Re: Why Online Advertising Sucks
TERRY LEFTON <tlefton_at_thestandard.com> WROTE:
>What we don't know is why more big brands
>aren't investing. Advertising, in our opinion,
>has NOT followed eyeballs."
It's all about expectations. Do advertisers expect
billboards, TV commercials and print ads to result
in sales that are directly trackable to those particular
ads? Of course not. Advertisers have grown to expect
these kind of results from online because results can
be measured so precisely. There definitely IS a backlash
right now. Who is to blame? Perhaps the online publishers
and agencies that miseducated their clients by setting
such high ROI expectations. But more likely it's the dot
com clients who are now nursing massive hangovers--or
are out of business altogether--from runaway spending
on foolish campaigns (both online AND offline) that went
nowhere. In the past, I was frequently surprised at the
number of clients who were NOT tracking campaign
performance as they should.
Let's face it, we will never go back to the kind of results
that we saw in the early days of the Internet--that was
about novelty. But online advertising is not less effective
than any other kind of advertising. There IS branding value
and there CAN be significant ROI if you craft and track your
campaigns carefully. People who label online advertising in
general as "ineffective" have not done their homework.
Sharon Gillenwater
President, Fidget.com
Fidget: Information for Restless Minds
Received on Thu Mar 01 2001 - 09:15:28 CST
