Does a Horse and Buggy Work? That's The Question!

Chris Brogan posed the question “When Will the Volume Game Turn Down?” with his post and Sean Bohan followed-up with his post “It’s there because it works…”.

We're all having these conversations about traditional media working or not working and if the media companies will survive or not. I wonder if the farriers and coachbuilders of the 19th century had these same conversations about their industries?  If so, the questions might have been; does the horse and buggy still work? Will farriers survive? After all, that was a huge industry back them, every one-horse town had a farrier or a blacksmith.  Some of them must have used the argument that they had worked for hundreds of years and that in some instance only the horse works best.

Based on the numbers TV, Radio and Newspaper industries are certainly struggling, in part, because they are no longer as efficient.  Does mass media work?  To some degree it still does, but it won’t much longer.  The more digital we become, the more efficient it will be to reach us through digital media.

The digital medium will do to mass media exactly what cars did to the horse and buggy.  And yes, people still ride horses and we see the queen in her carriage every so often, but I wouldn’t call it mass transportation.

Comments

[SEAN BOHAN]

So when that day comes, and all of the billboards will be removed, and the TV and Radio programs will be commercial free, and my identity and personal data will be completely secure and this crass, crude thing called advertising will be put 6 feet under, then I will buy you a beer. Until then...

The world you are describing above, one of more efficient marketing, won't happen today or tomorrow or in the next few years, and thats the point of my post. These tactics (like sponsorship of the power station or the billboards on the jetway) work on some (not all) and they are all inherently inefficient - so a marketer has to take a broad-spectrum approach to reaching the people they want to reach. Either the direct marketer has some data on the individuals (like zipcode, sex, preferences or history) they are mailing to or the brand marketer has a data/demographic they are trying to reach - there is SOME targeting behind these campaigns. That billboard had an impression rate and research behind it - which results in a value exchange (ad space for $) between the marketer and the billboard owner.

The Buggy Whip example above has been used before, and to be honest, its tired. "Advertising is DEAD!" is also tired. It didn't happen in '95 when I joined this party, or '96, or '97, or '98, or '99 or at all from 2000-2008. Radio didnt kill print, TV didnt kill radio. Cable didnt kill TV and Digital won't kill TV/Radio/Direct/Events/Print outright (right away).

While we were yelling "this is different" the business side said "lets use the old models that work in TV and print and..." so we have impressions and CTR and leads, etc. As an industry, we took the shortcut, we decided to lay all our bets on "eyeballs" instead of finding the true value WITH the users. Social Media is changing much of that now, and bringing people back into the equation, but in the mind of the Marketer, it isn't the only tactic. As a CMO or brand manager YOU have to sell product (software, dog food, coffee, shoelaces), and will use the media mix that reaches your target customer.

The other difference is, advertisers are all-in when it comes to advertising (as opposed to the buggy whip guys). They are doing the research and the testing and the jumping in with both feet to digital. They see the need, and they see this as another way to reach the consumer (their word, not mine). If you show them a way to connect with user that has less friction, they will take it - but don't forget, not everyone is digital yet (another point in my post) and the old school still "works" to a degree in reaching them. The beauty of the system is, the market, the advertising budget show where the trend is going. Clients are sending more money to digital and are expecting more in return (because the old digital methods aren't ROIing like they used to).

The irony is, the more channels we open up the more marketing capacity we create, not less. It's additive - old media isn't getting killed, its creating more opportunities for engagement WITH the user if integration (connecting the dots between the different efforts, giving users lots of doors to explore) is taken into account. Not "continuity" or "consistency" but integration.

Take a look at the work that is going on with Doc Searls VRM - it is interesting because it is putting the customer in charge of the relationship between vendors and customers - leveling the playing field and reducing the need for advertising if the market is telling the vendor what it wants in the form of statement of intent. (disclaimer - I am on the VRM steering committee).

thanks for the trackback

-Sean

[Jose Leal]

Sean, thanks for the comment. You’ve given us a lot to think about here, let me start off by letting you know that my beer of preference is Stella Artois. As for when you’ll have to buy me one, well, that depends on whether we can agree on what we disagree about.

I have a problem with our virtual conversations via blog posts, comments and tweets is that we tend to lose focus on the topic. We take our own spin on things and therefore miss each others points.

To be clear here is my stance on traditional media;

Traditional media organizations will no longer be commercially viable under their old business models for the following reasons;

a) The Internet has removed the competitive barriers. TV, and Radio are licensed entities, owned by politically powerful organizations. These organizations have been able to insure that legislation helps minimize competition. No such protections exist in the online space. There are no costly licenses or restricted market areas, just pure unadulterated competition. And that’s something they have never had to deal with.

b) Cost of distribution has become highly reduced. Traditional media are high cost distribution vehicles. That was fine when there was no alternative, but now that millions can be reached at little or no cost, the once valuable distribution infrastructure is now burden. The mighty printing press is in fast becoming print media’s Achilles’ heel.

Efficiency of media first starts with the commercial viability of the media organizations. If they’re not viable as a businesses then chances are it won’t be very efficient. That being said, billboards and outdoor in general have some impact, I don’t doubt it. I don’t know much about the outdoor industry specifically, but I’m guessing that it too will have to make some changes.

Do you really think that the Internet does not have the power to subsume all traditional mass media, not today, but in time? If not, then we truly disagree, because I believe that everything will go into one big pipe and/or wireless wave. It will not be long before the idea of a TV or radio antenna becomes obsolete, and the idea of printing and distributing sheets of paper by driving them all over town will be understood to be as ridiculous as it sounds.

When it comes to online adverting, CTR and the error of our ways, I could not agree with you more. We did not know what we were doing when we created online advertising as we did. That too will have to change. Advertisers need to advertise and currently they are in a tough place, people are telling them that traditional is not working, yet they don’t really have many viable options.

The Buggy Whip example as you put it is not intended to motive or educate advertisers, as I said they’re in a tough spot. It’s intended to get the media companies to realise that their world is changing. The truth is I think it’s too late for most of them. They can’t change.

Thanks for pointing out the VRM project, I’ve taken a look at it and it seems like an interesting project that I will be looking into further. But, it seems to contradict some of your points above. By making the changes in the marketing model that the VRM project suggests, the media companies will definitely be impacted – which was my point from the start. The Internet and all that it makes possible (VRM and much more) will alter the media landscape as we know it.