Should You Shift all Your Spending Online?


US interactive marketing spend to 2014 When I was working in businesses that catered to other businesses, or as we say, B2B, one of the strongest components of the marketing communications mix was lead generation.

More seasoned marketers over the years told me how much they pined for the big budgets they used to have.

Since I never had to deal with the largesse they lamented as vanished, planning meant making trade offs. Fewer choices meant much of the effort ended up being focused on acquiring new customers.

Finding, qualifying, and nurturing leads

This is the bread and butter of direct marketing and lead generation activities. Today, there are tools that make it easier to run email and content-based campaigns and build that pipeline of prospects. Because much of these activities have been documented and benchmarked, they were and are funded.

In my recent experience, as I'm sure in that of many marketers, anything that could not be measured of benchmarked against competitive spending and direct outcomes was cut right out.

Was it the right approach? In some cases it wasn't, we ended up robbing our programs from full integration and compounded results.

Customers come first

A feather in my cap was keeping the monthly customer newsletter. I edited most of the main articles myself, taking into account conversations I'd had with customers and tailoring the content to the kinds of questions and issues they brought up on the phone, or in person, when attending our events.

Especially in a complex business with a long sales cycle, customer retention and cross-sell are a business' best ally.

Searching for meaning

And of course, a very large component of our activities went to attracting searches for the key terms people used to look for the kinds of services and products we provided. If you have a really good demand generation group, you should expect to spend less or at least balance SEM with SEO — paid vs. organic search.

This is not unique of B2Bs, of course. Many organizations that sell through a distribution model also go direct. In fact, the direct business is usually where there is growth opportunity. Which means balancing the needs to support channel marketing with the dollars allocated to direct.

Digital can help with both

In different ways, that is. Because so much of what happens online can be tracked and measured against goals, the trend has been favoring digital buys. For a while, a percentage of marketing dollars still went to building awareness and creating demand in different media.

Then bigger budget allocations were made to online campaigns, until there was barely anything other than digital in the plans. Which may work for B2Bs that engage customers and prospects directly and consistently.

Those are the organizations that have a tight process around capturing lead data, nurturing relationships for a future purchase, etc.

Setting up listening posts with good content and an interactive personality complements paid media even in social, where the opportunity is much greater and we're barely scratching the surface.

Million dollar question

And here's the million dollar question, the decision that many marketers need to make in their budget planning cycle. Should you shift all your spending online? Why/why not?

 

 If you enjoyed this post from Conversation Agent, subscribe, share and like it.

 


0 responses to “Should You Shift all Your Spending Online?”

  1. Of course, it depends on your business, but that being said, I could see if someone wanted to shift a majority of their lead gen spend online. However, in a lot of businesses, the close still comes in the store, over the phone, in the office, and so on, so while someone selling personal computers *might* be able to shift all of their spend online, someone selling more expensive products, products you have to feel, fleets of products (like cars maybe), etc probably will not be able to go all the way online.

  2. What I’ve seen working is integration into a plan with short term and long term goals. However, often the switch is made based upon the ability to track things more easily without the verification that what is being tracked is worth tracking. Ultimately, figuring out what gets best results needs to take change in buying habits and in what makes people decide into account, too.

  3. Well stated – as you know, I can connect with all of your points here. And we’ve never had the large marketing budgets either so always evaluate trade-offs. That said, I don’t think it’s an all online proposition. We actually get good traction via old fashioned direct mail. Traditional print advertising, however, is paying rapidly diminishing returns.
    More importantly, I think it’s looking at how and where your customers get their information and using a combination (at least for now) of old and new tactics. Sometimes when everyone’s doing an eDM, it pays to do the opposite to get attention. It’s also about being innovative online – or in print – to cut through the noise. For instance, look at how Pepsi channeled their Superbowl $$ into social with the Refresh Everything project. If a marketer thinks they’ll gain traction by shifting from print to a bunch of banner ads they’ll be sorely disappointed.
    Online is attractive for it’s measurability and relative ease / speed of implementation. Whatever will build the relationship and deliver customer value is where you should be imo. Also, saw something recently about the largest brands on Facebook are also the biggest spenders in traditional arenas.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *