mini-skirts

The fella who famously said 'half of my advertising budget is wasted..I just don't know which half' must be getting even more perplexed.

Two headline stories last week.
The IAB reports that 'The internet now accounts for 23.5% of all advertising money spent in the UK, while TV ad spend accounts for 21.9% of marketing budgets.'

Cue mass web v tv hysteria on twitter...

Interesting, but on further investigation (and I tip the hat to Simon Kendrick who done the digging so we don't have to) the growth in online advertising is propelled on the whole by search not display (so get back in yer box digital advertising types - display accounts for less than 20% of said online spend)

Serving only to confuse matters even further is the story from Adage that 'the number of people online who click display ads has dropped 50% in less than two years, and only 8% of internet users account for 85% of all clicks'

In reality, we all know that click thru is the most bollocks of measurement anyway, and the ratio points at something in the area of classic 80/20 rule, so no big deal.
And, again, averages really tell us nothing. Response levels and degrees of engagement are going to vary by industry sector (and by creative use of the format).

Ads that offer meaningful interaction and deliver return on interest for the user are going to be more effective. Boring, shit ads will not. End of.

I commented on Simons piece that as more and more ad supported media moves online (tv, newspapers, music, films, books etc etc) it stands to reason that ad spend will shift.
What would be MORE interesting would be to find out portion of total marketing budgets are moving from paid-for advertising spend (all media) to ‘other’ activities that tip sales in active evaluation, like customer service, utility and service driven activity.
That would be a real story.



Finally classic quote from Danish sage and former Aberdeen FC boss, Ebbe Skovdahl..

'Statistics are just like mini-skirts, they give you good ideas but hide the most important thing.'

Tweet

Add to: Digg | del.icio.us | Technorati | Yahoo | reddit

the wrong customers

This will be a familiar story...

Brand X makes a decent product that has a relatively small slice of it's category, enough to tick over but could always do with growing a bit more.

Brand X, unfortunately, are prone to committing the number one biggest mistake in marketing. They continually look at things from their own perspective, rather than their customers.

And Brand X have recently discovered, the WRONG people are buying their product.
This annoys conceited Brand X because these customers that they DO have, don't match the image the brand has of itself.

Brand X squanders the small amount of marketing budget it does have on trying to change the behaviour it's 'target market' (in this case a bunch of people who sadly, are not remotely interested) to buy a product they don't want.

A far better idea for delusional Brand X would be:
Find out why the people who are buying, ARE buying.
And find ways sell to more people like them.

Waste time and money continually looking for the 'right' relationship, the one that matches the brand view of the brand? Or cultivate the ones you have already?
Beacause if these 'wrong' customers go elsewhere, what are you left with?

Tweet

Add to: Digg | del.icio.us | Technorati | Yahoo | reddit

daydream believer

Riddle me this...
In reference to another nugget from the McKinsey 'consumer decision journey' report mentioned a couple of posts ago..

'Our research found that two-thirds of the touch points during the active-evaluation phase involve consumer-driven marketing activities, such as Internet reviews and word-of-mouth recommendations from friends and family, as well as in-store interactions and recollections of past experiences.'



Surely then, proportionately two thirds of marketing budget would be best applied trying to add value and tip sales at those touch points?

If i can dream....

Tweet

Add to: Digg | del.icio.us | Technorati | Yahoo | reddit