I wrote this article last year and think it is still worth thinking about. We are all challenged to drive more results with less. Have you evaluated your marketing to determine where your money is most productive?
Many marketers face the challenge of selecting an effective marketing strategy on a very limited budget. With the uncertainty of the current economic environment, it is more important than ever for businesses to implement traditional and online marketing strategies that will produce results.
Most business owners agree that Internet marketing offers low cost alternatives to traditional marketing tactics. Although many companies have invested in some form of online marketing, such as email marketing or paid search (Search Engine Marketing-SEM), SEO is often left out of the online marketing mix. This is a mistake because SEO can be beneficial in generating a greater number of qualified visitors to a Web site by targeting key word search results.
Measuring Results
As with any traditional or online marketing tactic, it is important to measure results to determine if the chosen strategy is a profitable investment. Measuring the cost per impression, or the investment associated with displaying an advertisement to each potential customer, can help businesses identify the most cost-effective strategies. It is important to compare the cost per impression for both traditional and online marketing tactics to determine the best investment strategy. Following is a comparison of the cost per impression for some popular traditional marketing tactics as well as online marketing with SEO:
Television Advertising
American Idol - Wednesday night "Results Show" - 30 second spot with 22.9 million viewers:
Total Cost: $705,000
Cost per Impression: $0.031
Print Advertising
New York Times - full-page ad in the Sunday paper with a circulation of 1.65 million:
Total Cost: $145,278
Cost per Impression: $0.088
Radio Advertising
KCBS-FM (an adult hits radio station in Los Angeles with 1.4 million weekly listeners) - 30 second spot with 4,167 listeners during any one 30 second period:
Total Cost: $1,083
Cost per Impression: $0.26
Online Marketing with SEO Monthly
Based on clients' benchmark performance and average impressions of 670,000 per month:
Total Cost: $2,750
Cost per Impression: $0.004
Why Is SEO Overlooked?
Even though SEO produces one of the lowest costs per impression as compared to other traditional and online marketing strategies, it is often overlooked because business leaders are not completely comfortable with the concept. Often they don't take the time to compare online marketing tactics such as SEO with other traditional forms of marketing. Many marketers invest in paid search (SEM) as Google and others have made it ubiquitous and understandable. However, SEO is less well understood by the traditional marketer.
With 38 million searches done a day in the United States alone, SEO should be considered an imperative and included as a marketing budget line item.
Additional Benefits Of SEO
Along with the low cost per impression, there are several additional benefits of SEO that make it an integral part of any online marketing strategy:
Always On - Unlike traditional forms of advertising, such as a TV commercial that may run once an evening, SEO is available 24 hours per day, seven days per week whenever a relevant search is being performed.
Relevancy - More importantly, only those who are searching for specific key words will see the listing, making marketing with SEO much more targeted and relevant than traditional marketing tactics.
Contextual - Instead of passively flipping through a magazine, the searcher is actively seeking information, thus they are already in the mindset of looking for information.
Brand Enhancement - Additionally, being placed in the top search results helps elevate the perceived brand quality. Readers associate a level of professionalism, trust and value with websites that are in the top ranked organic spots of search engines, thinking top rankings must equate to best in their industry.
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
Friday, September 3, 2010
Will "do-not-track" legislation be enacted?
Last week I talked about fact based marketing and how useful and beneficial it is for marketers as well as how much data and information is out there is. This is nothing new. However, the Internet has accelerated and accentuated concern over the privacy and security of information and what it means to businesses and marketers and to consumers.
With the discussion last month between the FTC and Congress considering a "do not track" registry, do we have reason to be concerned? And what does it mean should legislation like this be enacted?
Certainly the marketing community has survived through do not call lists, do not mail and CAN-SPAM. Perhaps this potential regulation will simply join the ranks of these other regulations and guidelines and marketers will figure out how to communicate in other ways.
What does this all mean though to the end consumer and to the marketer? Is it bad for marketers to have information that makes their messaging more relevant and timely for the consumer? Unfortunately, many of these rules and regulations are not for the legitimate, ethical marketers but for those who have nefarious intent in many cases. Will this kind of legislation really protect us from those practitioners? I don't know about you, but I still receive plenty of emails that are not CAN-SPAM compliant and the volume of these doesn't appear to have slowed. According to the Pingdon blog from January of this year, in 2009, there were 200 billion spam email message sent a day!
So, even if this legislation is enacted, will it protect consumers privacy or will these illegal abusers simply continue as they have in other mediums?
For legitimate marketers, is there value in data collection? I believe the answer is surely yes. It helps me become more efficient in my marketing, driving higher returns and better profits. In this era of a continuing slow economic recovery and lack of job growth is driving profits and corporate growth a good thing? I believe the answer is also yes.
Do consumers and our marketing targets benefit from our legitimate use of data? If it reduces irrelevant messages, provides valuable content and insights of interest to the end recipient, then I would suggest the answer is yes. Paul Rubin, of Emory University, says it much better than I can in his Wall Street Journal article Ten Fallacies About Web Privacy.
Speak up about this proposed new legislation. We all have a stake in the future of effective, relevant and legitimate marketing communication.
With the discussion last month between the FTC and Congress considering a "do not track" registry, do we have reason to be concerned? And what does it mean should legislation like this be enacted?
Certainly the marketing community has survived through do not call lists, do not mail and CAN-SPAM. Perhaps this potential regulation will simply join the ranks of these other regulations and guidelines and marketers will figure out how to communicate in other ways.
What does this all mean though to the end consumer and to the marketer? Is it bad for marketers to have information that makes their messaging more relevant and timely for the consumer? Unfortunately, many of these rules and regulations are not for the legitimate, ethical marketers but for those who have nefarious intent in many cases. Will this kind of legislation really protect us from those practitioners? I don't know about you, but I still receive plenty of emails that are not CAN-SPAM compliant and the volume of these doesn't appear to have slowed. According to the Pingdon blog from January of this year, in 2009, there were 200 billion spam email message sent a day!
So, even if this legislation is enacted, will it protect consumers privacy or will these illegal abusers simply continue as they have in other mediums?
For legitimate marketers, is there value in data collection? I believe the answer is surely yes. It helps me become more efficient in my marketing, driving higher returns and better profits. In this era of a continuing slow economic recovery and lack of job growth is driving profits and corporate growth a good thing? I believe the answer is also yes.
Do consumers and our marketing targets benefit from our legitimate use of data? If it reduces irrelevant messages, provides valuable content and insights of interest to the end recipient, then I would suggest the answer is yes. Paul Rubin, of Emory University, says it much better than I can in his Wall Street Journal article Ten Fallacies About Web Privacy.
Speak up about this proposed new legislation. We all have a stake in the future of effective, relevant and legitimate marketing communication.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)