NONE: RE: ONLINE-ADS>> Article: Offline Advertising in an Online World
RE: ONLINE-ADS>> Article: Offline Advertising in an Online World
Jim Meskauskas (Jim_at_HAWKMEDIA.com)
Tue, 15 Sep 1998 21:17:08 -0500 (CDT)
Jeff Schaeffler <schaeffler_at_columbus-group.com> wrote:
>Here is a simply equation to quash how traditional
>advertising is more effective in driving traffic to a
>website over online ads; provide your clients statistics
>that show the cost per visitor to a clients website from a
>newspaper ad, tv commercial, billboard, and a banner ad.
>This cannot be done and therefore the argument does not
>exist.
>
>Only the banner ad can provide this data unless people are
>stopping their cars along the highway to log onto a site and
>entering through the portal for people who saw this ad on a
>billboard, there is no way to tell a client which medium
>effected clickthrough.
>
>Why spend your advertising dollars on traditional mediums
>when only a certain percentage who see the ad can go
>directly online to view the site promoted.
Most of traditional media's relation to the effect on a
client's bottom line has always been correlative. No one
can argue that. With a few exceptions in DR broadcast or
print, it is very difficult (and often time prohibitively
expensive) to demonstrate an absolute causal relationship
between media and response. I don't think anyone is saying
that traditional media is always MORE effective in
generating traffic to an online property, but it does work
awfully well. The Intel Super Bowl campaign was considered
a success. The cost of the spot divided by the number of
people who went to the site may not pay out as well as
online (according to the March 4 issue of ICONOCAST, the
cost per visit/lead was about $3.25), but, much like banners
that people DON'T click on, how much branding and awareness
was accomplished against the unclicking or unvisiting
masses? Sure, online maybe I'm yielding a $1 cost per lead,
but if my objective as an advertiser is to break through to
the next level, what good is a $1 CPL from a 100K impression
by at a $30 CPM (3,000 visitors) if what I'm after is
half-a-million leads? Perhaps it's worth the premium to get
that bump in the short-term.
Part of the allure of general market media in generating
traffic to a netcentric advertiser's web site is the reach
it affords. With one spot during the Super Bowl I can
create the conditions for driving a lot more traffic to a
single-destination site than if I ran a zillion impressions
across a dozen web sites. If I've got $1 million to get
people to my Mexican Soul Food take-out site
(www.nachomama.com), how many web impressions do I have to
buy with that to maximize my reach and be sure that as many
different people who are online know that I'm there? The
real issue is going to be unique impressions. If I were to
buy a spot on the Super Bowl with that $1 million (wouldn't
that be nice? Ah, the good old days...) I can be sure that,
with that ad running only once, I'll get a ton of
impressions, all of them unique.
Though I firmly believe that online holds the promise of
both brand building and awareness while achieving one-to-one
marketing, the difficulties are going to become these: can I
define my universe? If so, how much of that universe can I
reach online? How many times am I reaching them? Is it
enough? The problem that arises in this discussion is that
unless my online buy approaches an infinite number of
impressions, I have no way of readily quantifying my
potential impact against my target as a whole. Now, a
netcentric advertiser should certainly start online to
conduct its awareness and brand building efforts to begin
building its business. Successful retailers such as Amazon
and CDNow took this tack. But at some point they had to
move to general market media to get people to their site who
DON'T click on banners or outbound links or rotating logos
or whatever other device is used to get people to the site.
We are already beginning to see more netcentric brands use
general market media to ramp up traffic -- and it's been a
reasonable success. Yahoo!, Lycos, Amazon.com, CDNow, The
Globe.com, Excite, CBS Marketwatch, and a multitude of
fiduciary services have all used general market media to
drive users to their online properties. The future of
online media is going to be a requirement that there is
familiarity with ALL media to be used in a cohesive
communications package that maintains consistent brand
stewardship through all planes of the market place and
brings to each of those planes coherent, flush messaging
that conveys a brand and its value proposition.
[clink, clink, clink]
My three-cents' worth.
~~~~~~~~~~
Jim Meskauskas
Media Planner, Interactive Media Specialist
Hawk Media
731 Sansome St., 5th Fl
San Francisco, CA 94111
PH: 415-777-4645
FX: 415-777-1062
========================================================================
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This week's Online Advertising Discussion List sponsors:
AdKnowledge, The 24/7 Network and The Mining Company
7 out of 15 top agencies know that AdKnowledge improves web advertising
effectiveness. What are YOU waiting for? AdKnowledge. We make web
advertising work. http://ads01.adknowledge.com/SmartBanner/page/9751.2
---
CLIQNOW! Networks & The 24/7 Network. Buy reach & powerful brands:
*Reuters News, The Mining Co., Wall St. Sports, Jokes.com*
Get these sites on your next buy. http://www.247media.com/umbrella.html
---
QUESTION: What has 5,000 fingers and has grown 44% since April? It's been
called "a Yahoo! on steroids," and it's spreading fast across the web.
ANSWER: The 500 Expert Guides at http://MiningCo.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
========================================================================
Online Advertising Discussion List To Unsubscribe send UNSUBSCRIBE
http://www.o-a.com/ to online-ads-request_at_o-a.com
