In Focus

6 marketing tactics I can't believe we're still using

The need to evolve

Although we are marketing professionals by profession, we are all consumers by nature. And as consumers who are marketing professionals, we tend to look at advertising from a slightly different lens. While we consume products and services just like everyone else, we also have a keen understanding of the tactics being used to market these products. Sometimes we smile and appreciate the work, and other times we scratch our heads, let out a chuckle and wonder, "What in the world were they thinking?"

Some of the tactics that make us go "hmmm" were viable and successful marketing methods several years ago. It's debatable whether or not other tactics were ever successful. The saying: "If they are doing it, it must be working" gives credit to many, where credit is not worthy. It's that sort of thinking, along with being creatures of habit, that keeps some marketers static in their approach. Most of us, on the other hand, have evolved.  We continue to innovate and match our approach to what our audience is looking for and responds to best.

With rolled eyes and feelings of ranting coming on, ask yourself how many times you see these tactics being used each week.

 

Comments

Wendy Hidenrick
Wendy Hidenrick July 9, 2009 at 10:53 AM

Good article. Although from a publisher perspective, I feel the 160x600 is also like the 468. I still see it on RFPs, but never recommend them.

Craig Boyte
Craig Boyte July 9, 2009 at 9:24 AM

The ironic part about this article is the "The (almost) invisible banner" you talk about.

imedia has a 160x600 that is completely invisible. You can read each page of the article, including the "next page" link without seeing it at all.

I didn't even notice it was there until I read the comments, which nobody will do until after reading the entire article - which means collective media (they seem to have a buyout today) was just charged for 6 impressions that I never even knew existed.

Jason Bradfield
Jason Bradfield July 8, 2009 at 5:09 PM

good stuff here, i am new to marketing and the main reason i have become interested is because of articles like this that are demonstrating the clear need for better analytics (my background is in actuarial analysis so i love the abundance of data marketers are collecting now and recognize that there is just HUGE potential to leverage it for juicing ROI).

Sean Cheyney
Sean Cheyney July 8, 2009 at 9:47 AM

Lawrence, thanks for adding your insight from the publisher side. That's interesting that the agencies are trying to push through the footer leaderboard as a "value added" placement. Still a head scratcher though.

Peter Platt
Peter Platt July 8, 2009 at 8:48 AM

Great article Sean! I can't remember how many times I've been surprised by a site redesign after a buy commitment, including new ad size reqs, etc. This is definitely not an industry where we can get lethargic and just keep doing the same thing and expect results to improve.

Lawrence Downes
Lawrence Downes July 8, 2009 at 8:47 AM

In defense of the footer leaderboard - In our case no one ever pays for it. It was created and used for agency's that insists on "added value". If the advertiser/marketer is not willing to pay for the impression, we "give" them one that's worth their investment. It's a stupid game that wates our time and effort-but it appeases certain ad agency schlubs. Interesting observation, almost all of these "added-value" requests come from agencys, Direct clients, the ones spending their own dough, seem to have a better grasp of "you get what you pay for".