...or lack thereof.
I found this blog post by a Tarik Sedky, founder of digital advertising agency: http://mnandp.com/
The title is: Brands should move banner money into spam and junk mail
URL: http://tariksedkyblog.com/
I'll bring this article to discuss as part of this week's theme on digital advertising.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI really had no idea spam was so effective! I almost can't believe there's a 1.4% response rate with spam. No wonder there's so much of it!
DeleteUnrelated: this blog interface feels awkward and cumbersome. I had a typo in my above post but rather than just edit it, I had to delete it...then it isn't exactly a clean delete.
DeleteKurt,
ReplyDeleteIf you have another suggestion for the online portion of our class, I'm all ears!
By the way, I read your first post before you deleted it and didn't even notice the typo!
I think there is a major difference between the patience that one exhibits in TV advertising and online advertising. Online users have no patience and I myself will move on to another information outlet if I feel inundated by advertisers. However, with TV I think that most people are willing to sit through advertising for their favorite show.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Robert online is like drive thru compared to going to the counter at a fast food restaurant. I think email is more effective because junk and spam are more times targeted giving it an advantage. However, social and search might not return as well but you get more awareness. I still want to see the cross tabs on this study.
ReplyDeleteDitto - like Robert and Aaron said - I think viewers of TV ads are more patient and less likely to be annoyed by ads than people browsing online.
ReplyDeleteAnd yes, Kurt, I guess SPAM is somewhat effective sort of like an annoying guy at a bar hitting on every girl he sees until someone says yes.