OK... here's a different twist.
I took the Sunday ads section, you know, the one with all the consumer electronics and food advertisements, and counted how many of those ads had any type of cross-media marketing.
Here's what I found:
Out of the 16 advertisement inserts, eight (50%) had their web site address on the front page of the ad insert, five (31%) had their web site address on an inside page of the ad insert BUT NOT on the front page, one had a toll-free number to call (along with the web site address) to find out where the closest store was to be found and three (19%) had absolutely no cross-media marketing.
Perhaps if there was an easier way for the advertiser to access other MoD applications they could impact their response rate in a positive fashion and tie it to revenue generated. These ads weren't just brand building, they were trying to get the consumer to buy something specific. Why didn't they utilize other on-demand applications?
Do you think making it easier for the advertiser to access and launch other MoD applications is the responsibility of the advertiser or the newspaper that delivered the ad? Tell me what you think...
Sunday, March 23, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
1 comments:
Bless you, son, that you actually read the Sunday ads section... it goes directly to recycling in my house.
Thoughts:
1) It's always the advertiser who is responsible for the contents of his/her ad - if they don't "get it" and don't understand the value of cross media marketing, no amount of effort on the part of the newspaper (or any other off line media service provider, for that matter) will be able to get them to see the light.
2) Any company that doesn't put their URL front and center (OK, bottom and center is fine) can't be taken seriously.
3) An URL tied to the insert by date and publication (if possible) begins to turn mass marketing into measurable direct marketing.
Gail
Post a Comment