You forgot MySpace, geocities, Lycos, Angelfire and even AOL.None of the current SM sites will be important in 10 years time.
Upvote
0
You forgot MySpace, geocities, Lycos, Angelfire and even AOL.None of the current SM sites will be important in 10 years time.
People said exactly the same thing about Altavista, Yahoo Directory, DMOZ and the Yellow Pages. Where are they now?
None of the current SM sites will be important in 10 years time.
You forgot MySpace, geocities, Lycos, Angelfire and even AOL.
Let's draw a line under this and if UK Business Forums survives another 10 years (surely something is poised to make it as irrelevant as Altavista???) we'll circle back to this and see how Facebook is doing.
What is needed are some good examples of successful social media campaigns: not measured in retweets, for example, but in sales. We should be hearing more about these and successful campaigns in which social media was an integral part of their success.
What is needed are some good examples of successful social media campaigns: not measured in retweets, for example, but in sales. We should be hearing more about these and successful campaigns in which social media was an integral part of their success.
No marketing technique is dead... well, maybe semaphore or carrier pigeon.
As @AllUpHere says, it's HOW you do it that counts and, depending on your business, some techniques will work better than others. Far fewer businesses have adverts in the Yellow Pages (considering how small and thin it is now) yet one of my business friends swears by it. She a virtual VA and she says her Yellow Pages ad more than pays for itself.
Having a bit of a read through this thread it is very inconclusive, there are lots of people claiming wildly different things. What is clear is that different marketing / advertising methods give different results for different sectors or regions. It would be useful if there was a study that gave some factual results depicting those variables and stating various returns on investment for different techniques, eg plumber, Gloucestershire, telemarketing - 250% ROI, local press- 160% roi.
Is there any information like this published that people are aware of? I would be interested in reading that.
The same thing can be applied to any statistic you look at, it depends how far you want to go with it. The point im trying to make is it offers a benchmark for comparison, but what you take from any data is down to the reader to draw their own conclusion, not to be used as a crystal ball. If you though like that the office of national statistics would be redundant.The problem with this is that one person/company is not providing all the services in all the areas, hence you're left comparing apples and motor oil.
The other problem is that the same company can get different ROI in different areas when working on different campaigns with different budgets supported by different websites and other channels of marketing.
If it was as much of a science as you'd like it to be, you could simply enter your starting budget, region and campaign, plus domain, and you'd be told how much you'd get back and when, within a few pence. Sadly, that isn't happening.
I know that, my original post is not saying I want it to be an exact science where 20 variables gives me accurate predictions to within a few pence. Nobody is that naive, those are your words not mine and there's no reason to be condescending. I'm saying that sort of information would be intereting to me, but you don't have to agree.Measuring deaths in merseyside is far different than predicting the roi on a marketing campaign with 20 dependent variables.
One is measuring historical fact, the other is predicting future outcomes.
This is why Fair, Isaac does over $1Bil annually.... because predicting is big data kinda science.
Does anyone think old marketing techniques are dead...? Like telemarketing? Email campaigns, yellow pages, flyers even although I am debating if to use that in my own business...
Having a bit of a read through this thread it is very inconclusive, there are lots of people claiming wildly different things. What is clear is that different marketing / advertising methods give different results for different sectors or regions. It would be useful if there was a study that gave some factual results depicting those variables and stating various returns on investment for different techniques, eg plumber, Gloucestershire, telemarketing - 250% ROI, local press- 160% roi.
Is there any information like this published that people are aware of? I would be interested in reading that.
There are market research and analytics reports out there identifying what marketing activity works best for different sectors. What you won't get is an ROI on activities for each sector for reasons explained above.
...It would just be interesting to see some benchmark data, see what the spread is. ...My last company would have a monthly review with marketing to drill down into the kpi's.
...But one advertising method we found for gaining new business was direct mail sending brochures to open up leads. I would say for every 1k spend on that would get around 4-8k of new work. Very basic and top level I know but that was that.
It was very targeted.At a guess, this would be a direct mail campaign to a known list of customers / buyers. The results of a direct mail campaign to any other list are liable to be very different.
Do you have a list of proven customers / buyers?