The Financial Post newspaper ran an interesting article on the morning of November 23, 2007 titled, More art than science.
The article discusses the need for more companies to measure their marketing and look at their ROI. Wow, thats a new idea!
Im joking. In case youre new to my writings, a quick review of past articles on my blog (www.michaelzipursky.com) and youll know that the idea of marketing ROI as a must, isnt new at all.
You can give the concept any name you like, direct marketing, direct-response, measurable, accountable, scientific advertising call it whatever you like, but its been around for hundreds of years and its what consistently builds the most efficient and successful marketing systems around.
The article does provide an interesting statistic though almost half of the chief marketing officers surveyed felt accurate ROI data is hard to obtain.
You know what I say to that Bullocks!
Its only hard to obtain when youre looking for it in the wrong places. Every year, testing, tracking and measuring marketing and advertising investments has become easier. For one, there are more tools available to automate this process. And two, with the rise of the internet (rise, is an understatement), the idea of ROI has become common sense yet far too few practice it.
The article seems to be confusing two points. It makes measuring ROI seem like a one-time evaluation. And that if a marketing campaign fails its first time off the block, its done – a failure.
And, when that same campaign pays off a year later, its success, the article concludes, comes from the campaigns creativity and that clearly there is no value in measuring its ROI.
Thats all wrong.
Marketers test. When they deliver a campaign, they are testing and measuring several aspects of it. When something works, they do more of it. When something doesnt, they dont give up; they test a change and keep making adjustments until the cash register starts singing.
There is one more problem with this article. A distinction that must be made
this article was not written with the small business in mind. Its examples, like most you find in the media, relate to corporations that have millions of dollars, and often much more, to spend on marketing and advertising each year. They can sustain years of ineffective marketing with brand awareness and brand building programs paid for in part by shareholders money.
Small businesses dont have that luxury. They must make every marketing investment count. They must know what is working, what isnt, and why? Then go right to the heart of the problem and fix it.
And thats why direct-response measurable marketing and advertising is so effective and why serious business owners will take and have nothing less.