Marketers who spend more than 50% of their lead generation budget on inbound marketing channels report a significantly lower cost per sales lead than those who spend 50% or more their budgets on outbound marketing channels, according to the “State of Inbound Marketing Report” [pdf] from internet marketing firm Hubspot.
Average Cost Per Lead $200 Less
The average cost per lead by inbound marketing-dominated firms in 2010 is $134. This is $198, or 60%, less than the $332 average cost per lead at outbound marketing-dominated firms. This percentage differential has remained consistent from a 61% higher average lead generation expense reported by outbound-marketing-dominated firms in 2009.
3 of 4 Major Inbound Channels Cost Less
When asked to rank each lead generation category as “below average cost,” “near average cost,” or “above average cost,” businesses consistently ranked inbound marketing channels as having lower cost than outbound channels. Only PPC (pay-per-click search) had overall cost rankings comparable to those given outbound channels.
Social media and blogs had the highest “below average cost” rankings for both 2009 and 2010 (55% as a combined category in 2009 and 63% separately in 2010).
Trade shows, with their requirements for travel and expenses, as well as space rental and booth setup/removal for companies who exhibit, had the worst cost rankings in 2009 and 2010. In 2009, 55% of companies said trade show costs were above average and only 18% said they were below average. These figures improved moderately in 2010 (48% and 22%, respectively), but still left trade shows as clearly the least cost-effective marketing channel.
Inbound Marketing Grows in Importance
Inbound marketing is continuing to grow in importance at the expense of outbound marketing, according to other findings from the State of Inbound Marketing Report.
As a percentage of the overall lead generation budget, inbound marketing expanded slightly from 2009 to 2010 (38% to 39%), while outbound marketing contracted more significantly (29% to 24%). The net effect is that the gap widened from inbound marketing, which had a 9% greater share of the overall marketing budget than outbound marketing in 2009, to a 15% greater share in 2010. Roughly one-third of the lead generation budget is considered “not classified.”
The first 2 are viral videos – notice the shape of the “total views curve” (quick rise and approaches the max asymptotically). The last 2 videos are not viral, and supported by paid advertising and promotion. It is a straight line that grows steadily over time. The 2 examples of non-viral videos were chosen simply to have similar view counts as the first and second examples.
Viral video examples – notice the asymptotic curve towards the max on the total views chart.
Frozen Grand Central ImprovEverywhere viral video – 18 million views – added on Jan 31, 2009. ”Other/viral” gave it its first big boost and embedded views gave it another big push.
No Pants Subway Ride ImprovEverywhere viral video – 9 million views – uploaded January 13, 2009; got onto YouTube homepage and got a major boost from it.
NON-viral video examples – notice the straight line of the total views chart.
Perfect example of NON-viral video that had help with paid media – in this case, GoDaddy supported these videos with costly Superbowl ads — which led to nice bumps-up in total views.
In the case of Smirnoff’s Tea Partay, it was not supported by paid media so it took longer to grow and the shape of the curve is a nice blend between the straight line of a non-viral video and the asymptotic line of a viral video.
Finally, blatant ads don’t go viral – Sony’s grand central product demo stunt. And even if they are discussed in dozens of blogs it is not enough to get past the first tipping point.
Getting Back to Basics – Why Web Advertising Needs Traditional Media Metrics
posted Mon, Jul 06 2009
by Young Bean Song MSFT
Trying to build a brand marketing campaign without traditional target reach and Gross Rating Points (GRP) estimates is like trying to diet without the concept of calories. The analogy of dieting and advertising works on many levels.
RE: “Patty Wakeling, an industry veteran who leads Unilever’s Global Media Insights Group, recently reminded me that in today’s retail environment, the choice between the branded versus the generic option are separated by less than an inch on the shelf. It was a sobering reminder of the power of branding, and why so many companies are willing to spend so much to build their brand equity.” But in the case of Whole Foods’ own store brand, 365, many people perceive it to be better than branded options (or at least equivalent). So they tend to choose to buy the 365 product instead. In other cases, what used to be brand equity/value is now perceived as an undesirable premium. Take another example — the rise and popularity of Trader Joe’s where 80% of the products sold are house brands. Consumers care about the product and its quality and value; consumers no longer care (as much) about the brand that is slapped on the package if the contents inside suck.
A brand used to be a mark or symbol burned onto a cow’s butt to signify what ranch it came from. And if people knew the ranch had a good reputation for raising healthy cows, they would buy the cow. The brand helped simplify the purchase decision. These days, advertisers carefully manicure “brand messages” and shout them at target consumers using various one-way channels such as TV, print, radio, and banner ads. But like Scott Cook, Intuit, said, “A brand is no longer wht we tell the consumer its – its what the consumers tell each other it is.” So branding as we know it (advertisers shouting claims at target customers) is less relevant or even unwanted entirely by modern consumers. And brand equity, which used to be a large, fungible item on the balance sheet (technically known as “good will”) may be far less valuable today. Consumers don’t just take the advertisers’ word for it; they will do their own research and buy what is actually valuable and useful.
Companies that actually develop useful and valueable products or services that consistently deliver on their promise — Apple, Drobo, Zappos, JetBlue, etc. — can even cut out their brand advertsing entirely because their brand IS their consistent delivery on the promise of value and usefulness. For example, has Apple EVER claimed they have awesome design and are easy to use? NEVER! But their products consistently deliver on those 2 attributes. So that’s how modern users would describe Apple’s brand to their friends.
A “brand” is earned over time. “Branding” is no longer a useful activity (and furthermore it is damned expensive — media costs — and ineffective — because it is the advertiser making claims that modern consumers don’t believe, assuming they saw the ad in the first place).
From AdAge — people buying private label, generics, or store brands (quality of which are pretty comparable to name brands)