Tuesday, August 01, 2006
Well, Duh...
"Duh" was my first reaction to this piece from AdWeek, which discusses a study that finds "users exposed to search and display advertising convert 22 percent more than those who only see search ads."
But then, our human tendency is to rank things, and focus on what's hot. Search is hot, so therefore, display advertising must be less so. Perhaps more studies like this can help our advertisers understand that they need campaigns which integrate all the tools they have at their disposal. (And we media folks need to offer those tools, and be able to effectively communicate the relative values of each element of an integrated media buy).
The kind of study I'd really like to see is one that delves deep into the b2b buying process--all the elements that go into the final decision to make a purchase of a particular product or service. ABM's recent Harris study comes close, but isn't quite what I mean. The usual studies that we--and our advertisers--see rank the effectiveness of salespeople, print ads, trade shows, online, search and so on, as if each of these is independent of the others, and that some are better than others. From my own experience, that's just not the way purchase decisions are made. I think we need a study that dissects the b2b purchase process from the buyer's perspective, examining the impact of advertising and other marketing spend on each stage of that process.
Late last year, my little business embarked on a technology upgrade. We needed new computers which could handle serious graphics applications and massive multitasking. The upshot is that we ordered our new computers, monitors and other equipment online. So online must be the place to invest marketing dollars to reach a business like ours, right?
Well, wrong. The brand of computer we chose was heavily influenced by exposure to several years of print ads. The decision was honed by reading print reviews and online reviews. We used search to compare computer brands and capabilities. We checked blogs for feedback on customer service and real-world performance issues. We talked to colleagues and friends for their recommendations. There were many similar computers with the capabilities we were looking for. But we were most comfortable with a brand that had effectively used print advertising to establish its position in the market. Print advertising alone didn't make the decision, of course--the computer maker did well in reviews, customer service and word-of-mouth, as well. Without the computer maker's print ads and its long-term investment in branding, we might have selected another vendor.
The lesson is that many media elements contributed to our final purchase decision, that no single element by itself caused us to buy, and that any missing element could have cost the vendor the sale.
I doubt that my experience is unusual.
Comments
|
But then, our human tendency is to rank things, and focus on what's hot. Search is hot, so therefore, display advertising must be less so. Perhaps more studies like this can help our advertisers understand that they need campaigns which integrate all the tools they have at their disposal. (And we media folks need to offer those tools, and be able to effectively communicate the relative values of each element of an integrated media buy).
The kind of study I'd really like to see is one that delves deep into the b2b buying process--all the elements that go into the final decision to make a purchase of a particular product or service. ABM's recent Harris study comes close, but isn't quite what I mean. The usual studies that we--and our advertisers--see rank the effectiveness of salespeople, print ads, trade shows, online, search and so on, as if each of these is independent of the others, and that some are better than others. From my own experience, that's just not the way purchase decisions are made. I think we need a study that dissects the b2b purchase process from the buyer's perspective, examining the impact of advertising and other marketing spend on each stage of that process.
Late last year, my little business embarked on a technology upgrade. We needed new computers which could handle serious graphics applications and massive multitasking. The upshot is that we ordered our new computers, monitors and other equipment online. So online must be the place to invest marketing dollars to reach a business like ours, right?
Well, wrong. The brand of computer we chose was heavily influenced by exposure to several years of print ads. The decision was honed by reading print reviews and online reviews. We used search to compare computer brands and capabilities. We checked blogs for feedback on customer service and real-world performance issues. We talked to colleagues and friends for their recommendations. There were many similar computers with the capabilities we were looking for. But we were most comfortable with a brand that had effectively used print advertising to establish its position in the market. Print advertising alone didn't make the decision, of course--the computer maker did well in reviews, customer service and word-of-mouth, as well. Without the computer maker's print ads and its long-term investment in branding, we might have selected another vendor.
The lesson is that many media elements contributed to our final purchase decision, that no single element by itself caused us to buy, and that any missing element could have cost the vendor the sale.
I doubt that my experience is unusual.
