Pulling together to get budget decision makers to see the light in 2009

[Mauricio J. Samayoa]

I recently snatched up a copy of Edelman's recently released Nine On Nine report through a tweet. The report contains an insightful section listing 9 digital truths for 2009.

The one point that has stayed with me after reading it is point 4 where the author correctly points out that: "...advertisers have been underpaying for online audience and overpaying (based on decades old metrics) for offline audience. Online news sites typically deliver up to 3X the eyeballs of their online 'parents', yet can currently command 25% of the rate. The gap will close dramatically in 2009."

But will it?

I understand it should, but when and what will it take to reach the tipping point where people in control of spending budgets see the light? Why is it that budgets remain grounded in offline despite the strong fundamentals supporting online (better measurements, broader reach, growing adoption rates, future always-online generations)?

This topic came into question more than once in conversations I had in 2008. Educating the client always seemed like the responsible way to go. Problem is that up to today this means going out there educating clients, one at a time.

What will we as an industry do differently in 2009 to make these budget decision makers see the light once and for all? Doing it one client at a time I'm afraid will have us asking ourselves the same questions by year's end.

Would love to hear your comments/thoughts...

[Jamie Burke]

eresting Q's Mauricio.

Biggest challenge for me is getting clients out of the broadcast mentality (the more people exposed, irrespective of interest or engagement, the better). The problem is this mind-set has been continued from mass-media to online. You only have to look at how online media is bought and sold (per thousand impressions). Most clients understanding of social media marketing is still The Viral and experience of it the viral video. The ideal outcome in the clients mind still has 0000's.

A good question to ask clients is why do you want 0000’s? So there is a greater chance 00’s will convert? It’s the same as millions having walked passed your billboard. Understanding that reaching out to a smaller group of influencers who genuinely would be interested in your product and as a result of getting them engaged with your brand which will advocate on your behalf is more valuable and ultimately what social media is about. Having people passively witness your marketing is not.

I am going to do a post soon summarizing a series of interesting articles on this very subject matter: getting real investment from client / boss (I’ve provided the links used for my research on the matter below) Most are from Interactive Insight Group on Delicious who are well worth following.

http://rubiconconsulting.com/insight/winmarkets/michael_mace/2008/10/online-communities-and-their-i.html

http://blissfullydomestic.com/digital-bliss/all-things-web/20-reasons-small-businesses-should-use-social-media/

http://decker.typepad.com/welcome/2008/11/8-tips-for-selling-social-marketing-to-cfos.html

http://www.stuntdubl.com/2008/12/22/9-social-media-marketing/

http://canuckflack.com/2008/03/15/secret-guide-to-social-media-in-large-organizations/

http://www.brazencareerist.com/2008/11/25/your-boss-fears-social-media-now-what

http://rohitbhargava.typepad.com/weblog/2007/08/how-to-sell-the.html

http://ebizz.wordpress.com/2007/12/01/how-to-sell-social-media-to-your-boss/

http://www.web-strategist.com/blog/2007/06/07/web-strategy-how-to-measure-your-social-media-program/

http://nowsourcing.com/blog/2008/02/20/selling-social-media/

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/userfriendlythinking/2008/12/05/Making-a-Case-for-Social-Media-Marketing-Interview-with-Mack-Collier

http://www.wildapricot.com/blogs/newsblog/archive/2008/04/18/making-a-case-for-social-media-marketing.aspx

[Nick Band]

I think this is all about quantity versus quality. Off-line coverage is always seen as higher profile and better quality than its on-line. There are a lot of reasons for this:

conditioning- generations of clients have grown up with print
visibility - the presentation of traditional print coverage is normally more impactful
portability - I can carry a cutting in my pocket and show it to people
authority - like it or not, the FT has more kudos than any on-line coverage
consultancy - (the bit that goes on before issuing the story) This a traditionally PR's heartland and what client pay for