Re: UKNM: Newspapers shaft dot-coms big time

[Ray Taylor]

Ian Betteridge <

ianbwell [dot] com

> said:


 >  > And if there really is a newspaper agreement keeping media prices  high

(as

 >  > opposed to use of the term 'cartel' merely for journalistic effect)

then the

 >  > parties to the price agreement are breaking the law.

 >

 > Don't be ludicrous. As others have explained in depth here, there's a

 > limited amount of colour space in papers - and, pre-Christmas, it's in

 > great demand. Hence, the price goes up.

 >


I don't know if there is or there isn't a cartel. I didn't write the

article. I suspect there isn't, but stranger things have happened.


 >  > But if nothing else, it gives me another good reason to advise  clients

 >  > against spending too much money on ink and paper.

 >

 > Why, because it's effective?

 >


All advertising is effective if you do it right. We seldom advise against

using any medium, rather to use all appropriate media wisely. Generally

speaking, print is more effective than broadcast at, eg, traffic building,

because the audience does not have to remember the url

www.yetanotherdotcomlaunch.com. But then again, you don't need much space

(the charging basis for most print ads) to tell someone a URL and get them

to go there.


Probably the most effective (I have no evidence) newspaper ads for a dot-com

are Schwab's letter box ads in the FT shares listings. At high cost, but

justified by the position. Don't know if Schwab pays more than Rockwell or

Epson, but the presence of a couple of fillers in today's issue suggests

that they have plenty of spare slots at the moment - hope Schwab's and and

Stocktrade's agencies spot that.


But the best advice for a multi-media approach is to integrate the message

across all media in use. TV can be effective if you use the right agency,

and work within the rules (noting, eg, the cancellation costs as pointed out

by Mike). But in most cases the air time costs will be wasted if you do not

have banner ads running at the same time. This is simply because the high

volume of dot.com clutter works against the "brand-building benefits" of TV.

If you run a good TV campaign at the same time as a good banner campaign,

the message, having sunk in from the TV ad, will be reinforced by the banner

ad whilst providing an immediate response mechanism (click here).


Even if the TV campaign is about "brand building" you should still back it

up with a direct response mechanism. AOL, for instance, is sending out lots

of CDs to back up its current TV campaign. But then, as an online service

they are in part aiming at a not-yet-used-the-internet audience.


If you are advertising a new shopping portal, the bulk of your audience will

already be using the internet, hence you can use the internet for direct

response to a TV "branding campaign", to reinforce the broadcast, print,

outdoor/ambient, direct mail message, to provide a mechanism for building

brand, traffic and sales, etc., etc.


Ad sales people and old-media agencies can jostle for budget as much as they

like. The key to a successful campaign is integration. The first rule is to

ensure that you buy all media effectively.


Ray Taylor

eyeconomy +44 020 8249 6313



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

post new media vacancies for free

uknm-jobschinwag [dot] com

 				*******************

 sponsor the uk-netmarketing list and website, contact

saleschinwag [dot] com

 for more details.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

  To unsubscribe or change your list settings go to

http://www.chinwag.com/uk-netmarketing or

helpchinwag [dot] com