The Digital Lookout

I read an article in last weeks revolution which made me laugh out loud.  I have known for a while that some of the more traditional media types are way behind in the digital channel and many of the larger media buyers get by on their buying power and ability to schmooze a client about the brand exposure of their digital activity.  This article however took the biscuit with its naivety about measures of performance in the digital channel.  The basis of what the author was saying was that clicks aren’t an accurate measure of online activities performance.  YOU DONT SAY!

Isn’t the biggest benefit of digital communications is measurability and accountability?  The ability to track PAST the point of impression, and all the way through to conversion (whatever the desired outcome may be).  With this is mind it shocks me that people would still be using the click as a measure of performance.  Obviously in certain instances the objective is to promote awareness and so the fact that the add got clicked on is an indication people are paying it some attention and are showing an interest in what you have to say, but these instances are few and far between.  The measure of performance should be based on the desired outcome of the campaign, whether that be sale, quote, enquiry, application, this is dependant on the industry in question.  It is archaic to still be using clicks as a measure for performance as the article rightly points out these can be out for all sorts of reasons.  Please guys, wise up and become accountable for your work.  Stop playing the vanity game with branding and clicks and begin playing the real game of driving acquisition and accountability for your clients!

An article in this weeks edition in Marketing Week questioned the future of direct mail in the face or increased pressure from digital direct response channels.  With direct mail volume dropping 7.4% from 2006-2007 and showing a continual decline in since 2004 has the measurability and accountability of digital mediums put pay to the direct mail industry?

For a two page, center piece article  I have to say that this seemed to me like a massive over reaction to the success of digital in the past few years.  The article eventually comes to some sensible conclusions about the evolution rather than death of direct mail and EHS Brann CEO Matt Atkinson makes the most valid point “consumers are not saying they don’t want direct mail, they are saying they don’t want junk mail!”.  it is not about cutting direct mail from you marketing mix but rather becoming more intelligent and targeted in your activity.  This is likely to mean volumes will drop but not necessarily that return will follow, more likely you will just become more efficient.

Every piece of the marketing mix has a benefit, either direct return or impact on other media.  Do you think there would be so many searches for finance companies brand terms on the search engines if the companies didn’t do so much offline activity? Of course there wouldn’t, it is all about striking the balance and appreciating the impact one media has on another.  I have experienced it first hand when a company has cut offline activity as they are getting better returns online only to see a drop in overall performance as their offline exposure stops pushing people to the search engines.

With the growing emergence of digital channels it was always going to impact other channels in one way or another, after all, economic circumstances aside, there are only every going to be a finite number of people in the market for your product at any given time.  It makes sense then, that if a percentage of these people start to use the Internet to find a supplier then the number of people using the other channels should see a dip.  What marketers really need to consider though is how to make the most of the whole marketing mix in order to maximise the opportunities the market holds, and rather than wield the sword at the under-performing media, stop to think about the impact they each have on one another.