Could one of you advertising experts out there please tell me what is going...
Could one of you advertising experts out there please tell me what is going on because for the life of me I cannot understand why conventional advertising still exists.
After all it is NOT accountable.
After all it is adding clutter at an irresponsible rate!
And yet peculiarly Direct Marketing appears to be outperforming all other forms of marketing activity and gives an ROI, which nothing else appears to do.
Advertising is as much about imagery as delivery. Which might explain why boring old direct marketing languishes unfeted among the world's marketing and advertising glitterati who remain seemingly oblivious to such humdrum matters as return on investment.
Direct Marketing is considered the most effective technique, placing it atop the Marketing Effectiveness Ranking.
DM ranked above web advertising, despite five digital media platforms – email, paid search advertising, online referrals, online display advertising and online rich media.
If you listen to the industry hype, it's all about online advertising and emerging mobile advertising. [And] if you check where marketing budgets are mostly spent, it's still all about traditional media such as TV and newspapers.
But when it comes down to effectiveness, while it may not be the most glamorous and talked-about medium, marketers are saying DM is still the best platform for delivering results.
So come on folks please help me as I am utterly bemused by the superior attitudes evidenced by the “above the line” “Empty suits”.
After all it is NOT accountable.
After all it is adding clutter at an irresponsible rate!
And yet peculiarly Direct Marketing appears to be outperforming all other forms of marketing activity and gives an ROI, which nothing else appears to do.
Advertising is as much about imagery as delivery. Which might explain why boring old direct marketing languishes unfeted among the world's marketing and advertising glitterati who remain seemingly oblivious to such humdrum matters as return on investment.
Direct Marketing is considered the most effective technique, placing it atop the Marketing Effectiveness Ranking.
DM ranked above web advertising, despite five digital media platforms – email, paid search advertising, online referrals, online display advertising and online rich media.
If you listen to the industry hype, it's all about online advertising and emerging mobile advertising. [And] if you check where marketing budgets are mostly spent, it's still all about traditional media such as TV and newspapers.
But when it comes down to effectiveness, while it may not be the most glamorous and talked-about medium, marketers are saying DM is still the best platform for delivering results.
So come on folks please help me as I am utterly bemused by the superior attitudes evidenced by the “above the line” “Empty suits”.
Tags: accountability, advertising, clutter, direct, effective, effectiveness, imagery, marketing, roi, technique
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Greg Hollingsworth on -
I am not an expert, by any means, but I work in an environment that uses a mix of DM and online advertising and I'll say this, DM still has a place.
I think the problem that we (the early adopters and those active in online everything) tend to forget that there are still tens of millions of people in this country that do not have easy access to an online environment. Even many 0f those that do have access do not use it the way we do. This is not an uncommon phenomenon (for the most famous example see Dewey defeats Truman).
In an environment where everyone we know is using online resources and many children/teens are spending more time online than watching television, there is still a sizeable portion of the population that is amazingly receptive to Direct Marketing. The reason it still works is that people still respond.
Online is the tool of tomorrow (that's awfully corny), but it cannot takeover completely until there is a computer in every home and the mailbox is a thing of the past.
My two cents.
-
Permalink Reply by Paul Ashby on -
'Consumers increasingly do not trust marketing messages.'
They may be singing the commercials but they don’t trust the words!
A seven-word statement that could lead to the most fundamental changes yet experienced by advertising agencies world-wide, believes Forrester Research.
These are the chilling words that introduce yet the latest research emanating from the USA. on the state of advertising to day.
You know, try as I may to say something positive about advertising these sort of studies are being issued forth on almost a daily basis and could well lead to the demise of advertising as we know it!
The Web?
Here again I’m sorry, however the latest study on the Web is not positive in relation to the benefit of advertising on Web 2.0
Consider this. A recent study shows that:
Heavy clickers represent just 6% of the on line population yet account for 50% of all display ad clicks. Heavy clickers are not representative of the general public.
This is backed up by other research from last year:
Ninety-nine percent of Web users do not click on ads on a monthly basis. Of the 1% that do, most only click once a month. Less than two tenths of one percent click more often. That tiny percentage makes up the vast majority of banner ad clicks.
So who are people clicking? Well, the most recent study says:
Heavy clickers skew towards Internet users between the ages of 25-44 and households with an income under $40,000. Heavy clickers behave very differently on line than the typical Internet user, and while they spend four times more time on line than non-clickers, their spending does not proportionately reflect this very heavy Internet usage. Heavy clickers are also relatively more likely to visit auctions, gambling, and career services sites – a markedly different surfing pattern than non-clickers.
65% of all Web visitors log on to visit pornography! Are they worth advertising to? Hmmm maybe for condoms, not much else though – and even then will they be interested enough to watch commercials?
“There’s too much (advertising) when you sign on,” complains MySpace user John Sigona (32) who likes the site but ignores the ads. “They don’t interest me,” he claims.
That last statement goes right to the heart of the problem – meaningless noise, better know as clutter. It hasn’t taken that long for that problem to catch up with Internet advertising, I guess that understandable given the rush to advertise on the Internet!
So again I ask the question "Could one of you advertising experts please tell what is going on in Adland...perhaps it is time for a drastic re-evaluation of advertising and its reason to exist...AT ALL!
-
Permalink Reply by Angela Natividad on -
Direct marketing brings in trackable dollars today, sure. But all those grown-ups singing the cereal jingles from the TV ads they saw as kids? Incredibly seductive.
-
Permalink Reply by Paul Ashby on
-
Angela thank you for joining in on this discussion. I have attempted to answer your observation in the post above.
I look forward to reading your next observation
Regards
Paul Ashby
-
Permalink Reply by Dena Ferrell on -
I have asked myself the same questions about conventional marketing and found (research) some of the same answers. Conventional marketing will never die but will decrease in large numbers. Which is Ok with me and my mailbox. We are introducing ourselves as professionals to a totally new generation. Advertising on Myspace is definatley NOT going to get their attention. They dont respect that at all. As others have said in this post everyone from X & Y go there to network, not to buy! Companies should focus their online efforts to web pages that compliment there product. Webpages that produce blogs that are in direct correlation with the industry they are working in. A website that educates the consumer on the products they are purchasing and is not called BIG BOBS OUTLET.
Back to Conventional.... We should treat conventional marketing with a lot more respect. Making it an art piece rather than another Worn- Out brochure. I mean I guess the product makes all the difference but if it is not a premier product the younger generation wont be that interested anyway. All the middle guys that blast out neon POP signs and Buy one get one frees will fall to the waste side.
Hey, I am huge fan of "non-conventional " marketing but it is definatley a marriage and tradition of the two.
Dena
-
Permalink Reply by Robert Henslee on
-
90 BILLION from traditional to on-line. Follow the money !
-
Permalink Reply by Dena Ferrell on
-
How would you go about producing a POS door decal for a premier company. I have done extensive research on visual languange and there seem to be so many factors that contribute to the effectivness of the sign/decal.
I am working on a project now. Any words of advise would be great.
-
-
There been a huge swing of ad dollars toward on-line. Why ? Because the ROI is there and on line represents the fastest growth in new sales revenue.
-
Permalink Reply by Paul Ashby on
-
Stuck on an uncertain sea…without a Captain!
I think that we in Advertising are on such a sea. The economic winds seem to be gusting one way, while the optimistic language of Marketing/Advertising people gust another.
Yet most of my advertising friends, in the backs of their minds, harbour doubts and worries about the future. Meanwhile in the pages of the Marketing and Advertising press all is well, or so it appears as they all drone on about this or that latest account loss, this or that creative campaign. And there is no great debate about advertising’s’ future (if it has one!) Because what is there to say except “Fingers Crossed”.
Recently I watched that Peter Sellers classic movie “Being There”. Simple-minded Chance, who has never left his employers’ house, watches television obsessively. He has TV sets in every room, and with short attention span he flicks mindlessly from program to program, from drama to humor to tragedy to an ad. break. Listening to the various leaders of our various advertising bodies you can easily imagine them flicking urgently at their TV monitors and wondering why the picture wouldn’t change according to their preferences, after all it always did before.
Who knows what is happening? Perhaps nothing after all. Perhaps this will all blow over. But what unsettles me goes deeper than a sense of mystery about the future. At most junctures in history there arises the feeling of a lull before a possible storm.
But what distinguishes this bout of soul searching is the passivity of the advertising movers and shakers and the idleness of advertising debate, as we wait. There is a sense of vacuum.
Before the air was full of ideas, strong ideas, competing ideas, confident philosophies, and angry dissent. People had ideas, Advertising people jostled to present their plans…Leaders led!
Where today is the bold advocacy, the impatience to persuade the urgency of argument? Where are the great actors, the leading voices, and the great thoughts?
Picture the head of the IPA, the AAA, and all else, all strangely passionless figures with a philosophical depth of a shop-window mannequin, stick in my mind. Are these the spirits of the advertising age?
What torpid soul ever thought that the solution to advertising clutter was to increase it? Well in jolly old England that’s just what has emerged. “More frequent advertising breaks likely under watchdog’s proposal” thunders the Thunderer! Ofcom has recommended removing the rule, which requires a 20-minute interval between advertising breaks during programs on commercial channels.
Perhaps they were being kind to the poor old viewer who probably didn’t have enough time to do all the things they wanted to do during the commercial break.
In a package of options sent out to broadcasters for consultation, Ofcom also opened up the possibility of a complete US-style free-for-all. You can bet that those leading the IPA etc will not complain about another devaluation in the history of the thirty second TV commercial!
And yet when you read the Advertising Social Networks like Adgabber in the US and Brand Republic in the UK whenever the subject of the effectiveness, or otherwise, of the advertising industry arises a strange silence descends. And they all mouth the long held myths such as “Advertising Works” without, for once, demonstrating the actual fact that it does, indeed, work. The sad fact is that they cannot produce one shred of evidence that supports the long held myths…there is no long term study that demonstrates the exclusive benefits of using advertising to increase sales/
-
Permalink Reply by Lane Casteix on -
There is a difference between sales building and brand building. Sales building is easier and is all the rage now as "advertisers" seek measurable ROI and "immediate sales satisfaction". Trouble is sales building rarely builds a brand. It's success is built on some benefit to the consumer, and that is often only price. But anyone can come along and knock down that house of cards, even if it means a temporary loss to drive the "old champion" out of business.
Brand building is what traditional advertising does best. You can build sales and get great ROI and not ever build a brand with staying power and consumer loyalty. Brand building done properly builds sales, albeit usually over a longer period of time, but a brand thus built resists attacks even by low priced wannabes.
There is a place for both in the industry, but we advertising people and the advertisers need to appreciate the difference and know when each is important to a brand's success. Usually it is both.
Lane
-
Permalink Reply by Paul Ashby on
-
I’m sorry to have to say this but branding is dead…over…finished!
And if Branding is the cause of advertising what lies next for advertising?
Because today, the deal trumps image every time!
After all we’re in the 21st Century and venerable, once solid brands are vanishing. And direct marketers are flourishing. After all look at the detritus of branding. Here’s Levitt, a giant name in home building: Chapter 11, Levitt follows automobile brands Plymouth and Oldsmobile: Vanished. Then there’s Intel, one of the most highly advertised brands with huge chunks of market share lost to a little-known AMD.
Then there’s Merrill Lynch the giant revised its entire securities marketing structure to be able to compete with Web upstarts.
And so it goes on. Compete or lose. Wal-Mart had a next to zero image and Sears had a next to 100 image. AT&T and Xerox had their universe to themselves. IBM owned the PC market. Kodak and Polaroid were riding brand-horses long after their steeds were dead. Jordache jeans were de rigueur. And so it goes!
The Internet stamps across brand worship. The Web is price driven, and it has become the dominant sales medium, the new mantra is. Adapt or lose!
The “How much do you spend on advertising” advertising agencies interpret the whole concept of branding as brand awareness however today’s potential customer both in consumer and business are very cynical. They are after a deal they can regard as reliable and certainly not a tribute to an arrogant chest thumping no longer competitive brand.
If branding were paramount, New Coke would have succeeded. It was an extension of what many regard as the best-known brand in the entire world. The Wednesday version of CBS-TV’s “60 Minutes” wouldn’t have flopped. Linux wouldn’t have scored such a gouge into Microsoft’s turf. Want me to buy your brand? What’s your deal?
So where next for advertising?
I
-
Permalink Reply by Lane Casteix on
-
Hummm... Interesting reply but not sure I agree.
"Because today, the deal trumps image every time!" Explain high priced brands like Apple, Lexus, Gray Goose, etc.
Plymouth and Olds because their market had aged and died off, and they were poorly branded and not properly repositioned to find a new market.
Wal-Mart is where it is because of good management and marketing, controlling the supply chain, well placed stores and GOOD BRANDING. If it were only price then K-Mart would be right up there with them, and they are not.
Kodak and Polaroid? Give me a break; they got behind the product innovation curve.
New Coke - a great solution to a non-existent problem. There never was a market for it. Everyone was perfectly happy with "Old" Coke.
Paul, you have to do better than this to convince me that branding is dead. I will agree that the internet and price are powerful forces in the marketing arena, but they have not rendered all other forms of promoting and marketing as obsolete.
Lane
© 2008 Created by Steve Hall
