COMMENTS
Inbound marketing is great for long term income. But, what about the little guy who needs cash now?
I don't see how the images/chart shows that the blog drove more traffic than the ads. Can you be more explicit please?
Might have had something to do with the quality and message of the TV ads. If the ad buy was $54k, what were the production costs?
Sally,
When you look at the chart, ORGANIC traffic is what the blog brings in. DIRECT traffic means that people typed the URL directly into their browser.
I would tend to say that chart may be a bit inaccurate though, although we are not given previous weeks to compare it to. Is it normal for organic traffic to spike like that during the weekends? When looking at the search terms used to get there, could it be that people couldn't remember the URL and typed in the company name to get there? Maybe they misspelled the URL and their browser redirected them to Google and then they clicked on a link from there?
There are many reasons that direct traffic can be mistaken by analytics for organic traffic. Especially after watching a 15 or 30 second TV commercial.
But yes, I agree... a TV commercial during the superbowl? Not such a hot idea for 99.9% of businesses out there.
Maybe it was just that the ad was sending people to the blog and they were then to increased web traffic on the main site - not sure your theory proves that ads on superbowl don't work.
I haven't seen your analytics pannel but wondering why organic would only be associated with traffic from Blog. What if someone watched the Super Bowl ad and then typed into a browser the name of the company they saw on the ad. Wouldn't that be considered an organic search but directly related to the success of the TV spot?
Yes. I agree that most of the outbound methods don't perform as well as inbound methods do. You just can get so much more of a targeted audience online and for far less money. Kudos to this ad.
I agree with Sally and Adam -- I'm not seeing the connection in your chart. I would much rather see a chart that shows comparison traffic over time -- along with blog traffic vs. website traffic. Clearly it's important to know what the goals/objectives were for the ad spend during the Superbowl-- and then link that to the results.
During this same time was there a specific event/call to action on the blog that might drive traffic to the website? How does that compare with the event/call to action from the Superbowl ad?
I think more visual data here would be helpful to fully explain your case being sure to take into account human behavior and goals.
Thanks for sharing this thoughtful article on inbound marketing. Many companies make excuses for using inbound marketing because they are set in their ways in traditional outbound marketing. A recent study from the SIIA showed that 90% of marketing executives admit to using social media marketing and 75% believe that it has a positive impact on their businesses. Here is a helpful article that describes this study in more depth and how it shows social media to be an effective marketing tool. http://www.grmwebsite.com/blog/bid/71928/Research-Shows-Social-Media-To-Be-An-Effective-Marketing-Tool I hope this article further supports the use of inbound marketing strategies and how companies who use it may be able to benefit in ways they wouldn't have imagined possible.
-Sarah
I am a firm believer that online advertising is going to be the best resource for building brands and customer loyalty. Advertising on radio and television may have great reach, but it is hard to target the right market and track the performance. Every move an internet marketing company makes online can be tracked.
I work with online marketing myself and am all about the results you see from it. However, I do think it is rather simplistic to measure the effective of a Superbowl ad based on the calls and online leads received immediately afterward. The value of the ad could be in reinforcing longer term branding that is difficult to measure as a cause-effect.
Also, just throwing this out there, what if people searched for the company after seeing the ad and went right to the blog and not the video?
Maybe if they executed the traditional marketing effectively, it would have worked better.
First, they used multiple calls-to-action (call a phone number, visit the website), which any good marketing professional will tell you is a bad idea.
Have you ever called a phone number from a TV or radio commercial? Neither have I. Nobody does, which is why phone numbers in TV commercials are a complete waste of time.
How do you know that no web traffic came from the TV spot? How was it tracked?
Was there a compelling reason for a viewer to visit the website right away? I don't care how many people were watching. Any campaign that lasts for only three days, especially with no sense of urgency, is doomed to fail. Marketing, online or offline, is a long-term proposition.
I'm a big believer in inbound marketing and agree that it should be integrated with a traditional campaign, but your case study has more holes than a golf course.
I agree that creating great content and generating inbound leads as a result is utterly crucial. However, I would like to see stronger evidence than this. This case study doesn't show that the TV ads had a small ROI because there are too many confounding variables. For example, there is no measurement of whether the ad created traffic to the blog, which then directed visitors to the main website.
It is true that outbound marketing, like a Superbowl commercial,
might not be as efficient as inbound marketing.
But, you cannot write it off as ineffective.
It depends on your target audience, the type of product,
the offer etc. The commercial might have failed due to
100 different reasons. We'd have to actually see it to determine.
Maybe with a better crafted message,
the commercial would have outperformed the blog)
Outbound is obviously not inherently bad because there are plenty of companies who still use it effectively.
The question is: is outbound the BEST use of your resources?
The graphic certainly is interesting with an increase in the organic search numbers, but who can be certain that people didn't see the ad, then go search for the company as opposed to typing it directly into their browsers? If I were that company, I'd compare increase in mobile traffic on the day of the Super Bowl to other days. That might be a more powerful indicator of how many people went to the site after seeing the ad.
What about attribution? How can you be sure that what you classify as direct traffic was not triggered by Super Bowl ads? And organic traffic as well. Although I tend to believe, like you, that you should derive a better ROI from communications oriented to generate behavior, I'm also sure we do not help our "cause" if we incur in sloppy attribution... and it is so hard to attribute results to individual efforts in an integrated communications context!
Silver Bullets and Factpinions.
If someone asked me to share their story as a case study, I would do the same just as you did. Put the numbers on the table and allow others to evaluate and find the gems that apply to their business.
It is tough to compare the Superbowl TV Ad vs.a blog. These are apples and oranges since each have a different purpose and the call to action would most likely be different. The measures of success for either marketing campaign will be overlapping but with one audience "searching" and the other watching as a stranger, there is no comparison.
In either case, there is no silver bullet. Creating a synergy between several marketing methods increases the results for each. One stand alone marketing tactic will not have the strength of several working in tandem.
Factpinions:
From a reader's perspective, the blog is not typically fact. In most cases, the blog is filled with factpinions. Factpinions are when the facts are blended with opinions to make a point. If readers can read the blog as factpinions and remember to "trust but verify" in all things, Andrew .... you do make a point. "Don't make assumptions and look twice before you leap."
.... you do make your point as and you challenge the status quo.
While these are initial thoughts, ti does not end here. If you want to read on, you can read it here:
Titled: Silver Bullets and Factpinions - Hubspot vs. Margie Layman
http://www.michaelhartzell.com/Blog/bid/82822/Silv...
I commend you Andrew for sharing the case study and for sharing what you believe. While you are aggressive with your conclusions, your passion and enthusiasm is noted and appreciated.