Re: UKNM: Brand-building banners

[Hammersley, Ben]

err, Ray, Can you back these refutations up a little? Seems to me that Mike

was talking complete sense.


Anyway, your idea that "The reason big money goes to existing mass media, as

opposed to the new mass media, is the people who make big money decisions

have been doing old mass media for so long they are unable to imagine

anything being bigger, better etc etc" seems a little, well, odd. Aren't the

very reasons we all like "New Media" the very reasons it doesn't work for

the Big Money guys?


We love the web for its complexity, for its vast range, for its billions of

pages, for the fact we can all read reams on our most obscure interests.


We all breathe the same air, but I wouldn't call singing in the shower the

next mass broadcast system. (feel free to invent a better metaphor)


Anyway, It's a mass medium in the sense that we all use the same gear, but

there's no shared experience. There's no way I can book the internet

equivilent of first 50seconds halfway through Corrie, and that's why the big

money guys aren't so gung-ho.


It's just not as provably effective and, more importantly, the cost isn't as

easily justifiable as the hugely-researched "book this space and reach x% of

your market, converting on average X% of them" standard media. New media is

more like "book this space, send this spam, invent this new locationbased

wap monstrosity, and errmmm well we hope it works."


As it stands, a guy from P&G would probably find it tricky to sign-off.


<snip>

From: "Ray Taylor" <

rayeyeconomy [dot] com

>


Mike Zeederberg <

mzeederbergfcb [dot] com

> said:


> The problem is reach : If you're targeting a local market, running a big

budget

> TV commercial on 4 channels at prime time will ensure that you reach about

> 95% of your target market.

No it won't!

> (And you know the ad will work on half of them, you're just not sure which

half!)

No you don't!

> With the web, because there is such a diversity and

> fragmentation of the market, to get that sort of reach is very difficult.

No it isn't!

> And if your ad is a brand building exercise (like the frogs and flat

eric), you've got much better frequency and reach in mass media.

No you haven't!

> Even if you've got a high penetration of the internet into a market, (and

it's only

> just breaking the 50% mark), it's hard to compete with the ease of

reaching a

> huge market for relatively low execution costs in terms of serving it.

That's why the big money still goes to mass media....


What absolute tosh! The reason big money goes to existing mass media, as

opposed to the new mass media, is the people who make big money decisions

have been doing old mass media for so long they are unable to imagine

anything being bigger, better, brighter, more pulsating, stiffer (ooops, an

adjective too far!) than TV.

WAKEY! WAKEY!

ARE YOU TV AGENCY TYPES TAKING ANY NOTICE YET!

No? Good. In 2001 you will bleed!



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

   Seminars, exhibitions, networking events, parties, conferences.

        Finding it difficult to keep up and plan ahead?


    Sign up for Chinwag's weekly new media events newsletter,

   all the events you need to know about, direct to your inbox.


   http://www.chinwag.com/uk-netmarketing/e_index.shtml

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

  To unsubscribe or change your list settings go to

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

helpchinwag [dot] com