e.g., location familiarity as a proxy for environmental familiarity).
Here’s a breakdown of key insights from available research:
- Website familiarity and banner blindness: As users become more familiar with a specific website’s layout and content, they often develop “banner blindness”—they learn to ignore or subconsciously avoid ad placements because they know where ads typically appear. This can lead to lower attention and potentially lower CTR on ads for regular visitors. Usability tests and observations support that frequent visitors focus more on expected (non-ad) content.
- Ad frequency and repetition on the same sites: Studies on ad campaigns show that higher ad frequency (more exposures over time, common for regular site visitors) is generally associated with lower CTR. This is often due to ad fatigue or wearout. One large-scale analysis of billions of impressions found higher frequency and recency linked to reduced clicks, especially for less diverse campaigns. Similar patterns appear in research on wearin/wearout effects in web advertising, where initial exposures may build some response, but repetition (typical for loyal visitors) quickly diminishes CTR.
- Location familiarity as an analogy: A 2024/2025 study on mobile advertising found that ad CTR was more than 26% higher at revisited (familiar) locations compared to first-time (unfamiliar) locations. This suggests familiarity with a context or environment can boost responsiveness in some cases, possibly due to comfort or relevance. While not exactly about website visits, it indicates familiarity isn’t always negative for ad clicks.
- Brand or site quality perceptions: Research on website familiarity shows it can positively influence overall perceptions of site quality and intention to use the site, which might indirectly affect ad receptivity. However, effects on ads themselves are mixed—familiarity can sometimes heighten irritation with ads or lead to avoidance. One study explicitly examined familiarity’s influence on ads appearing on websites.
- Related findings on familiarity:
- Brand familiarity often boosts overall ad effectiveness and can increase clicks in search contexts (e.g., searchers strongly prefer familiar brands, scrolling past higher-ranked unfamiliar ones).
- Display ads generally aim for familiarity-building (branding) rather than immediate clicks, which explains their inherently low CTR overall.
- Returning visitors to sites tend to show higher engagement and conversion rates in general (e.g., lower bounce rates), but ad-specific CTR data segmented by visitor type (new vs. returning) is rarely publicized in benchmarks.
In practice, ad platforms and publishers track these internally (e.g., via user frequency capping to combat fatigue), but public academic or industry studies often focus on broader metrics like overall display CTR (typically very low, ~0.1–0.5% for banners) or search ad CTR.
Bottom line: Evidence leans toward potential downsides for regular visitors due to habituation, blindness, and fatigue—regular exposure on familiar sites may reduce clicks compared to fresh contexts. However, positive effects can occur if familiarity builds trust or relevance (as in the location study). Results likely vary by ad type (e.g., native vs. banner), creative quality, relevance, and user intent.
If you’re running campaigns, tools like Google Analytics or ad platform reports can segment performance by user frequency or recency for your specific sites. For deeper dives, search academic databases for terms like “website familiarity advertising effectiveness” or check papers on banner blindness and ad wearout. No single definitive study matches your exact framing, but the body of work above provides strong indirect evidence.