As you can see, more executives in 2008 indicated that they would spend more money on interactive marketing versus traditional marketing/advertising. And why not? Interactive marketing has become more cost-effective and produces better range, frequency, and results compared to traditional media. The dynamic environment surrounding interactive efforts will allow companies to stretch out their budgets and target their audience in more of a controlled environment. Compared to print, radio, and broadcast marketing, the digital sector enables the advertiser to have some liberty in when they want to run their campaign with a much shorter turnaround. With traditional, you’re locked in to specific timeframes and it’s harder to change your collateral once it’s gone to print.
Interesting thought: Maybe economics aren’t the only thing affecting the desire to promote more online. Perhaps it’s more of an environmental rationale? Are companies becoming more green and thereby seeing themselves as eco-friendly by doing their work online?
From my perspective, with more money allocated to interactive campaigns, there’s also a lot more touch points that a company can create when reaching out to their consumers/audience. It doesn’t have to be all online advertising (SEO, SEM, banners, etc.). Focus on doing email marketing, social networking – in fact, the costs are quite minimal and would help generate conversation, technical/application development to help grow the company & product, mobile marketing, online videos, and much more. Examine the budget you spend on an ad running in one publication and compare it to the numerous possibilities you could execute with a digital campaign…how does the cost-benefit analysis pay off?
