I came across a blog today at Implied by Design that touts Internet advertising over traditional advertising. I must say, though, that I was not impressed by the majority of the arguments. Let me give you a little flava:
First off, the author starts with “Internet advertising is huge.” Now, I can’t argue with that one. Internet advertising, or online advertising, is a growing market. I said growing, it’s not the biggest. According to research by IDC, a global provider of market intelligence, Internet marketing is currently the #5 advertising medium. IDC’s report ‘U.S. Internet Advertising 2008-2012 Forecast and Analysis: Defying Economic Crisis,’ “Internet advertising will grow about eight times as fast as advertising at large.”
In five years, Internet advertising will move into the #2 spot for advertising mediums, second only to direct marketing. And if I’m not mistaken, direct marketing is a form of traditional advertising. Interesting.
Next, the blog states that “Internet advertising is targeted.” True, but so is newspaper advertising. So is magazine advertising. So are good direct mail campaigns. You can’t say that people on the Internet are going to click on a Google ad just like you can’t say people who read the newspaper will read your ad in particular. This is a weak argument against traditional advertising. It’s a weak argument for Internet advertising as well.
Next, “Internet advertising enables good conversion tracking.” This one is true – you can track Internet ads easier than most forms of traditional advertising. But, if you send out brochures or postcards that are coded with an offer and people bring them back to your store to redeem the offer, isn’t that conversion tracking? Depending on what kind of traditional ads you use, you can track those just as well as an Internet campaign.
“Internet advertising has lower entry-level fees.” This is true with Google Adwords, where you only pay-per-click. But you can also use flyers and cheap brochures and postcards to hand out to people in person. If you print in bulk, your fees will be lowered. If you hand out brochures and postcards at a trade show or conference, I guarantee more people will see those than would see the Internet ads. That makes the traditional route cheaper – more ads actually being seen by prospects.
“Internet advertising can be much cheaper.” Isn’t this the same as the previous argument? At any rate, the blog author states here that because of better conversion rates, you end up with a cheaper marketing budget. Please see previous paragraph – no need for me to repeat myself.
Lastly the blog states that “Internet advertising has greater range.” True, but how many companies that use Internet marketing are worldwide operators? Part of Advertising 101 is to target your audience. Reaching the entire world isn’t exactly targeting. And, this contradicts the #2 reason given for Internet advertising: that it’s targeted.
Of course, I know this blog is just a broad generalization, but I felt compelled to fight one broad generalization with another. I think both Internet and traditional advertising can work well together for any company; it just depends on the timing and needs of the company.
Comments