Interesting article ... http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2008/07/spending-on-onl.html
"... data indicates that companies (US) are expected to spend $105.3 billion online in 2008, which beats the $98.5 billion they’re projected to spend on TV, radio and movies. But that isn’t quite as much as the $147 billion they’re likely to spend on print media, up 12% from the previous year."
Ok, so the measurement is a little flawed.
"It counts the money companies spend on their own websites as part of their advertising budgets, because websites are ostensibly used for marketing"
I was surprised by this stat ...
"The 1,088 US-based companies surveyed will spend $61.5 billion, or 61.8% of their online advertising and marketing budgets, on their own sites, siphoning away money from other options, he said"
$61.5b on websites! It's interesting some companies are willing to bleed money on their clumsy, corporate website but don't feel comfortable enough to utilise media (be it display, search, whatever) to raise awareness of it. Maybe after forking out so much for the site there's no money left.
The research threw in website dev into the total investment cost because it's essentially a 'marketing tool' ... begs the question, how or why are many corporate sites marketing tools and what are they giving in value to the consumer?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Intesting post, Ben.
I think the $61.5b on websites reflects the desire for brands now to have their own relationship with consumers via mini-sites / facebook pages / widgets etc. So I'm seeing a lot more campaigns coming around which are calling for mini-portals...vbwarnie.com.au, http://hsbcfanforum.com.au being recent examples. These sites are costly, especially as almost every element has to be outsourced to agencies to produce.
Being a publisher, I do question some of these campaigns. Should a beer company really have a content website? And what's the point of it when you redirect your url back to the corporate site once the season is over (as vbwarnie.com.au has), despite spending millions on getting the domain out there?
My sense is that there will be a trend back to brands and sites 'focusing on their knitting' and not going content when they're not content.
My personal feeling is brands should only play in content spaces if it can offer something valuable content wise to the consumer they aren't getting as easily as they should.
Good example is Optus Biz Think Tank site - brings credible content to the SME audience ... which is fragmented across numerous sites that perhaps don't index as well as they could online in terms of getting access to solid information and resources. http://www.bizthinktank.com.au
If all a brand can do is aggregate content available elsewhere and try and dominate the content with marketing messages you have to wonder what's in it for the user.
Post a Comment