idiomag

Recently, the Editor of Precision Marketing asked the following question:

“Is digital marketing brand building or response generating? The future of the digital marketing model is currently up for grabs as competing agency types look to leverage their skills in online channels. So is online advertising, e-mail and the Web better suited to creating awareness of a brand or can it be used to drive response instead?”

I have sent my response, but I thought I would share it here as well…

It sounds very ‘Marketing 101’, but we all know that a campaign’s purpose must be 1) clearly defined and 2) used as a guide for the major advertising decisions – such as the choice of media type, channel, creative, and purchase size. All too often, online gets separated from other media types, because of a lack of understanding about what it can deliver, and its lack of a long track record. Asking if online is better suited to brand building or direct response, underestimates what it offers, and places the medium in a box into which it doesn’t easily (or effectively) fit. The real issue is “how can the different types of digital marketing support your campaign’s purpose” – whether that is raising brand profile or stimulating immediate action. To clarify the scope of digital marketing, the main methods it encompasses include search, banner, contextual, syndicated content, microsite, and community and email marketing.

Although digital marketing has elements that are similar to other media, online advertisements cannot be treated in the same way as buying the inventory of a print magazine, and email marketing cannot be considered as fully comparable to direct marketing. Firstly, online holds one significant advantage – customisability of campaigns. The minimum efficient order size for the print and broadcast media usually makes it cost-prohibitive to effectively target by context, interest, personality, or habits. These factors form and describe each individual in a far better way than solely their age, location, or job. Secondly, online allows a depth of interaction that is far beyond offline media. By creating engaging advertisements, readers become users, and the interaction with potential customers builds the memorability of the advert and also provides a multitude of direct response possibilities.

The metrics that I see (from Dynamic Logic’s MarketNorms and DoubleClick’s Ad Serving Trend Reports) seem to clearly state the following: Large format rich-media adverts achieve higher brand awareness, favourability and message association than smaller static adverts, and rich-media adverts perform better than static ones in terms of click-through rates. Marketers generally seem to be very buoyant about the effectiveness of online channels, with the global online advertising spend set to rise 24% to $14.5 billion in 2007 (Merrill Lynch). And in my experience the direct response method of email marketing is very successful for achieving immediate action, with response rates around 3-5% and the low cost per delivery almost always providing a good ROI. So again, the issue for marketers is to find the best way of using digital marketing, rather than misunderstanding its many forms and purposes.

As online publishers and agencies start to offer greater capabilities to advertisers, building on the key strengths of digital marketing, customisability and interactivity, the delivery mechanism swings from push to pull, and from intrusive to interesting. And as the formats and creatives become increasingly engaging, it is vital that the digital marketing industry benefits from the discipline of direct marketers, as more solid metrics and ROI proofs are developed. I believe that as agencies get accustomed to the unique benefits of each online channel, the medium will be recognised as being integral to any campaign, whether the purpose is brand-building or direct response.