Haven't you heard? Online advertising doesn't work. All those banners, buttons and MPUs? Waste of time. Those pre-play spots on YouTube, and those Facebook campaigns? Completely useless. Google Adwords and sponsored tweets? Utterly worthless.
Sorry, but there it is.
How can I be so sure? Well, recently published research by Gallup (the people who used to do the Top 40) shows that 62% of 18,000 consumers surveyed said social media and other digital marketing had no influence on their buying decisions. Another report from America, conducted by the National Bureau of Economic Research states that 'brand keyword ads have no short-term benefits'.
That seems pretty conclusive, doesn't it? Online advertising - load of old clackers, right?
"Everybody you know, when questioned, will assure the world they are never influenced by advertising."
Well, it only looks that way until you examine the evidence more closely. First, 62% is a majority - but only just. By Gallup's reckoning, 38% of their survey group were influenced by social and internet messages. I think any advertiser would like those numbers. Compare them with the anticipated uptake for direct mail (2%-5%) and digital appears to be a very good bet. However, if that 64% figure is still off-putting, consider the flaw in the research.
Everybody you know, and everybody you meet, when questioned, will assure the world they are never influenced by advertising. It's the default response. Many people believe they are telling the truth, and even those who privately acknowledge they are persuaded by ads, will lie in surveys because they believe a 'confession' will make them appear gullible, weak and stupid. If you really want to know the extent to which the public is influenced by advertising, never ask the public.
(Here, it might be useful to recall the market research carried out by Burger King, when their customers told them they'd like healthier, salad-based items on the menu. The take-away chain complied and filled their outlets with fruit and veg options, which sold very badly. "We asked our customers what they wanted , and they lied", was the explanation.)
Then there's the other data about brand keywords. You'll see the warning that this kind of advertising has 'no short-term benefits'. Of course, stores holding sales or estate agents flogging houses are very interested in 'short-term benefits' - but most big advertisers are playing the long game. They're chasing frequent, positive exposure, particularly if they carry a well-known brand name. Brand campaigns are not pursuing the same ends as a 'motorcycle for sale' posting on Gumtree, they're interested in 'long-term' benefits.
And therein lies the problem with research. The results can be made to paint a picture that fits with any story. At first, this information really does give the impression there's a crisis in online advertising. There isn't though. Actually, the statistics actually support the opposite view. Factor in the $5.1 billion spent on social marketing in 2013 - and the fact that Google built their entire empire on the power of the online ad - and it's clear this data doesn't amount to a hill of digital beans.
Magnus Shaw is a copywriter, blogger and consultant
Nick Harman July 11th, 2014, in the morning
I don't honestly think I have ever clicked on an online ad. Have I been subliminally influenced by one? I don't know. Isn't that the point :-) $5.1 billion spent on social marketing in 2013 does not necessarily mean it works but it does mean there's money to be made. Right now anyone who suggests that social media marketing is anything other than a silver bullet is going to make the room go very quiet and then be asked to leave.