This post is part two of this series - you can read part one here.
The rot at the heart of marketing
The reasons for this disparity are many, but short-termism, more than most, is stinking up the marketing landscape and obscuring the truth about which channels are most effective, and on what measures.
According to a survey of the marketing industry by the IPA and ISBA, 75% of marketers and 73% of agencies agree that short-term tactical needs often take priority over longer-term objectives. Meanwhile, as few as 14% of marketers and 4% of agency execs "strongly agree" that marketing objectives focus on the long-term (defined here as the next one-to-three years).
This focus on short-term gains rather than on a long-term strategy has been shown to have an adverse effect on marketing effectiveness. Effectiveness gurus Les Binet and Peter Field said it best in The long and the short of it when they said that, on average, marketers should invest 60% of their budgets in long-term brand building and 40% in short-term sales activation to achieve the best return on marketing investment (or ROMI).
Chasing highly-targeted, short-term sales activations, mostly across search and social, has stymied the use of traditional channels. It's likely also why perceptions towards these channels among marketers have soured somewhat. But worse still, we've seen this approach prop up a five-year decline in the effectiveness of top performing campaigns in the UK.
Emphasis on metrics that prove marketing effectiveness only in the immediate term also skew priorities in favour of campaigns that value immediate sales, and we see this again reflected in the choice of channel.
"Marketers have been conditioned to believe that many established media are somehow yesterday's news. There's a lot of received wisdom and an extremely well-funded digital PR machine that fills our heads with messages that are not reflecting results," says Field. "But when you look at the research on the ground, we see that, certainly for the foreseeable future, a combination of print and digital the two in balance is the smart play."
Solutions will come once marketing as an industry gauges the effectiveness of campaigns not just on immediate sales but also on more brand style effects.
"This short sightedness," argues Gavin Wheeler, chief executive of WDMP and non-executive director on the DMA Group Board, "doesn't only devalue campaigns that create mental brand equity, influence future sales or prime consumer emotionally, it obscures the power of some channels to achieve both brand and activation effects."
Refocusing on effectiveness
Shallow, often deceptive metrics are a scourge unto the digital marketing industry. Likes, clicks and impressions are fine for racking up the zeros, but say little about marketing effectiveness.
Most worrying of all, we're seeing this focus on quick returns hurt marketing effectiveness, particularly when measuring long-term return on investment, brand equity and readership satisfaction.
Speaking about the consequences this approach brings for channels like print media and others that tend towards long-term effects, Enders says "in effect we believe that a nuanced, analogue tool has been replaced by a too-simplistic digital tool with unverified consequences for many brands".
Measuring marketing effectiveness remains a challenge, but still marketers must not make the mistake of believing a one size fits all approach will do. Nor should they deprioritise the value of creative and assume science tells them all they need to know.
Short-termism in marketing has certainly elevated ROI, rather than profit growth, to a higher status than say reach, scale or even emotion. On the latter measure, we're seeing more brands harness the power of the tangible to create an impact, make an emotional connection and improve recall. And those who resist the pull of digital are toying with print media conventions, challenging our associations with traditional media and creating interactions that feel fresh and authentic.
But the real winners in this fast-changing media landscape will be those who discriminate not on the basis of channel but adapt based on the objectives at hand. The marketing press have waxed lyrical about the benefits of integrated marketing through the years, but it's time now to turn those words into action, and with strategies that transcend traditional boundaries.
In the words of Field, "we are being over-hyped and over-sold on a uniquely digital future. We need to get real and take a more evidence-based view of what really drives effectiveness."
This article first appeared here. Stay tuned for part three of this series.
This week we are continuing on with our Getting to Know Digitalpress blog - and this week we are getting to know our founder and director - Theo Pettaras!
Name & How long you've been with DP:
Theo Pettaras and I am the founder and director of Digitalpress, so 15 years here in total.
At Digitalpress, I'm responsible for:
Looking after clients, particularly our larger accounts. My specialty is in print marketing and I consider myself an expert in this field. As a Director of our company I also sit on the Digitalpress Board.
Get to work by 8am, check emails, attend our Sales Blitz, then a quick Daily Beat Production WIP, check emails, engage with our clients followed by some strategic sales management and planning.
Something people don't know about my role is:
I'm the cheeky annoying one at the office
One of my favourite Beautiful Print moments is:
It would have to be the Katrina and Tori Memorial book and box. This project was a truly important and significant piece that we collaborated with the Department of Premier of Cabinet. Also the A Meeting of Words book I collaborated with Tim Jetis from Cabinet of Wonder a most inspiring book so meticulously designed and produced.
The thing I like most about working at Digitalpress is:
The relationship I have with our team. They are incredibly loyal, professional, passionate and respectful. I love the working relationship I have with our clients, they are all wonderful to deal with and are very supportive and truly value the work we do. I love collaborating with clients and utilising my expertise to produce wonderful engaging beautiful print.
It is beautiful. You can feel it and it works.
On the weekend, you'll find me:
Playing my bass and sometimes at work.
General Surgeon or Graphic Designer
|Posted in: Most Recent Most Popular Articles|
It's time advertisers and agencies took a more evidence-based approach to media planning and realised the power of print in the campaign mix.
In a media landscape muddied by unfounded biases, questionable metrics and marketing jargon, the challenge for advertisers and agencies is to cut through the BS and identify which channels legitimately boost marketing effectiveness. It's no easy task in an evolving, expanding and increasingly fragmented marketplace. And doing so asks that marketers leave their preconceptions at the door and consider all channels.
From print to social media, all have strengths and weaknesses. What's important now is that marketers in all their various guises take an evidence-based approach to the increasingly complex business of media planning in the digital age.
The perception/ reality chasm
This issue of media bias was highlighted most starkly in a report penned in 2018 by the Radiocentre and Ebiquity. Titled Re-evaluating Media, the findings, in the words of media commentator Mark Ritson, "laid bare marketers' perceptions about which channels perform best, and the extent to which they're divorced from reality".
Looking at the 10 channels that claw the majority of advertising spend (direct mail, magazines, newspapers, online display, online video, out-of-home, radio, social media and TV), the study first identified the four main drivers for media selection and compared marketing perceptions against actual performance.
The report sheds light on which factors marketers most value (targeting, ROI, emotional response and brand salience), but the results also illuminate whether this love-in with digital and the reticence towards traditional media is grounded in reality. Spoiler: It's not.
Ritson says the conclusions are twofold: "First, a significant number of marketers are not driven by data any more. They look at their own highly unrepresentative media consumption and use that as a proxy for their media planning."
Second, he says, "there is a significant bias within media agencies towards digital media and against so-called traditional alternatives. If you look at the amount of money that can be made in fees and rebates from digital media it is often a factor of three or four times more profitable to recommend digital video over TV or radio."
Clearly the likes of newspapers, magazines and direct mail are dismissed far too easily by marketers, many of whom are suffering from a touch of the shiny things syndrome. Clearly, there is a gulf between perception and reality.
On emotional response metrics, advertisers and agencies ranked magazines, newspaper and direct mail in fifth, eighth and ninth place out of ten respectively, when in reality they number second, fifth and seventh. The same applies to brand salience, where perceptions say fourth, eight and tenth, and the facts say joint second and fifth.
Most worrying of all was that the perception/reality gap was most pronounced when measured against 12 criteria (including the four mentioned above). This "overall weighted score" put magazines, newspapers and direct mail in tenth and joint seventh. While in reality the three channels placed in fourth, third and sixth respectively, beating social (7), online video (9) and online display (10).
This and yet the latter three receive a more generous slice of media spend, with much of it stripped from traditional media.
This article first appeared here. Stay tuned for the rest of this series.
|Posted in: Industry News|
That's what a growing number of people are becoming in response to the overwhelming onslaught of digital information.You know the feeling, right?
Certainly, as consumers, you and I probably agree we're bombarded on all sides.But I also imagine that from a marketing or sales view, you'd agree it continues to get harder to be heard by our prospects and Clients, especially when using email or relying on one stale channel.
But there's something else going on, too: Direct Mail while laughed at by many is suddenly becoming cool again. Have you noticed? Here's why, with a little help from our friends at USPS.
Direct Mail's Resurgence
USPS has conducted research showing that marketing decision-makers in retail, digital commerce, financial services, and telecommunications are using direct mail in ways that differ from the past. Put another way, this ain't your daddy's direct mail.
Marketing decision-makers in retail, digital commerce, financial services, and telecommunications are using direct mail in ways that differ from the past.
In their survey of marketing executives in these companies, they learned how leading organizations are doing unusual things (like integrating direct mail with Facebook), to achieve results that exceed the use of a single channel on its own.
They Think They Know, But They Don't
While many marketers think they know all the facts about direct mail, one stat that will certainly get anyone's attention is the study's average response rate: 9% (OK, via a house list, but still do you get that kind of response rate with your house email list? Didn't think so.) Further, when combined with digital as mentioned a moment ago, the study found these results (and this is just a snapshot of a few of the metrics shared):
There's a lot more data in the report. If you want to grab a copy, I've included a link at the bottom of this post where you can download it yourself and see the results in full.
This blog post first appeared here.
|Posted in: Featured Industry News|