The Client (Is Still) Always Right

|

I love Gord Hotchkiss – or at least his insights. His recent analogy of online marketing being akin to a Gordian Knot, with search being the glue that binds together each of the intersection points was sheer poetry.

But I was very surprised by his recent article titled “Doing Search Only Counts if You're Seen” – focusing around the Ontario Tourism Bureau's lack of budgetary backing for its Search Engine Marketing (SEM) program and as a result, the scope of their Search program. Talk about missing the point completely!

So why is it that we are berating the Ontario Tourism Bureau for lack their lack of budget commitment to SEM? Do we really believe that by simply pointing out the strong performance of SEM as an online marketing tool that we can change their behavior? And further, do we really believe that because the program is under-funded that somehow that completely negates all the SEM efforts being made, as the headline suggests?

I am going to answer no to those last two questions, and further I would challenge anyone in the SEM community to come forward to say that they have never worked with a company who under funded their SEM programs. Or that they have never worked with a company who short changed their SEM programs in favor of less accountable marketing efforts. I would even go out on a limb to say that most SEM providers have more than a few client companies that fit that category. So by inference, are we as “SEM professionals” failing miserably? I would say yes only to the extent that we as a community tend to expect everyone to “get it” in the same fashion we do. The reality is that a good portion of companies have marketing staff that struggle to even articulate what SEM is, let alone champion moving millions of dollars from their safe, predictable, known marketing channels over the mystery black box of SEM. The challenge is not lack of funding, it is lack of maturity.

I am frustrated as the next person by the ongoing challenges in the SEM space, that on one hand we have “crossed the chasm” yet on the other hand, I can deliver a 25-page in-depth analysis showing SEM as having delivered a 10X return on investment only to have the program canceled (making me as guilty as the next guy for taking a numbers first approach).

What I would really like to hear from the community is not research justifying what we already know – but rather how have each of you have been successful in educating your client companies in the space? Because honestly, if we could just throw a bunch of statistics at someone and have them get it the first, second, third or fifth time – we would all be (SEM) golden children.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Not sure how I missed the

Not sure how I missed the point completely. Here are the points, as I see them: - Ontario Tourism ignored a huge number of searchers that were actively looking for them on the web - The budget was there, but was being allocated instead to "push" channels (as in Liz's post) rather than far more effective "pull" channels - Pull should always be your first dollars in, because it connects you with engaged prospects - This is the official site of Ontario Tourism, a trusted resource, and they should be present for the logical queries - For the cost of one newspaper ad in one daily, they could have captured 50,000 to a 100,000 engaged prospects - When I say it only counts if you're seen refers to the user perspective, which is my favorite point of view. If I do a search for "ontario vacations" and the site isn't there, in my eyes they're not "doing search". And that's my point. BTW, your captcha verification is almost impossible to use..just so you know

Yes, but it's the whole marketing budget you're competing with..

From the client's perspective, I think it's a function of trying to find balance between the 'push' and 'pull' parts of the marketing equation... statistics don't always help inform us about the real nature of the prospect interaction. You guys are the experts here, but I sense that there's still a qualitative aspect that is difficult to measure and analyze. Also, it's all very well to harumph over lack of budget spend in any given category but the thing to realize is that there's almost never the 'ideal spend' budget available: one dollar spent is always at the expense of another dollar in another marketing category. The pressure on Marketing VPs is not how to invest 100% of what the ideal spend should be, but rather, how to invest 80% of the ideal spend (or whatever pressure the CEO is putting on the budget). To quote the old joke, it's not the bear that you have to outrun, but the slowest person. In the case of rationalizing SEM budget, you have to prove not just that it works, but that it works better than ALL of the alternatives. (BTW, Hi Ingrid!)

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.

Captcha Image: you will need to recognize the text in it.
Please type in the letters/numbers that are shown in the image above.