Wednesday, October 07, 2009
Annals of advertising: The offline bias
Paul Kedrosky cites an analyst report that shows that online advertising is a lot more effective than offline, yet advertisers are still spending disproportionately large dollars in the traditional media. The question is, why? Perhaps the people who decide where to spend advertising dollars are themselves not particularly informed. Or maybe they just get better swag, or reflected prestige and glory, from the mainstream media.
5 Comments:
By 
, at
Wed Oct 07, 11:51:00 PM:
This would be a good time to thank you, profusely, for not allowing blinking, animated ads on your site. It is a blessing swag doesn't sway you.
M.E.
By , at
Thu Oct 08, 02:59:00 AM:
Prestige? In yeh olde days when printers had to have expensive font cartridges installed the IT department got wind of plans for a new housestyle, and quickly forced the marketing manager to use one of the standard Windows 95 fonts. I don't think she ever forgave us.
Likewise buying an nicely designed full color ad vs. dealing with geeks to get some online advertising done.
By , at
Thu Oct 08, 07:23:00 AM:
"Half my ad spending is wasted, but I don't know which half."
An old problem solved.
Link, over
By , at
Thu Oct 08, 09:35:00 AM:
It's the former reason. Many of the people making those advertising decisions are dinosaurs who cling to 20th century business models and don't get that the world has changed.
Sadly, this also applies to many of the people in the ad agencies I work with.
By MAS1916, at
Thu Oct 08, 10:38:00 AM:
Accurately hitting a target market is the real value! Metrics on readership allow marketers to reach exactly the target demographics more efficiently. And besides, it works!!
