Chris Brogan: When Will the Volume Game Turn Down?
Adam Singer
· 12 months ago
It doesn't to you or I, Chris. I'm not sure it does to the everyday consumer either. Just like anything else, it becomes background noise, a part of the landscape that is ignored. Many marketers only know how to be louder, not necessarily more effective. It will continue as long as big brands exist and the management still is living in the era of "average products for average people" as Seth Godin puts it. Although there still needs to be those products, you're right - at what point do people stop turning up the volume and start carefully thinking? Big questions...I'm not sure it is going to be stopped anytime soon.
Anthony Stevens
· 12 months ago
I think there is a psychological aspect to airport advertising: travelers coming to an unfamiliar place will have their eyes and ears open to an unusual degree, as they look for where to go, how to get past security, where to take that last bathroom break, etc. For that reason, I suspect that the retention factor is much higher relative to advertising in more familiar surroundings.
Maria Lavis
· 12 months ago
Volume still counts b/c it's the first step to getting your logo/brand emblazened in ppl's heads/hearts. Like the coke logo. Everywhere, and so everyone knows it. Social media isn't like that... well not yet. And the airport branding also reaches the ones with eyes still open... kids. The future customers. I'm not an advertising psychologist, but the brand exposure goes in.
Social media is like stage 2 (or 10?) in advertising. The logo is there, you are familiar, so investing in social media could tip the balance on, do I trust this brand enough to actually buy it?, or do I really need this? which are probably more common questions on the minds of western consumer's these days.
Hans Looman
· 12 months ago
Yes, it makes you wonder what is going on... It seems some 'marketing specialists' still think the brute force attack is the way to go. I was recently visiting a promotions company and they were planning on electronic display panels in the rotating luggage caroussels... Just keep throwing money at it... maybe you'll catch something. Amazing isn't it?
Justin Levy
· 12 months ago
I think that a lot of brands still do this kind of advertising because they feel as though if they don't do it then their competitor will. They would rather have their logo splashed over as much as possible instead of their competitor.
What they don't realize is that being able to charge my phone or laptop at the Samsung station doesn't translate to me having an epiphany to buy a Samsung product. It just makes me happy that someone thought to put a hub with tons of plugs that makes it convenient for me. But, as long as the advertising space is available, brands will continue to spend the money it takes to put their logo in that space.
Yu Yu
· 12 months ago
In the Delhi airport in India AirTel (a mobile network) has charging stations, paid phone booths, and when the time is right a little table on the side where you can get connections right away. In a way, their ads are ads for a service you can buy right at your finger tips. Airports are still important but it caters to a different crowd. The segmentation is very specific. Best selling books tend to make it to airport book shelves. Things that read fast, sell fast, otherwise known as, I hate this term: "trash novels". So maybe we need to find out the fast selling items/services in an airport to measure the effectiveness of an ad campaign.
Apolinaras Sinkevicius
· 12 months ago
In the airport you are a captive audience. Kind of like public trans system and other places you got nothing else better to do than look at your surroundings. So it is a bit of a special case. I do like when WiFi and some of the other modern day necessities are sponsored by brands. No, it will not make me buy services on Deloitte or corny law firm. BUT, as one of the pieces in the puzzle, advertising is still relevant. Human contact gets you only so far. So does advertising or PR. You have to hit them from 360.
Just my 2 cents.
Apolinaras "Apollo" Sinkevicius
Gennefer Snowfield
· 12 months ago
As someone who matriculated from the days of traditional advertising, a piece of real estate like that was infinitely worth it from a brand awareness perspective. It was also a play of dominance with other big powerhouse brands to captivate as much 'eye share' as possible at high traffic locations such as airports. But as the landcsape continues to shift, I agree that this is no longer the best use of marketing dollars -- especially when most of the 'eye share' and retention today occurs in front of a computer screen.
I think it speaks volumes about the mindset of large corporations where old paradigms are still driving the execution. I wouldn't recommend to IBM that they shift *all* of the dollars from that ad placement to social media per se but, to your point, think that they could benefit more significantly by allocating a spend across tools that open the door to engagement.
In doing so, they positively impact their brand perception in the market from that of a static, stodgy and unapproachable corporate giant to a dynamic, forward-thinking and approachable company who is interested in their customers' wants and needs vs. self-serving placements that feed their own egos. The days of companies elevating themselves are over. Now it's the community that decides who reigns over the market, making the thousands of dollars of that airport buy even that much more costly a transaction when facilitating a conversation could have sufficed.
Jennifer Leggio
· 12 months ago
It's very common for security companies, especially in Silicon Valley. Go through SJC and you get hit with three of them. Go to a Sharks game, and you get two. I think when it comes to reaching enterprise buyers, whether we want to admit it or not, there's still some "barriers to entry" in terms of the human engagement that some consumer companies can experience. Maintaining a visible brand is critical, especially in a space like security, where the market is so damn crowded. Airport advertising isn't necessarily going to create qualified leads for a company, but it might give them that "Yeah, I know them" quality that's so critical when enterprise buyers flesh out their short lists.
Young Che
· 12 months ago
Chris, sometimes that's the price yo pay for being from another planet. You have your finger on the future of how businesses should be (will be) interacting with its audience. The airport campaigns are only good as reminders or introductions that said brand exists. They could be just as effective by doing what they do but just a little bit less of it.
John Reddish Get Results
· 12 months ago
Chris,
I've been out of the traditional agency business for some time, but I think I can shed some light on your question. I believe the whole of marketing turns on 3 issues: visibility (they can't buy what they don't know about); viability (each interaction [and later, transaction] should present viable information/solutions on which to act (a compelling call to action with WIIFM); and, valu-ability (from viable transactions, relationships are built). I saw and participated in the transition of "junk mail" to direct response value-ability. Still, there remains a role for traditional media - in building brand awareness and creating the familiarity that is initially perceived as quality. Traditional media, like transit panels (as part of a media mix), help to create and sustain mindshare - and perhaps give the product/service a familiar edge over competitors in a 1-to-1 comparison. It is still up to the product/service to communicate value at the point of sale. New media is the next wave and coming fast. Many big advertisers, with low common denominator market thinking, tend to cling to old ways, preferring to rely on CPM (cost/thousand) measures, not quite knowing how to value [or accept] the viral calculations of SM. As more tangible proofs of SM effectiveness are demonstrated, this will change. In the midst of change, it is as McLuhan observed about mankind largely living in/through "rear view mirrors.." Clutter and proliferation of sensory inputs will continue to help new media grow and old media to decline, but change won't happen overnight. That said, engaging transit panels, in particular, can be compelling (and, thus, effective), supporting Anthony's prior comment, about heightened awareness in strange places.
mose
· 12 months ago
(Please - if you’re still buying static media like that, can you chime in? I’m not being ass, exactly.) Are you getting “I saw your billboard at Logan” types of responses? How CAN it?
---------------------- That is probably a small part of an ad campaign. Advertising works very well, if done properly. Most isn't unfortunately. Like, fer instance if this is all the company does.
The airport ads are very effective. If they are integrated in a proper mix, with the right frequency and for the right audience.
I don't want to do a 101 ... but what the hell here goes...
Advertising Objectives
1. Induce trial (Find new customers) 2. Intensify usage (Existing customers – loyalty & upsell) 3. Sustain preference (After sale confirmation/service approach) 4. Confirm imagery (Support your positioning) 5. Change habits (Offering a new service) 6. Build line acceptance (new additional locations or divisions) 7. Break the ice (New customer or new audience) 8. Build ambience (Image building in conjunction with other media) 9. Secure sales leads (Includes a response mechanism coupon, reply card) 10. Increase awareness (Image & institutional top of mind) 11. Increase sales (defined objective very targeted and featuring specific product{s})
And then factoring in effective GRP etc etc Then great campaign creative etc etc
i know we all love to yak about advertising. It's fun. But it is very serious business and you can't just poke a stick at it.
Trust me - it still works - if it is done properly - sadly as someone who has lived through a couple of recessions this is when it all hits the shitter...
You can quote me ... "A good campaign is a client approved campaign!" will rule over the next year or so. So watch out for about teh worst ads you have ever seen!
Anthony Russo
· 12 months ago
It will continue because it works. It is hard for someone to chime in with "People tell me they saw the billboard" because people don't mention why they know your company. They just do.
It is similar to my posting on this blog with my company name in the signature. Someone might Google "conferencing", and this signature post will show up. It does happen. they click through to my website and become a client.
The metrics show that Google was the referrer but in reality it could be this post, just I'll never know that. Marketing is getting people to know you wherever is relevant, and when the time comes, ,you might pop in their head (or come up in a search).
It's not as interesting as social media might be, but it is still pretty effective, and will continue to be around for a long time to come.
Theponygirl
· 12 months ago
Can't help you out - don't understand it myself. At the agency I work for those type of media buys make us the most money so that's why they're thrown in as part of a campaign. To me it's like banner ads - move on.
Leo Saraceni
· 12 months ago
You know, Chris, sometimes I ask myself the same question: why would companies buy miles on a highway, sections on espn's sportcenter, and even spaces on subways ? I know this big budget game is beyond my expertise, but how do they keep track of their ROI? How can they measure the return on a $5 mil paid sponsor ad that is broadcasted to national television? Specially when they are running multiple campaigns at the same time? I could not find any answers on the comments, but please let me know if you get good ones.
Leo.
MSchechter
· 12 months ago
I think there is value in the actual services. Travel is stressful and anything that makes it easier (a charging station, NOT having to pay boingo for internet service) sticks out to me as a consumer. I appreciate the brands that make it easier! I also just happen to think the vending machines are cool. That being said, I cannot for the life of me understand static ads. The average traveler is beyond stressed and the delays only add to that frustration. This does not put people in the most supple of mindsets. I think you could argue no matter how clever the ad, it might do more harm than good. I guess the logic might be that people are in a good mood when they get home and you get them then, but when I get home my mind is usually on other things. Every story I ever hear about an airport is about the departure and it is rarely positive. Not where I would want to market...
Michelle Kostya
· 12 months ago
I love Social Media...and it is inexpensive (comparatively), effective and measurable. But, like others say it works in tandem with traditional advertising. Traditional advertising works as a reminder, over time, over frequency. I listened to the radio and heard an ad for a skin-care product (made no impact, but I heard it), went to an event and someone handed me some trial packs (sat in my drawer), flipped through a magazine and saw an ad ( again saw it, passed it by), was in a store and needed skin care and I saw it on the shelf and thought - hey I will try that one. If I like it I might get involved with the brand socially (through...lets say social media), and by doing that introduce it to others.
I think the mistake companies make is not re-looking at how they do traditional (where, which medium, how much etc) and then how they can use digital media to make the traditional stuff more effective (tie it all together!). Covering the planet with billboards and TV ads will no longer guarantee sales (did it ever?) Instead integrated online and offline campaigns can be effective (if done right) to reach the right audience.
Michelle Lamar
· 12 months ago
One of my favorite clients, the CEO of a Fortune 500 company, used to say: If the marketing makes customers buy stuff from my store, then keep doing it. If it doesn't, quit doing it. He especially loved to say this when the media planners would come in with stacks of stats and research telling the board why the marketing was a great idea...even though it didn't create results long term. One of the reasons I love your blog is because it's based on using COMMON SENSE. I think marketing, social media needs to be looked at from a practical point of view and things usually work out. Maybe that's boring but I've found it's true.
Toby
· 12 months ago
simply put .. not all your customers are online all the time. nor will all your customers who are online be aware of your social strategies. the disconnect maybe not in the media but in the value of the messaging for the customers. just a thought ...
Danny Brown
· 12 months ago
Perhaps it would work better if the brands actually used physical interaction more effectively when their users plugged in. Examples:
* You plug your Macbook into the Apple charging dock as opposed to a Samsung or generic one - it recognizes your an Apple client and seeks out your settings. It rewards you with a free download from iTunes for brand loyalty.
* You use your Samsung smartphone from a Samsung-powered WiFi area. Again, recognition reaps reward - your smartphone number is applicable for bonuses from Samsung (downloadable ringtone, game, business app, etc).
The point is that instead of spending millions for people to use competitor products, they're encouraged to use yours and either consciously or sub-consciously that's who they seek out when traveling.
Simplified examples, yes. Workable? That's up to the advertisers.
David Henderson
· 12 months ago
What you are writing about is traditional advertising, a broken and outdated form of communication used by people who, for all their merits, don't really know what else to do. Their messages are unimaginative and forgettable ... their methods haven't really changed in decades. There are exceptions, as you state, like Apple because the messages are fun, shared, and strike a chord with the right audiences. But Apple stands alone in a vast wasteland of uncreativeness in the advertising business.
Nikki Starr
· 12 months ago
I have never purchased anything I've seen on a billboard or in a big airport ad just because of the advertising. Most of the time it is simply white noise to me. I have, however, bought audio books, cd's, shoes, my ipod and my computer from sites and stores people have recommended to me via my social networks. Maybe I'm just THAT out of the loop being the bitch hermit that I am....or maybe I AM the new generation and soon there will be electronic billboards all over the place posting our tweets on the side of the road or in an airport kiosk for a price! That would be something and would surely catch my eye!
Great job as usual! Happy Holidays!!!!
Jay Ehret
· 12 months ago
Chris, Advertising is not the answer to everything, but neither is social media. Those who say advertising doesn't work any more most, don't have any experience with it or they simply don't know how to do it correctly.
No one tool is right for everything. Advertising is right in certain situations, social media in others. While advertising is a declining art form, and certainly less effective than it used to be, it can still be used as a more effective tool than social media.
You look at the world through a social media lens and therefore you are jaded in favor of social media. But social media is a tool, not a religion. You don't use your favorite tool in your workshop on every project, you use it when it's appropriate. The same should be said for social media.
Damian Holmes
· 12 months ago
The advertising I think that converts the most is for services or products in the airport. Good example is Vodafone in Australia who have advertisements from the Arrival Gates to Immigration that have something like "buy a prepaid phone or top up your account in the arrival area next to exit 3" This is simple and effective advertising as the first time i came back i went straight there and got a new prepaid account and was able to call business collegues and family within 5 minutes of touching down.
I have flown into airports and been amazed at the number of services and retailers that don't actually advertise or team up with advertisers such as perfumes, alcohol, magazines for advertising campaigns in the airport.
An example would be a new frangrance or cologne - if I were the duty free shop i would team up with Dior and say can we put something at the bottom of the ad such as " try the new Dior frangrance at X Duty Free opposite Gate 54". Too Simple? Maybe? but I am sure it would get some conversions especially with people with long lay overs in international. Or maybe Ford - "Hire the new Fusion Hybrid at Hertz - Use Code FFH to get a 10% discount or 2 days free for 5 days hire" Simple advertising is often the best - the number of ads that have small font or the logo placed in obscure positions and aren't 'localised' with the site is a wasted opportunity because they use a one standard size fits all advertising.
Steve Woodruff
· 12 months ago
Everyone wants to talk about ROI, but the fact is, much of what we do in advertising and marketing (and social media) hinges on - oh, that unmeasurable word! - faith. Faith that we can create subtle but real brand recognition by repeated exposure. Faith that a message replayed over and over will eventually hit its mark. Faith that building relationships via social media will lead, in time, to increased sales. Some things can be directly and reliably measured. But some things we just take on faith. Does anyone want to admit it?
ingrid Williams
· 12 months ago
Michael Schechter and Danny Brown both touched on elements I can echo. While I used to be more actively involved in marketing and have some opinions pre-social media, I am speaking as a consumer when I say this: I have a hyper-busy schedule. If a company can break through my bubble by providing a service I need, I instantly have a good feeling toward them.
Static? Bah. It has to be something that I could use as a resource to get a positive reaction from me. Brand recognition only goes so far.
On the other hand, I don't want to be bombarded via social media. A much as I love it, as a "regular person" it's there to serve me. When I am ready to know more? Sure I will seek that knowledge out. But I honestly don't want interaction on a personal level until I ask for it. And even then, I am not likely to trust an "official" company over a personal contact ... Granted, the point of social media ... But that kind of relationship building involves time and is so subtle it would be difficult to measure even if you have corporate buy in.
Companies who can provide plan for a transitional marketing strategy to be there when consumers are ready for the next step are wise.
For me, it's all about trust. Anyone can say anything about themselves. But if they put their ad money into something that helps me? Sure ... I just might connect on the social side.
gerardmclean
· 12 months ago
Why do YOU bother posting up anything on Twitter that does not get you sales directly? How many tweets result in someone booking you as a speaker? How many of your blog posts translated into sales? How do you know?
If I knew which blog post would get someone to stop and think that my company is the perfect candidate for the job, I wouldn't bother posting all the others. And you wouldn't post all those other posts and tweets that didn't result in a contact that converted to a sale for you. Why would we? We're in business to make money and all those other free-loaders reading our stuff, commenting, perhaps having a chuckle or two or three at our expense, aren't paying our rent.
But you don't know and never will because people are funny that way. But I know that each tweet, each blog post, each conversation, each comment builds a picture of who I am and the reader "assembles" my brand for him/herself.*
As superficial as it may seem, welcoming someone to a strange airport and offering a service they need, (like charging an iPhone when you are down to 20% battery because your flight from Dayton to New York was delayed 11 hours) gets Apple "loved" by me more often than the thousand small irritations I have with my iPhone sitting in my office. Seeing a familiar brand in an unfamiliar place makes it seem like home, and taking the time to make me feel at home is taking the time and effort to build a relationship, even if it is just a logo on a charging station.
Ultimately, the decision to buy something is an emotional one, rationalized later with facts. You are probably not the best Web 2.0 speaker out there or that I agree with everything you say and do, but for me, for my conference, for my Webinar, you are the perfect fit because I know you, I've read your tweets, you've responded to me, we have a relationship. You are visible where I see you and where I am.
PS Commenting on a blog on Christmas Eve either makes me pathetic loser with no life or a workaholic. The reader will ultimately decide which I am. The one makes me unfit to hire, the other makes me the perfect candidate for the job :-)
* something as simple as my choice of him/herself vs the grammatically correct himself says something about me. It is my logo on the side of a charging station at an airport.
Romy Taormina
· 12 months ago
It's all about consumer awareness. And the targeted the advertorial, the better. It takes 7 times to expose a consumer to a product/idea before it "sinks" and the consumer takes notice. The ongoing advertising builds brand/consumer awareness and eventually equates to sales. It's one more means to the end (i.e. the sale). For Apple and Best Buy, they are targeting travelers, and those travelers need or desire those tech gadgets (iphones, laptops, etc.).
John DeCesaro
· 12 months ago
A couple of points on this.
First, research (http://www.prweb.com/releases/2008/08/prweb1170...) shows that as much as 2/3 of search engine users are driven to search by an offline channel. So, offline tactics like this can integrate into online initiatives.
Second, for a place like an airport where Wifi is available, it makes sense to place ads that direct people online. They are more apt to follow through on the call to action in a place that provides the means for people to do so, and the idle time to do it.
Third, you cannot underestimate the emotional aspect of branding. Sponsoring free Wifi provides a positive emotional brand experience. These types of experiences lead to a brand achieving either top of mind awareness or getting into the evoked set of the individual come purchase decision time.
Scott Lackey
· 12 months ago
Some observations:
1. There are a tremendous number of categorical generalizations above (i.e. advertising is broken, doesn't work, etc...but social media does). Caveat emptor. Nothing, nothing in the world of communication is that black & white. It's a subjective jungle...especially when you get to creative.
2. I can share plenty of numerical research where there's a direct correlation between targeted "traditional" advertising delivering spikes in web visits, Google AdWord hits, awareness, and 20% increases in sales and ROI (the magic word these days). In 2008. One is for a health care company our agency works for in the greater Boston area.
3. That doesn't mean that there's not an important role for social media (SM). It's critical and it will become more so. But the best advertising is integrated (tool belt analogy in post above) and employs numerous channels. The single airport board must be evaluated within a campaign, not as a single piece of communications. Would any of you want your contributions to social media to be judged by a single blog post?
4. Advertising is really all about a conversation with the target audience: finding them, understanding them inside and out...their hopes, their doubts, their fears. Just like all of you point to in SM
5. Right now if I was targeting a pharmaceutical campaign (the one referenced above) to 60-75 year old adults with diabetes living in the Florida & the sunbelt I wouldn't use Twitter or Facebook or YouTube. Would you? Unless I wanted to reach opinion leaders, influencers and possibly their chiildren.
6. Finally...here are some brands. I'd ask you (collectively) to decide if advertising has helped or helps them: Nike; Apple; Burger King; Pepsi; Coke; BMW; Volkswagen; Mastercard which buried Visa coming from behind with "Priceless", American Express, Barack Obama. And many, many more. Have an opposing point of view on what built these companies beside good products/services/people and great marketing? I'm ready to listen.
7. I'm new to social media and prepared to listen & learn from all of you who know a lot more than me. Since I've been listening I've seen a lot of questioning of "traditional" advertising in favor of SM. I'm really excited by the what can be done now & in the future. OK, yes, the world is moving in that direction...but SM isn't the only alternative to "traditional advertising." Think interactive media, user produced content, sponsorships, guerrilla marketing, etc.
8. I'd very respectfully ask in 2009 that you investigate and think carefully about brands, their value, how they gained authority and what role all types of communication can play in the process including "traditional" advertising and SM. Think Integrated communications. Harmony, not opposition.
8. Happy Holidays & Happy New Year.
Anthony
· 12 months ago
Chris et al
In a high-volume lead generation business, like education, we've used or thought about nearly every vehicle to deploy a message - traditional, out-of-home, online, social, etc. In airports, everything has potential: from the security bin (Zappos did it for shoes), to providing puzzles on napkins, to projecting mazes on the floor of the long corridors. As to billboards - yes, we've recommended them to reach the business traveler for products that might resonate with the audience, e.g. advanced degrees.
As to cost of the boards - they run from several grand a month to somewhere in the neighborhood of $50k a month if you want to something prominent at LAX. Pricing, like a lot of media, depends on an estimate number of eyeballs (showings or daily equivalent circulation) that see it. Generally, boards aren't out of line with any other media pricing - display, magazines, search, etc.
Is human contact better? Are recommendations from friends more powerful? Absolutely, and media plans should be built with that as a primary objective - how do we facilitate recommendations? But they are only one part of the mix and anything that can support and round out mose's list above for high-consideration products is worth investigating. The ideas behind Duncan Watt's big-seed apply here - how do we provide a basis for conversation among thousands of people simultaneously? We start by announcing our presence; "pardon the interruption but we're in the business of solving your problem".
Could we do a $0 media marketing plan (not to say free)? Certainly, and for products where personal recommendations are paramount then this should be the strategy. The challenge we often face is scaling to deliver X number of leads over a short, defined period of time. Advertising in this context produces because the law of large numbers works in our favor, even at small conversion percentages. Could the cost of acquisition be lowered with a social approach - quite possibly, but it isn't going to be advertising and it will take time.
CK
· 12 months ago
Marketing (be it advertising, social media, or any other discipline within the broad spectrum of what is available) is, and will always remain, a discipline based on creating value for one's audience. This is as true in B2B as it is in B2C.
Thus, social media creates value when it brings a community together to do any of a number of things (share knowledge, increase expertise, find others who share a passion, solve problems, support one another, etc.). Just as giving weary travelers a way to power-up their electronics is of much value, too.
Conversely, if there's a "human interaction" at that power station that wants to sell me things, it will not be of value (that would be an outright nuisance as when I'm traveling, I don't want to be bothered with salespeople).
As for billboards? Well, it depends on the billboard's message and audience. Much of it can be noise (just as a lot of social media and broadcast advertising can be noise), so really the benchmark is not the medium, but the value factor. I don't advocate telling all companies that they need to drop their traditional (or interactive) efforts in favor or social media...I advocate a plan, that is usually integrated...that looks at all the tools available to them to pinpoint how they can add value to their audiences so that they can increase awareness, build relationships and of course increase revenues.
Now, where I think it can be tough, is when marketers of any discipline (be it social media, traditional advertising or direct marketing, etc.) advocates one particular medium over others because that's their expertise--because in most cases what is really needed is a blend of initiatives/media that is customized to every single brand. We can no sooner say that "every brand should be implementing social media programs!" just as we can no sooner say that "every brand should be implementing traditional advertising efforts!" What I think we need to do is to encourage companies to evaluate all of the options they're now afforded and assess the plan that has the highest chance of delivering for them, their audiences and those that they can do well (for instance, I know of a lot of companies that should be implementing social media, yet they don't have the resources or won't make the commitment to do them well).
A couple years ago, when I first started getting hip to the 2.0 tools, and I pushed my colleagues to learn of them, too, they asked me if I was of the mindset that other marketing tools were now dead. (Actually many still ask me this). I found it funny because I explained to them that I didn't at all find that to be the case, but I did find this to be important: if we do not know and learn of the many tools and media available to us--and then map those to our clients' objectives and audiences' needs--how do we really give clients thoughtful recommendations?
Thanks for asking some good questions. Happy holidays.
Philip Van Peborgh
· 12 months ago
Interesting question Chris. Can, meet worms.
Everyone who has replied above has valid points, which is probably part of the issue with quantifying somethings as subjective as persuasion. There are only a handful of objective statements about advertising. It costs money (most of the time), it doesn't do any harm (most of the time) and it allows talented creative people to be talented and creative. As to direct ROI? In my business we have gained users through a direct response to an advert. The question of whether it was worth it depends on a number of factors. Where your product/brand is in its life cycle, what metrics you are following to define success and what your client/boss thinks.
So, I can say that we have gained users from advertising and generated a direct $ cost for that acquisition. I have very little idea however whether it was the message of the ad alone or combined with other ad's, Facebook posts, bloke down the pub, Auntie Jean or a news story that made my ad so compelling that it caused an action. That's why we test and probe a combination of campaigns to see if there's synergy. It's a tedious process.
Human contact is a much better tool for gaining loyal customers. I have maintained for years that sales (direct contact) is the one of the most misunderstood parts of business. Everyone knows when they have a good sales guy, few people know how to hire a good salesman and most sales guys are universally hated by non sales guys. A necessary evil if you will.
The problem with direct sales contact is that few people really want to do it and do it well. Most sales guys would love to hide behind the marketing dept and leave them to soften up the leads so they only have to turn up and have the sale land in their lap. People tend to buy things (non-commodities) from people, not from companies. Marketing and advertising can lower many of the potential barriers to a successful sale but not all. Direct contact however costs more, requires more planning and depends upon the skill of the sales guy. Advertising requires research and the ability to write checks. It's easier.
So there's the rub and it's why I will continue to do both. Social networking is absolutely helping us to lower barriers and providing a middle ground of "soft" direct contact. It's a combination of all of these avenues that is making us grow. A good friend of mine summed it up the best. "If I'm seen to be working, advertising budgets are being sensibly spent, sales are coming in, goals are being met and my boss thinks these things are related. I'm fine."
Merry Christmas, Mr Cratchett, Phil
Josh Peters
· 12 months ago
This is a great question. I feel that the traditional media marketing should be used as a gateway to the social media marketing. It's never going to disappear altogether, but it can be used as a tool to get people to the conversation.
zach braiker
· 12 months ago
Chris,
I think this has to do with predictable outcomes and ease by which the marketing channel scales. If your objective is sales results now, it is often easier to turn to a channel you have used before than to try a new channel. And this "social media channel," can't be turned on and off with each campaign (like traditional media), it's an on-going commitment to listening, responding, acting.
There are compelling arguments that say whether you are using social media or not, your brand is still involved. I think there is a difference between being involved in social media and depending on it as a reliable, predictable sales driver.
Matthew Gilbert
· 12 months ago
I was just thinking about this when I saw a recap of the "San Diego County Credit Union Poinsettia Bowl." What? Can that name be any longer and any more ridiculous sounding? And why is a Credit Union sponsoring a BCS game? I thought Credit Unions were supposed to be vey fiscally conservative with their MEMBERS money (unlike Boards of large banks who blow billions of bailout money on bonuses and vacations).
As I see it, San Diego County Credit Union's decision to sponsor this BCS game (at some absurd price I can only pretend to imagine) has lowered their credibility and made me LESS likely to give them any money at all.
Of course I have now just given San Diego County Credit Union, BCS and poinsettias some potential Google traffic by posting their names here, so maybe awareness is the goal after all. And, as some have mentioned in the comments, branding is an emotional, sometimes messy game. But what good is awareness without action or ideas without implementation?
I don't understand how money invested in any kind of naming can yield any kind of trackable and reliable metrics. Keep in mind I am not claiming all forms of traditional advertising are dead, but I continue to question the value of naming rights and sponsorships of that nature.
Maybe there is an argument to be made for the name sneaking into someone's subconscious, but again that is so hard to validate. I recall some pundit commenting about how Bill Clinton's mention of "Staple's Center" at the 2000 DNC Convention made the entire investment by Staples worthwhile -- maybe they were right?
It seems to me that social media offers a much more feasible option for companies looking to connect with their current consumers and/or target demographic. Of course, social media requires listening, not screaming your brand at the top of your lungs to total strangers, so maybe companies anchored in traditional media won't be able to grasp that?
Like someone said before..You become blind to it. If I see an Apple Ad...I'm no more or less inclined to buy an Apple computer...(I really want a MacBook but I'm not sure because I'm a Windows head)
But if an Apple salesman came to my door or if I could spend a couple minutes talking to someone who knew a lot about Apple...He'd probably impart enough knowledge upon me to tip me over the edge and buy a Mac.
gerardmclean
· 12 months ago
@Matthew Gilbert so, should I give up the dream of getting the Rivershark TourneyCentral DogWalkBlog Plain Joe Coffee SUPER BOWL L presented by Doctorious.org? Damn, I was so close to raising the $100million in sponsorships and it had such a catchy ring to it ;-) @gerardmclean
gerardmclean
· 12 months ago
@Meji - 365HUSTLE.COM Hmmm.. blind to it? But if you see an ad for Apple in an airport, are you really blind to the ad or are you secretly seething because you remember the crappy times you've had with your PC this whole time and are reminded that there is a better way? Which crappy experience with your PC in an airport will finally be your tipping point to buy a MacBook? And, the next time you see an Apple ad in an airport, will you think of this blog and check in with Chris to see what he has posted or tweeted lately.. and silently swear as your PC works really hard to find that airport WiFi network, knowing that your new Macbook could have found it far easier? Hmmm.. I think you will....
When I see an Apple ad in an airport, it reminds me to check the Apple Store locations on my iPhone, just in case I get to the hotel and I may have forgotten my power cord... or the PC-only projector needs an "adaptor" I didn't bring.
Peter
· 12 months ago
Where does it end? "This mens room urinal is sponsored by..." This is noise. For many it is annoying. For many it isn't even our first introduction to a given product or brand; believe it or not, I've heard of Apple or Coke before. The NY subways are apparently experimenting with brightly lit billboards in their tunnels - I cant wait to experience a light show offering me a product while traveling at 50mph in a crowded train. What strikes me is that so much of this advertising seems stale. The creative behind it seems so often lame. It is akin to listening to local radio advertisements with their thin plots, the smiling voice of the narrators that never seem to connote honest emotion, the feeble attempt at humor, the cacophony of multiple voices screaming 1-800 numbers repeatedly. Placement, repetition and eyeballs may be the tactics - audience recall is the holy grail. But at what cost - the loss of any time to reflect, appreciate or contemplate. Advertising has become the new entertainment - visual eyewash to keep us over stimulated and engaged with things (products, any product) that may pass for a moment of diversion. And yes, it seems as if we have enough of this now and can look forward to much more in the future.
Matthew Gilbert
· 12 months ago
@gerardmclean Well I have $27.43 and three Chuck E. Cheese tokens in my pocket right now -- how close will that get you to achieving your inspirational advertising vision? Will it at least cover "doctorious.org" (my favorite part, of course). =)
Matthew Gilbert
· 12 months ago
@peter The irony is that advertising is now emulating the "Ugly American" in a foreign country where he doesn't speak the language and whose response to nobody understanding him is to yell loudly. And, of course, that never works. But listening does. Imagine that?!
I do agree that for most people traditional forms of advertising don't work anymore, but for the average consumer, I think that seeing that new cool phone on a billboard does make them think of your product. If they think about your product enough they might just buy it. That being said, could the money be better spent in another way? Yes, totally. Social media is the wave of the future but some companies just don't get it or don't want to get it.
-Seth
Sarah Montague
· 12 months ago
In this mega fragemented media world I don't think silver bullets exists. Which means you may need to try different elements that are well orchestrated and integrated. There is room for offline and online but all the pieces should be strategic and smart. Key is contextual relevance and the creative needs to be smart. Where are your customers? When might they be thinking about your product or a related product? Zappos airport security shoe bin worked so elegantly because of this relevance.
greg cryns
· 12 months ago
For all those who are dissing traditional advertising, this reminds me a bit of the kids screaming "Microsoft sucks".
greg cryns
· 12 months ago
It's there because it works. Yes.
gerardmclean
· 12 months ago
@Matthew Gilbert :-) Glad you're on board.. it was the Chuck E. Cheese tokens that sold me! I am being facetious, of course, but it does get you wondering if whatever network is broadcasting the 50th Super Bowl, if we would set up a page that took "Obama-esque" donations of $1000 each and raised $10million dollars and had 10,000 brands, would they take our money and string that together, read that off on a 6 minute ad and link to us all on a web page? I'll bet they would and that would be very, very interesting. Would it be worth it to us?
@Peter Yeah, I can see sponsoring urinals with PlainJoe Coffee. "Hey, if your pee doesn't have that coffee smell, you should be buying PlainJoe! http://plainjoe.com " yup, you're seeing it in your mind too.. and it is at once funny and repulsive.. but, you're thinking about clicking to the PlainJoe Web site now, ain't ya? Yes, you are....
kathy
· 12 months ago
Three years ago, we had the opportunity to buy a traditional billboard on I-91 here in W. Mass. We took it and the response was beyond anything we would have expected. More people came off the highway, to our store, for the first time AND commented on seeing the billboard more than any other piece of media we had used to date. We lost the board after about 6 months - the company sold the location and the new company wasn't as flexible with it's pricing.
We've been searching for another board off and on since. Company A contacted me 4 weeks ago. They now own the board again and offered a great deal. Our board will go up at the end of the month.
For 2009, there is no question we have shifted dollars from traditional media to more on-line, more SM, more "conversational" mediums for connecting with our customers. At the same time, traditional advertising is still a factor for us and more importantly our customer.
We may find that three years later, the impact of the board will not be nearly as great as it was in '05/'06 - we'll see. I'll keep you posted.
There's no question in my mind that social media is critical to our future success and growth, but right now it's a piece of the puzzle, not the entire answer.
Jeff Scott
· 12 months ago
Sponsoring is not direct marketing. There is no short term ROI. It involves brand recognition and benevolence, both long term investments. In the online world we expect immediate results but in the brick and mortar world I'm sure they are hoping that someday when a consumer has to make a choice between two vendors the buyer will remember the feeling back when they were given something for free and will then pay their dues. Think of it like social media marketing where the gift is an investment in relationships.
Kelley
· 12 months ago
Here's the thing: If your company is not advertising or sponsoring things like wifi in airports, bus stations, convention centers, etc, then some other company will be. And you want to be top of mind when a consumer discovers a need for something. Example: I am in the market for car insurance. I have always been on my parents policy, but now need to get my own. I immediatly thought of Geico. Why? Probably because I have seen at least 200 of their ads. I have seen TV advertisements, heard them on the radio, seen billboards, they have sponsored sports events and on and on. As a marketer who focuses solely on lead generation (as opposed to marcomm or PR), I understand the need to track ROI of campaigns. However, I also understand the need to have your brand top of mind in consumers' heads - which may have to be accomplished with such methods as billboards, ads on the sides of NYC busses or on the tray tables of airplane seats. Do you agree?
Tk Ogun
· 11 months ago
I agree with Michelle Kostya traditional advertising works over time and is used to reinforce the message of the brand. It's hard to measure it's effectiveness, but it does work. I may not buy something from Samsung immediately because of the charging station, but it does have an impression on me. Tk Ogun 2505 Studios.com
Rownaldo
· 11 months ago
Heads up, don't be a victim of identiy theft - Panda Internet Security 2009 is selling for $20 when it usually sells for $80. It will protect you from over 2 million viruses, spyware and rootkits and has a web filter for the kids. This deal is only good until December 31st
All Comments
Social media is like stage 2 (or 10?) in advertising. The logo is there, you are familiar, so investing in social media could tip the balance on, do I trust this brand enough to actually buy it?, or do I really need this? which are probably more common questions on the minds of western consumer's these days.
What they don't realize is that being able to charge my phone or laptop at the Samsung station doesn't translate to me having an epiphany to buy a Samsung product. It just makes me happy that someone thought to put a hub with tons of plugs that makes it convenient for me. But, as long as the advertising space is available, brands will continue to spend the money it takes to put their logo in that space.
Airports are still important but it caters to a different crowd. The segmentation is very specific. Best selling books tend to make it to airport book shelves. Things that read fast, sell fast, otherwise known as, I hate this term: "trash novels". So maybe we need to find out the fast selling items/services in an airport to measure the effectiveness of an ad campaign.
Just my 2 cents.
Apolinaras "Apollo" Sinkevicius
I think it speaks volumes about the mindset of large corporations where old paradigms are still driving the execution. I wouldn't recommend to IBM that they shift *all* of the dollars from that ad placement to social media per se but, to your point, think that they could benefit more significantly by allocating a spend across tools that open the door to engagement.
In doing so, they positively impact their brand perception in the market from that of a static, stodgy and unapproachable corporate giant to a dynamic, forward-thinking and approachable company who is interested in their customers' wants and needs vs. self-serving placements that feed their own egos. The days of companies elevating themselves are over. Now it's the community that decides who reigns over the market, making the thousands of dollars of that airport buy even that much more costly a transaction when facilitating a conversation could have sufficed.
I've been out of the traditional agency business for some time, but I think I can shed some light on your question. I believe the whole of marketing turns on 3 issues: visibility (they can't buy what they don't know about); viability (each interaction [and later, transaction] should present viable information/solutions on which to act (a compelling call to action with WIIFM); and, valu-ability (from viable transactions, relationships are built).
I saw and participated in the transition of "junk mail" to direct response value-ability. Still, there remains a role for traditional media - in building brand awareness and creating the familiarity that is initially perceived as quality. Traditional media, like transit panels (as part of a media mix), help to create and sustain mindshare - and perhaps give the product/service a familiar edge over competitors in a 1-to-1 comparison. It is still up to the product/service to communicate value at the point of sale.
New media is the next wave and coming fast. Many big advertisers, with low common denominator market thinking, tend to cling to old ways, preferring to rely on CPM (cost/thousand) measures, not quite knowing how to value [or accept] the viral calculations of SM. As more tangible proofs of SM effectiveness are demonstrated, this will change. In the midst of change, it is as McLuhan observed about mankind largely living in/through "rear view mirrors.."
Clutter and proliferation of sensory inputs will continue to help new media grow and old media to decline, but change won't happen overnight. That said, engaging transit panels, in particular, can be compelling (and, thus, effective), supporting Anthony's prior comment, about heightened awareness in strange places.
----------------------
That is probably a small part of an ad campaign. Advertising works very well, if done properly. Most isn't unfortunately. Like, fer instance if this is all the company does.
The airport ads are very effective. If they are integrated in a proper mix, with the right frequency and for the right audience.
I don't want to do a 101 ... but what the hell here goes...
Advertising Objectives
1. Induce trial (Find new customers)
2. Intensify usage (Existing customers – loyalty & upsell)
3. Sustain preference (After sale confirmation/service approach)
4. Confirm imagery (Support your positioning)
5. Change habits (Offering a new service)
6. Build line acceptance (new additional locations or divisions)
7. Break the ice (New customer or new audience)
8. Build ambience (Image building in conjunction with other media)
9. Secure sales leads (Includes a response mechanism coupon, reply card)
10. Increase awareness (Image & institutional top of mind)
11. Increase sales (defined objective very targeted and featuring specific product{s})
And then factoring in effective GRP etc etc Then great campaign creative etc etc
i know we all love to yak about advertising. It's fun. But it is very serious business and you can't just poke a stick at it.
Trust me - it still works - if it is done properly - sadly as someone who has lived through a couple of recessions this is when it all hits the shitter...
You can quote me ... "A good campaign is a client approved campaign!" will rule over the next year or so. So watch out for about teh worst ads you have ever seen!
It is similar to my posting on this blog with my company name in the signature. Someone might Google "conferencing", and this signature post will show up. It does happen. they click through to my website and become a client.
Anthony Russo
Conferencing Consultant
Great America Networks Conferencing
arusso@ganconference.com
www.ganconference.com
http://blog.ganconference.com/
Skype: anth.russo
Twitter: @AnthonyRusso
The metrics show that Google was the referrer but in reality it could be this post, just I'll never know that. Marketing is getting people to know you wherever is relevant, and when the time comes, ,you might pop in their head (or come up in a search).
It's not as interesting as social media might be, but it is still pretty effective, and will continue to be around for a long time to come.
How can they measure the return on a $5 mil paid sponsor ad that is broadcasted to national television? Specially when they are running multiple campaigns at the same time?
I could not find any answers on the comments, but please let me know if you get good ones.
Leo.
I think the mistake companies make is not re-looking at how they do traditional (where, which medium, how much etc) and then how they can use digital media to make the traditional stuff more effective (tie it all together!). Covering the planet with billboards and TV ads will no longer guarantee sales (did it ever?) Instead integrated online and offline campaigns can be effective (if done right) to reach the right audience.
If the marketing makes customers buy stuff from my store, then keep doing it. If it doesn't, quit doing it.
He especially loved to say this when the media planners would come in with stacks of stats and research telling the board why the marketing was a great idea...even though it didn't create results long term.
One of the reasons I love your blog is because it's based on using COMMON SENSE. I think marketing, social media needs to be looked at from a practical point of view and things usually work out. Maybe that's boring but I've found it's true.
* You plug your Macbook into the Apple charging dock as opposed to a Samsung or generic one - it recognizes your an Apple client and seeks out your settings. It rewards you with a free download from iTunes for brand loyalty.
* You use your Samsung smartphone from a Samsung-powered WiFi area. Again, recognition reaps reward - your smartphone number is applicable for bonuses from Samsung (downloadable ringtone, game, business app, etc).
The point is that instead of spending millions for people to use competitor products, they're encouraged to use yours and either consciously or sub-consciously that's who they seek out when traveling.
Simplified examples, yes. Workable? That's up to the advertisers.
Great job as usual! Happy Holidays!!!!
Advertising is not the answer to everything, but neither is social media. Those who say advertising doesn't work any more most, don't have any experience with it or they simply don't know how to do it correctly.
No one tool is right for everything. Advertising is right in certain situations, social media in others. While advertising is a declining art form, and certainly less effective than it used to be, it can still be used as a more effective tool than social media.
You look at the world through a social media lens and therefore you are jaded in favor of social media. But social media is a tool, not a religion. You don't use your favorite tool in your workshop on every project, you use it when it's appropriate. The same should be said for social media.
I have flown into airports and been amazed at the number of services and retailers that don't actually advertise or team up with advertisers such as perfumes, alcohol, magazines for advertising campaigns in the airport.
An example would be a new frangrance or cologne - if I were the duty free shop i would team up with Dior and say can we put something at the bottom of the ad such as " try the new Dior frangrance at X Duty Free opposite Gate 54". Too Simple? Maybe? but I am sure it would get some conversions especially with people with long lay overs in international. Or maybe Ford - "Hire the new Fusion Hybrid at Hertz - Use Code FFH to get a 10% discount or 2 days free for 5 days hire"
Simple advertising is often the best - the number of ads that have small font or the logo placed in obscure positions and aren't 'localised' with the site is a wasted opportunity because they use a one standard size fits all advertising.
Static? Bah. It has to be something that I could use as a resource to get a positive reaction from me. Brand recognition only goes so far.
On the other hand, I don't want to be bombarded via social media. A much as I love it, as a "regular person" it's there to serve me. When I am ready to know more? Sure I will seek that knowledge out. But I honestly don't want interaction on a personal level until I ask for it. And even then, I am not likely to trust an "official" company over a personal contact ... Granted, the point of social media ... But that kind of relationship building involves time and is so subtle it would be difficult to measure even if you have corporate buy in.
Companies who can provide plan for a transitional marketing strategy to be there when consumers are ready for the next step are wise.
For me, it's all about trust. Anyone can say anything about themselves. But if they put their ad money into something that helps me? Sure ... I just might connect on the social side.
If I knew which blog post would get someone to stop and think that my company is the perfect candidate for the job, I wouldn't bother posting all the others. And you wouldn't post all those other posts and tweets that didn't result in a contact that converted to a sale for you. Why would we? We're in business to make money and all those other free-loaders reading our stuff, commenting, perhaps having a chuckle or two or three at our expense, aren't paying our rent.
But you don't know and never will because people are funny that way. But I know that each tweet, each blog post, each conversation, each comment builds a picture of who I am and the reader "assembles" my brand for him/herself.*
As superficial as it may seem, welcoming someone to a strange airport and offering a service they need, (like charging an iPhone when you are down to 20% battery because your flight from Dayton to New York was delayed 11 hours) gets Apple "loved" by me more often than the thousand small irritations I have with my iPhone sitting in my office. Seeing a familiar brand in an unfamiliar place makes it seem like home, and taking the time to make me feel at home is taking the time and effort to build a relationship, even if it is just a logo on a charging station.
Ultimately, the decision to buy something is an emotional one, rationalized later with facts. You are probably not the best Web 2.0 speaker out there or that I agree with everything you say and do, but for me, for my conference, for my Webinar, you are the perfect fit because I know you, I've read your tweets, you've responded to me, we have a relationship. You are visible where I see you and where I am.
PS
Commenting on a blog on Christmas Eve either makes me pathetic loser with no life or a workaholic. The reader will ultimately decide which I am. The one makes me unfit to hire, the other makes me the perfect candidate for the job :-)
* something as simple as my choice of him/herself vs the grammatically correct himself says something about me. It is my logo on the side of a charging station at an airport.
First, research (http://www.prweb.com/releases/2008/08/prweb1170...) shows that as much as 2/3 of search engine users are driven to search by an offline channel. So, offline tactics like this can integrate into online initiatives.
Second, for a place like an airport where Wifi is available, it makes sense to place ads that direct people online. They are more apt to follow through on the call to action in a place that provides the means for people to do so, and the idle time to do it.
Third, you cannot underestimate the emotional aspect of branding. Sponsoring free Wifi provides a positive emotional brand experience. These types of experiences lead to a brand achieving either top of mind awareness or getting into the evoked set of the individual come purchase decision time.
1. There are a tremendous number of categorical generalizations above (i.e. advertising is broken, doesn't work, etc...but social media does). Caveat emptor. Nothing, nothing in the world of communication is that black & white.
It's a subjective jungle...especially when you get to creative.
2. I can share plenty of numerical research where there's a direct correlation between targeted "traditional" advertising delivering spikes in web visits, Google AdWord hits, awareness, and 20% increases in sales and ROI (the magic word these days). In 2008. One is for a health care company our agency works for in the greater Boston area.
3. That doesn't mean that there's not an important role for social media (SM). It's critical and it will become more so. But the best advertising is integrated (tool belt analogy in post above) and employs numerous channels. The single airport board must be evaluated within a campaign, not as a single piece of communications. Would any of you want your contributions to social media to be judged by a single blog post?
4. Advertising is really all about a conversation with the target audience:
finding them, understanding them inside and out...their hopes, their doubts, their fears. Just like all of you point to in SM
5. Right now if I was targeting a pharmaceutical campaign (the one referenced above) to 60-75 year old adults with diabetes living in the Florida & the sunbelt I wouldn't use Twitter or Facebook or YouTube. Would you? Unless I wanted to reach opinion leaders, influencers and possibly their chiildren.
6. Finally...here are some brands. I'd ask you (collectively) to decide if advertising has helped or helps them: Nike; Apple; Burger King; Pepsi; Coke; BMW; Volkswagen; Mastercard which buried Visa coming from behind with "Priceless", American Express, Barack Obama. And many, many more. Have an opposing point of view on what built these companies beside good
products/services/people and great marketing? I'm ready to listen.
7. I'm new to social media and prepared to listen & learn from all of you who know a lot more than me. Since I've been listening I've seen a lot of questioning of "traditional" advertising in favor of SM. I'm really excited by the what can be done now & in the future. OK, yes, the world is moving in that direction...but SM isn't the only alternative to "traditional advertising." Think interactive media, user produced content, sponsorships, guerrilla marketing, etc.
8. I'd very respectfully ask in 2009 that you investigate and think carefully about brands, their value, how they gained authority and what role all types of communication can play in the process including "traditional" advertising and SM. Think Integrated communications. Harmony, not opposition.
8. Happy Holidays & Happy New Year.
In a high-volume lead generation business, like education, we've used or thought about nearly every vehicle to deploy a message - traditional, out-of-home, online, social, etc. In airports, everything has potential: from the security bin (Zappos did it for shoes), to providing puzzles on napkins, to projecting mazes on the floor of the long corridors. As to billboards - yes, we've recommended them to reach the business traveler for products that might resonate with the audience, e.g. advanced degrees.
As to cost of the boards - they run from several grand a month to somewhere in the neighborhood of $50k a month if you want to something prominent at LAX. Pricing, like a lot of media, depends on an estimate number of eyeballs (showings or daily equivalent circulation) that see it. Generally, boards aren't out of line with any other media pricing - display, magazines, search, etc.
Is human contact better? Are recommendations from friends more powerful? Absolutely, and media plans should be built with that as a primary objective - how do we facilitate recommendations? But they are only one part of the mix and anything that can support and round out mose's list above for high-consideration products is worth investigating. The ideas behind Duncan Watt's big-seed apply here - how do we provide a basis for conversation among thousands of people simultaneously? We start by announcing our presence; "pardon the interruption but we're in the business of solving your problem".
Could we do a $0 media marketing plan (not to say free)? Certainly, and for products where personal recommendations are paramount then this should be the strategy. The challenge we often face is scaling to deliver X number of leads over a short, defined period of time. Advertising in this context produces because the law of large numbers works in our favor, even at small conversion percentages. Could the cost of acquisition be lowered with a social approach - quite possibly, but it isn't going to be advertising and it will take time.
Thus, social media creates value when it brings a community together to do any of a number of things (share knowledge, increase expertise, find others who share a passion, solve problems, support one another, etc.). Just as giving weary travelers a way to power-up their electronics is of much value, too.
Conversely, if there's a "human interaction" at that power station that wants to sell me things, it will not be of value (that would be an outright nuisance as when I'm traveling, I don't want to be bothered with salespeople).
As for billboards? Well, it depends on the billboard's message and audience. Much of it can be noise (just as a lot of social media and broadcast advertising can be noise), so really the benchmark is not the medium, but the value factor. I don't advocate telling all companies that they need to drop their traditional (or interactive) efforts in favor or social media...I advocate a plan, that is usually integrated...that looks at all the tools available to them to pinpoint how they can add value to their audiences so that they can increase awareness, build relationships and of course increase revenues.
Now, where I think it can be tough, is when marketers of any discipline (be it social media, traditional advertising or direct marketing, etc.) advocates one particular medium over others because that's their expertise--because in most cases what is really needed is a blend of initiatives/media that is customized to every single brand. We can no sooner say that "every brand should be implementing social media programs!" just as we can no sooner say that "every brand should be implementing traditional advertising efforts!" What I think we need to do is to encourage companies to evaluate all of the options they're now afforded and assess the plan that has the highest chance of delivering for them, their audiences and those that they can do well (for instance, I know of a lot of companies that should be implementing social media, yet they don't have the resources or won't make the commitment to do them well).
A couple years ago, when I first started getting hip to the 2.0 tools, and I pushed my colleagues to learn of them, too, they asked me if I was of the mindset that other marketing tools were now dead. (Actually many still ask me this). I found it funny because I explained to them that I didn't at all find that to be the case, but I did find this to be important: if we do not know and learn of the many tools and media available to us--and then map those to our clients' objectives and audiences' needs--how do we really give clients thoughtful recommendations?
Thanks for asking some good questions. Happy holidays.
Everyone who has replied above has valid points, which is probably part of the issue with quantifying somethings as subjective as persuasion. There are only a handful of objective statements about advertising. It costs money (most of the time), it doesn't do any harm (most of the time) and it allows talented creative people to be talented and creative. As to direct ROI? In my business we have gained users through a direct response to an advert. The question of whether it was worth it depends on a number of factors. Where your product/brand is in its life cycle, what metrics you are following to define success and what your client/boss thinks.
So, I can say that we have gained users from advertising and generated a direct $ cost for that acquisition. I have very little idea however whether it was the message of the ad alone or combined with other ad's, Facebook posts, bloke down the pub, Auntie Jean or a news story that made my ad so compelling that it caused an action. That's why we test and probe a combination of campaigns to see if there's synergy. It's a tedious process.
Human contact is a much better tool for gaining loyal customers. I have maintained for years that sales (direct contact) is the one of the most misunderstood parts of business. Everyone knows when they have a good sales guy, few people know how to hire a good salesman and most sales guys are universally hated by non sales guys. A necessary evil if you will.
The problem with direct sales contact is that few people really want to do it and do it well. Most sales guys would love to hide behind the marketing dept and leave them to soften up the leads so they only have to turn up and have the sale land in their lap. People tend to buy things (non-commodities) from people, not from companies. Marketing and advertising can lower many of the potential barriers to a successful sale but not all. Direct contact however costs more, requires more planning and depends upon the skill of the sales guy. Advertising requires research and the ability to write checks. It's easier.
So there's the rub and it's why I will continue to do both. Social networking is absolutely helping us to lower barriers and providing a middle ground of "soft" direct contact. It's a combination of all of these avenues that is making us grow. A good friend of mine summed it up the best. "If I'm seen to be working, advertising budgets are being sensibly spent, sales are coming in, goals are being met and my boss thinks these things are related. I'm fine."
Merry Christmas, Mr Cratchett, Phil
I think this has to do with predictable outcomes and ease by which the marketing channel scales. If your objective is sales results now, it is often easier to turn to a channel you have used before than to try a new channel. And this "social media channel," can't be turned on and off with each campaign (like traditional media), it's an on-going commitment to listening, responding, acting.
There are compelling arguments that say whether you are using social media or not, your brand is still involved. I think there is a difference between being involved in social media and depending on it as a reliable, predictable sales driver.
As I see it, San Diego County Credit Union's decision to sponsor this BCS game (at some absurd price I can only pretend to imagine) has lowered their credibility and made me LESS likely to give them any money at all.
Of course I have now just given San Diego County Credit Union, BCS and poinsettias some potential Google traffic by posting their names here, so maybe awareness is the goal after all. And, as some have mentioned in the comments, branding is an emotional, sometimes messy game. But what good is awareness without action or ideas without implementation?
I don't understand how money invested in any kind of naming can yield any kind of trackable and reliable metrics. Keep in mind I am not claiming all forms of traditional advertising are dead, but I continue to question the value of naming rights and sponsorships of that nature.
Maybe there is an argument to be made for the name sneaking into someone's subconscious, but again that is so hard to validate. I recall some pundit commenting about how Bill Clinton's mention of "Staple's Center" at the 2000 DNC Convention made the entire investment by Staples worthwhile -- maybe they were right?
It seems to me that social media offers a much more feasible option for companies looking to connect with their current consumers and/or target demographic. Of course, social media requires listening, not screaming your brand at the top of your lungs to total strangers, so maybe companies anchored in traditional media won't be able to grasp that?
Matthew Gilbert
doctorious.org
@doctorious
But if an Apple salesman came to my door or if I could spend a couple minutes talking to someone who knew a lot about Apple...He'd probably impart enough knowledge upon me to tip me over the edge and buy a Mac.
When I see an Apple ad in an airport, it reminds me to check the Apple Store locations on my iPhone, just in case I get to the hotel and I may have forgotten my power cord... or the PC-only projector needs an "adaptor" I didn't bring.
What strikes me is that so much of this advertising seems stale. The creative behind it seems so often lame. It is akin to listening to local radio advertisements with their thin plots, the smiling voice of the narrators that never seem to connote honest emotion, the feeble attempt at humor, the cacophony of multiple voices screaming 1-800 numbers repeatedly.
Placement, repetition and eyeballs may be the tactics - audience recall is the holy grail. But at what cost - the loss of any time to reflect, appreciate or contemplate. Advertising has become the new entertainment - visual eyewash to keep us over stimulated and engaged with things (products, any product) that may pass for a moment of diversion.
And yes, it seems as if we have enough of this now and can look forward to much more in the future.
Matthew Gilbert
doctorious.org
@doctorious
I do agree that for most people traditional forms of advertising don't work anymore, but for the average consumer, I think that seeing that new cool phone on a billboard does make them think of your product. If they think about your product enough they might just buy it. That being said, could the money be better spent in another way? Yes, totally. Social media is the wave of the future but some companies just don't get it or don't want to get it.
-Seth
@Peter Yeah, I can see sponsoring urinals with PlainJoe Coffee. "Hey, if your pee doesn't have that coffee smell, you should be buying PlainJoe! http://plainjoe.com " yup, you're seeing it in your mind too.. and it is at once funny and repulsive.. but, you're thinking about clicking to the PlainJoe Web site now, ain't ya? Yes, you are....
We've been searching for another board off and on since. Company A contacted me 4 weeks ago. They now own the board again and offered a great deal. Our board will go up at the end of the month.
For 2009, there is no question we have shifted dollars from traditional media to more on-line, more SM, more "conversational" mediums for connecting with our customers. At the same time, traditional advertising is still a factor for us and more importantly our customer.
We may find that three years later, the impact of the board will not be nearly as great as it was in '05/'06 - we'll see. I'll keep you posted.
There's no question in my mind that social media is critical to our future success and growth, but right now it's a piece of the puzzle, not the entire answer.
Tk Ogun
2505 Studios.com
http://www.tinyurl.com/a3cyw6