“I know half the money I spend on advertising is wasted, but I can never find out which half.” – John Wanamaker
One of the more common questions I get is how do we justify funding social media? Increasingly, my response is how long do you keep funding marking communications in media that isn’t working (image: balance by Meagansphotos)?
It’s not that you have to grow the pie bigger. Instead, think about which half of the pie is working and which isn’t. More importantly, which forms of media are your stakeholders using that you are failing to address? My advise is to take stock of your marketing approach and reallocate resources appropriately.
Consider what people are using today for information:
So how much longer can people keep justifying the same kind of spends on traditional PR and advertising in the face of these trends and in this economy? And how much longer are people going to get away with passing social media off as experimental as opposed to simply adopting it as part of the larger communications fold.
Does anyone really think social media and Internet marketing in general are going to become less important? Consider all of the newspapers going bankrupt right now.
What do you think?
As someone that both reads news sources online and offline, I think it is easy for us “geeks” to forget that while newspapers are failing, the thing that the poll doesn’t address is how effective print ads compared to banner ads. I think you will find that although print ads don’t have as far of a reach (unless you are best buy or target), chances are higher that the conversion rates are larger in print ads.
I don’t have data to back this up but I think the internet is more of a playground to most and marketers are kind of behind the times in terms of figuring out how to interrupt the user.
Just my .02 though.
@Leo There’s more to online marketing than banner ads, which really represent the first generation of 1.0 marketing attempts.
What a lot of marketers still don’t realize is that people who need to solve a problem with a purchase of goods or services do not go to print resources to find solutions to that problem. By a wide margin, they go to Google to search on the problem or the solution if they know what the solution is called.
Not being visible on page 1 or 2 of those searches will not be a good thing for businesses going forward. Getting in those searches inevitably requires social media use of some form. In particular, rich media like podcasts or vidcasts does help raise visibility in Google and other searches.
More importantly, by not giving control of the message to an intermediary, businesses can begin to engage with their clients directly. Creating your own videos or audio programs allows you to begin the dialogue from your own starting point, not one created by a green reporter who parachutes into your business long enough to write 6 inches of copy or shoot 30 seconds of b-roll.
Right now the demos are skewing to 25-35 year olds who dont read print papers, who get most of their info online, and who prefer video to reading. So what’s the hold-up on reallocating some of those resources?
I agree with both Geoff and Steve– there is a tsunami of consumers who turn to the web first for news, social interaction and purchases, oh and they’re most desirable demo of 18-34. This wave represents a “forever” change in how people market because our children are growing up in an iPhone, Twitter, Facebook, Google and Amazon world. Personally newspapers are a novelty to my young kids, they request “on-demand” movies and manage their own Netflix account (with my help.) Oh and they’re just five. Don’t get me started on the tweens I observe (a la Margaret Meade) in the neighborhood.
Contextual marketing is key: who are you marketing to, what is their response profile, where is best to reach them and what message will appeal?
Reallocate or, simply, die. An analogy to 70’s Japanese car makers and Detroit would be entirely off-base.
Twitter: TheBetsy
Geoff,
I understand that…but the issue that online media faces (which target and best buy have tested), is that people are more responsive to print ads (like the inserts we get in the Sunday Paper) than a virtual insert. As long as that remains, then the big guys will focus a lot of their efforts on old, traditional media.
And while banners are so yesterday, I am not sure what other alternative the companies have to create the same experience that consumers get with print.
That is the conundrum….how to create a similar or better experience….
Geoff,
I especially think this is valid for niche type business or, as illustrated by Forrester, B2B business.
http://blogs.forrester.com/marketing/2009/02/b2b-social-tech.html
Laurent
Chris Rasmussen touched on this at Chris Dorobek’s #FOSE panel this morning. Any new tools always have to be defended – how productive is it? How much money does it cost? – but the old tools – email, or in this case, broadcast marketing – are almost never questioned.
Let’s evolve and try new things!
Thanks Geoff.
If history repeats itself, we’ll see many deny their Social Successes for as long as they’re able to. This will keep their competition out of the space, allow them more penetration, and keep costs down. In my 14 years in the Web industry, we’ve seen it with classic websites, seo, ppc, and email marketing.
I say let’s quit trying to publicly quantify it all, allow those that BELIEVE in social (on pure faith) to make strides past traditional thinkers. Let’s have those that find the merits of social self-evident, those that believe this is how business should be done, leapfrog the naysayers and rock on… into the sunset, with their fans. Thus, seizing the days until the non-believers get a clue.
Seriously, would you rather work in an industry where a social media mindset prevails, or some mechanized Chaplin’esque existence that no longer belongs anywhere but the Twighlight Zone. Let the good guys gain some ground!
(see you at SxSW !)
I run the interactive division of a mid-sized independent ad agency.
More people prefer Social Networks than email for personal communication. This doesn’t make it a commercial media channel.
35% may have a profile but what percent of this group is actively engaged in the channel? Not nearly as many, which means it’s a narrow communication channel.
People have always preferred customer reviews. How exactly is this new and how does this justify investment in Social Media?
Newspapers are clearly struggling, which means some will evolve and some will go away but it doesn’t mean the traditional media should be abandoned for Social Media.
Social media in particular and online media in general deserve a larger role in the communication mix. I agree with this completely but I just don’t think you arguments for it are very strong.
When a consumer enters the market they don’t differentiate where they get the information from that they need to make a purchase decision. For consumers it’s the right content made available through the most convenient channel. This means all channels have to be considered.
And BTW, 77% of wealth in the US is controlled by people over 50.
@James, who said abandon? I said reallocate. Perhaps you should re-read the postbased on some other remarks you made. For example, 35% is a significant minority of Americans, but that is newspapers, 40% use online, which is what I’m talking about. This makes these properties thrid and second most used by Americans. I would not abandon either.
Oh, and BTW, my customers want under 50 year olds, so I beg to differ with you. My post is based on my experiences and my clientele. If yours are older, God bless you. Keep going 1.0.
Thanks for sharing.
It is really hard to make effective market.