He typically does some good marketing pieces and I enjoy the magazine but this article was a total dud in my mind. I got the distinct impression he either has very little knowledge about the internet or was just protecting the "print media" from being compared to the much more cost effective, transparent, trackable, media, “the internet”. In one section of the article entitled ”So does it work” he opens with, “One thing I have learned from all the hype about the internet is there is a lot of hype”, if that statement doesn’t reek of naivety, or defensiveness I don’t know one that does.
In mind Mr. Leibbrandt would have done himself and the publication a much greater service pointing out the benefits of “branding” that print offers, because when you compare the internet and print dollar for dollar there is no comparison. Print offers no way to effectively track Return on Investment , is far more expensive than the web, offers little to no accurate statistics about who “actually” even saw your ad, etc, etc, etc…
I am a firm believer that all media has a “definitive place in a well rounded marketing program”, and understand print publications frustrations with a shrinking market share (as savvy Marketing Directors shift advertising dollars to the internet) year after year to the exploding market share of the internet, but perhaps publications would be better off identifying their value to their clients as opposed to resorting to defensive articles that illustrate their own naiveté of the internet.
I could go on and on but my point is, for traditional media interested in “slamming the web” as an effective tool for marketing, “do yourself a favor, at least make a credible argument?”
Get a static 468 x 60 banner is this forum, Click Here for Fishing Banner Ads