Comments on: For Ads the More Targeted May Mean Less Profitable

By: Mark Mc

Mark Mc — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 11:15:49 +0000

I don’t see any compelling evidence that this has changed across all markets. Conditions will vary by market sector depending on factors such as the importance on non-price based competition, the range of media opportunities available or the complexity of the sales process involved.

Not all advertising is aimed at generating a direct response and converting to an immediate sale. Where a direct response is not the immediate objective, reach is traded off against focus and newspapers can offer a wider reach per ad than search engines.

This is a trend if you want to bring convertable traffic to a site selling MP3 players, but it is a negligible trend in other markets.

By: Tom Kasperski

Tom Kasperski — Tue, 12 Jan 2010 17:45:16 +0000

You mean there’s such a thing as a media market? Stunning revelation.

Of course more targeted ads are going to cost more. But any marketer with a thimble full of brains knows they should be calculating marketing ROI for each marketing activity. In SEM this can be fairly straight forward, but calculating ROI gets a lot hairier when there’s more distance between the ad and the conversion.

Google has created an ideal marketplace for search media. The question remains, will the rest of the media industry develop the technology and data accessibility needed to quantify ROI?
.-= Tom Kasperski´s last blog ..Changing the Marcom Mindset (part II) – Understanding Brands =-.

By: OTR Tire Guy

OTR Tire Guy — Tue, 12 Jan 2010 17:19:49 +0000

Am I to assume from this data that micro-niches are the wave of the future, along with targeting the extreme long tail? If this is the case, then marketers will be fighting for fistfuls of pennies, instead of dollars. .-= OTR Tire Guy´s last blog ..State of the Mining and Tire Industry: 2010 =-.