“Spray and Pray” at your peril, people 3
Yesterday’s WOMMA webinar, where I presented Smart Marketing in a Dumb Economy, generated a lot of excellent questions—including “how do you convince a reluctant executive to experiment with digital and social media?” “Who within an organization ‘owns’ the conversation?” and the infamous “How and what do you measure exactly?”
I did my best to answer each of them—and will post the audio of the webinar as soon as WOMMA makes it available.
But there was one question that came via email after the webinar that I couldn’t resist sharing and answering here. Hope you find it “edumacational.” As always, I hope it sparks a healthy debate!
Q: You mentioned that companies are moving away from spending large amounts on traditional advertising (TV spots, print ads, etc.) instead opting for targeted marketing and creating experiences, mainly online. Do you think this trend is mainly due to economics or is targeted marketing proving more effective, or both? Once the economy improves, do you think companies will move away from monitoring and targeted marketing to return to the spray & pray, or is this a permanent shift away from that model?
Allow this humble genius to answer this question by starting with this simple statement:
Traditional advertising has a few undeniable advantages.
1) It’s familiar—marketers have been relying on traditional media for decades. It’s simply what we know.
2) It’s sexy. Or at least… it’s perceived to be. Agencies have long coveted their awards and their reels and clients have long enjoyed the prestige that goes with a killer TV spot. Reminds me of vanity license plates and the sunglasses that are so popular nowadays with the giant “D&G” carved in to the side.
3) It’s the easiest way to blast your message to a mass audience. Unfortunately, blasting a mass message is beginning to sound like the definition of “SPAM” and in the not-to-distant future “POLLUTION”. Also, the idea of a ‘mass audience’ is quickly going the way of the Tamil tiger. But I digress…
Change is hard. When you’ve been doing something for a long time, it’s a tad uncomfortable to try a new approach. Especially if in the past your approach has been wildly successful. Which is why until the recent economic turbulence kicked us all in the collective behind, most companies and most agencies were quite happy to ignore alternative marketing channels or to view them as “scraps” that get added on to a traditional media campaign with the leftover dollars.
Today, everyone’s wallet is a bit lighter. Some industries [you know who they are] are hemorrhaging cash or even worse—asking for handouts from the rest of us (as if selling us crap—and I do mean crap—wasn’t enough! THE NERVE). Which means many marketers simply can’t afford to bombard us with TV ads. They have no choice but to get creative; to shift their dollars and their brains away from paid media and toward the earned variety. Cliche as it sounds, necessity is indeed often the mother of invention. Or something like that.
The second part of your question deals with the “is this temporary or permanent” issue. Some argue [hope?] that once the economy recovers, we can all go back to The Glory Days of buying our way into the homes of our customers.
I say not so fast. There is a bigger shift in the works than simple economics. We are becoming more digital. More mobile. More multi-channel and multi-screen. This point is particularly salient among youth who were “born wired” and don’t relate to our Pavlovian addiction to TV Guide. They consume media on their terms; on their device of choice. They detest SPAM. They know how to turn your broadcasts OFF.
But it’s not just the youngins’ that are drifting from the large screen to the smaller ones. It’s happening everywhere. The Kindle. The iPod. The iPhone. The DVR. And so on.
If there is one thing you can count on (and it’s clearly not the economy), it’s the growing expectation among ALL consumers of ALL ages to have a say in how, when, and where they consume information.
Which is a very long-winded way of saying, no, this aint temporary.
But there’s another key thread to this conversation, which you smartly raised in your question. And that is this: is targeted marketing more effective?
The Evil Genius in me of course snickers, rolls her eyes, and says DUH. Of course it is.
The kinder, gentler, slightly more mature human in me also says, well.. DUH. Of course it is.
No, seriously… how can it not be? Is it more effective to water the entire neighborhood when it’s YOUR lawn that you’re hoping to grow? No, of course not. “Spray and pray” used to work in the past in part because EVERYONE WATCHED TV. At predictable times. And frankly, there weren’t too many other options.
Today, the options are virtually infinite. Creativity has REALLY fertile ground in which to grow.
I do so hope to see more of it!
My, that email looks familiar! Thanks for posting this Marta, I sent that email in hopes of creating a discussion, and there’s no better place than here.
I completely agree with you that targeted marketing is more effective, and should be the norm instead of the trend. Understanding the audience and how to communicate effectively with that audience should really be the first step of any successful campaign. But is success from creating experiences online enough to completely change the mind of Big Daddy C-Suite for good? I can’t see a complete abandonment of TV ads and billboards, but I definitely think more diverse, integrated campaigns will become the standard.
In your webinar you cited an example of other media and ads pointing towards a Facebook page, which is a good example of bridging the gap between old marketing and new.
To me, the real key is engagement. People can ignore web campaigns just as easily as they can tune out commercials. If you can create some sort of dialogue or conversation around and with your organization, there is a real opportunity to build reputation and reach whatever the objectives of the campaign may be.
One more question: with marketing communications becoming more targeted, do you think we will see an increase in quantity and complexity of campaigns? Meaning, a larger number of smaller, specifically targeted communications as part of a larger initiative as opposed to one idea broadcast across every medium available.
Thanks again for the presentation, and for bringing this discussion to the blog!
-Tom
@tomtoronto
Tom,
Creating experiences online is certainly not enough, unless of course, online is the ONLY place where your target audience is spending their time ;). It’s about creating experiences across all touchpoints—versus creating ads that blast a message but leave nothing tangible for the recipient of that message to engage with. To put the idea in another context: if a parent wishes to impact the behavior of his/her child—say, to develop good table manners—will the parent be more effective if she spends her days repeating the “please use good table manners” message? Leaving notes about good table manners, sending emails about good table manners, posting photos about good table manners, etc… Or will she perhaps be more effective if she creates a positive experience for the child “at all touch points” around the topic of good table manners? For instance, rewarding good table manners with praise and special privileges; creating games and opportunities for light-hearted “competition” among peers and siblings around The Best Table Manners; providing helpful and entertaining “how to” sessions both online and off… Ok, maybe I’m taking this analogy a tad too far, but the point remains valid.
Saying things over and over again is annoying. And frankly, easy to ignore. It helps when the message is funny, shocking, or otherwise entertaining… which is why TV advertising isn’t going to go away completely (not as long as we have TV anyway), but it damn well better not be the only basket you put your eggs into.
As for the increase in quantity/complexity question… I think that depends. Certainly it’s getting more complex to the extent that the options we have as marketers are growing ever more numerous. At the end of the day though, the basic need to connect with your audience—wherever they are—should guide decisions re medium, channel, etc. So at the risk of sounding like a fence-sitter (never!), I’ll leave that one with a definite “it depends”.
Point well made. As an aside, that table manners website is actually a pretty good idea; it’s a lost art.
It sounds to me that the options for marketers are more diverse than ever, and strategic thinking is needed now most of all. What I gather from your last point above is that audiences and objectives are naturally going to provide the direction for any communication, which will make each case differ from the last. The quantity and/or complexity of the plan will depend on the most effective method to communicate, which is in keeping with the targeted marketing philosophy.
Coming from a PR perspective, I appreciate your point of view on this whole issue. Monitoring and understanding of stakeholders has to be a priority, whether for reputation management or driving sales. Without an understanding of who we’re speaking with, how can we effectively communicate?
Thanks for taking the time to respond!