So I discussed in several previous posts my thoughts (and questions) regarding traditional media and the need for them to change their model to charge advertisers when the advertising works, however it may be defined. The question is how would this work and would the traditional media guys go for it? Answer: probably not, at least not without lots of proof that it works. My belief is that there is an opportunity to add value to advertisers who can’t afford to roll the dice, pay up-front and wait for the response. This entire idea is premised upon the ability to measure what the response is on sales via a specific marketing channel. Direct marketing is obviously the best example here. It’s rather easy to see how a direct mail campaign worked based on redemptions with a unique coupon code. It’s trickier to measure things like print advertisements in a newspaper or magazine, radio, billboards etc. If you can measure the responses to the marketing message, you can determine how effective the campaign was and therefore measure ROI. However, response rates will fluctuate based on many factors, including what the offer is and what the creative looks like just to name a couple. So, my point is that depending on all the factors that determine campaign effectiveness, ROI is far from guaranteed for the advertiser. My question to advertisers out there is simple. What would it take for you to pay your agencies and media buyers for the measurable success they provide? I understand that this won’t be popular among traditional media folks, but I wonder how many agencies would bite if you could show them that taking on some of the advertising risk could produce significantly higher returns.
