www.chinwag.com - uk-netmarketing - roundup

Get this weekly digest, plus other useful info via email. [Subscribe]

Trade Show Troubles
UK-Netmarketing Weekly Round-up - June 08, 2001

A day out of the office, travelling miles, giving and receiving a fistful of business cards, bad coffee, tired feet and with a bit of luck a bunch of new business, contacts and friends for life. But, are tradeshows really worth the effort? Are you better off sitting down with a trade directory and researching companies on the web? With many tradeshow veterans amongst the subscribers, Paul Carr got plenty of responses when he asked, "Just got my Internet World registration info. Anyone been before? Is it worth going?"

The initial responses were overwhelmingly positive. Xavier Adam replied, "Usually the best UK show for the Internet." Mike Grenville added, "...in one guise or another I have exhibited at every one so may be biased. This year's event is 20% bigger than last year in spite of the supposed crash although there are not so many of the huge stands as last year. Whether it is worth going depends on what interests you but shows for me are a good opportunity to get a flavour of other companies in your space, see new products coming up, find business partners, find staff/a job and do lots of networking"

Katy Evans approved, but for different reasons, writing, "I went last year - it was ok - flashy stands and annoying sales people but I'm still going again this afternoon - not to buy anything just to suss out the competition and do some networking. Good pubs nearby."

Adam Atkinson had another perspective, "1999 was great, 2000 was worthy but dull; clearing up after the party as it were. This year? Can't get enthusiastic, but if you're in the market for CRM/XML and enjoy being overlooked by reps desperate to buttonhole PWC/KPMG, etc. practice managers, then go for it."

Nigel Lloyd Parry wrote, "Many exhibitions seem quiet ATM (didn't bother with Internet World this time round, but I did go to Retail Solutions yesterday - which was quiet!). IMHO too many shows, too few people, too little time, too much info on the Internet. Even free seminars can have poor attendance. Not saying I have the absolute answer on this one. There are virtual exhibitions on the internet, but they don't seem to be too popular. Which begs the question. Would broadband make any difference or are shows going to be dead in the water in the future?"

Will Simmonds responded, "This is an interesting point - I definitely reckon the Internet is responsible for the virtual death of exhibitions. Buying behaviour (essentially in the B2B world) has changed. Pre-internet the easiest way to quickly look for potential suppliers of products and services was to go to a show and gather armfuls of brochures. You'd then scuttle back to your office, trawl through the information and probably draw up a shortlist of suppliers to invite in for a face to face meeting. But if there were no shows on then you'd wait ages for the next one.

The Internet allows people gather initial information immediately. A buying decision is then made as to whether or not to request brochures or make contact from the web site. This makes two things key - measuring performance of visitors on your web site and making sure people can get to that web site rather than your competitors one! Rather than going to numerous exhibitions...?"

Ray Taylor disagreed, "A lot of people seem to be missing the point about trade shows. They are about meeting people, catching up with people you have already met, glad-handing, sales introductions, networking, etc. If you work a show well, it should be saving you time, not costing it. I reckon that at a good show I might say 'hello' to maybe a dozen or two contacts. It would take several weeks to catch up with this number individually and there is no chance of ever meeting the hundred or so I probably shake hands with in the course of any one event."

And as for annoying salesman. Whenever I meet a guy who's putting his heart into doing what he is there to do, I want to offer him a job. This business needs a lot more of his kind and a less of the kind that do nothing but moan about how hard it is at the moment.

Mike Grenville shared Ray's opinion, adding, "I don't agree at all that 'video killed the radio show' or that the Internet killed exhibitions. People still buy from people and one of the best ways to find out what an outfit is like to visit them at a show. If you are just a leaflet grabber then shows may be a waste of time for you. Like wise many exhibitors think to themselves that there are not many people there and so switch off mentally."

Nigel Lloyd Parry looked at the problem from a budgetary perspective, "What about the potential customer's you don't yet know? If they are no longer turning up to shows, exhibiting is a waste of money (and good marketers just hate that). However clever the promotion of / at a show, if potential customers are not there, the marketing budget is best spent elsewhere. There's factual and anecdotal evidence that the marketing economics of trade shows is just not stacking up like it used to. By all means press the flesh among the trade, but not on our Client's budgets unless they are also getting a return."

Robin Edwards suggested that combining a bit of online research with a tradeshow visit could work wonders, "I talked to someone last year who, whilst going to the Spring Fair at the NEC (enormous trade fair for the supply to retail industry) as normal, this time spent less than a day there visiting the companies she had already checked out on the Internet. This was instead of spending up to 3 days trawling around the show. She was focused and went straight to the stands of interest. I think she may have even phoned the companies ahead of time to book a time to see them at the show. Thus she was significantly more efficient, and in some ways the show did its job - i.e. bringing together suppliers of interest to her."

Even with lower turnouts at tradeshows, it may be a case of quality over quantity, as Rachel Kittridge pointed out, "Have to say that having just got back to the office after 3 days on a stand at Internet World two points are very apparent:

Internet World visitor figures were certainly down on last year.
Whoopie!! We had one of the best results ever in terms of confirmed and prospected business.

The attendees were serious money spenders as opposed to last years hot air from 18 year old CEO's.

I have already booked the stand for next year and believe that it's still a great opportunity to find out about emerging trends, catch up with your current clients and most importantly introduce yourself to new ones. I agree that many of the other exhibitions which I have attended this year have been very quiet and lacking in substance but for me Internet World is a must for your marketing budget. I will be feeding off it for months to come!"

Perhaps the slow-down visitors for tradeshows and seminars will help improve the quality of some of the events. It's clear from the number of events appearing in Chinwag's weekly events newsletter uknm-events (http://www.chinwag.com/uk-netmarketing/e_index.shtml) that producers are beginning to concentrate far harder on the content and marketing of their events that they had to only a few months ago.

Advertising Avalanche

Considering, on average, you're bombarded with tens of thousands of marketing messages every day, it's not surprising that companies are springing up offering to filter out banner ads or even, with the right gadgetry, TV ads. This avalanche of sales messages seems to be driving response rates down to new lows in virtually every medium. Bad news for everyone, surely?

Musing on this subject, Jay Gooby asked, "How representative of people's tolerance to advertising in general do people think the web is? In tracking terms it's easily the most directly measurable of any ad media, and yet if these measurements are showing that click-thru rates are rock bottom to non-existent, what does this say about traditionally estimated audiences via TV, billboards, etc and their perceived value?"

Neelesh Sonawane replied, "It's a bit unfair to paint online advertising with the same brush as TV/film ads after all surely it's down to the approach of the viewer to the medium and also the mediums as they have developed. With the amount of info online the last thing people tend to do is click on an ad to find out more info. It's somewhat engulfing and makes what can often be a tangent filled trip down the super highway more so. TV/Film is so much more focused. The viewer is there to be entertained mostly and an entertaining ad can grip just as much as the main feature. Sure this doesn't always lead to more products leaving the shelves but the way I see it is a trade-off or balance between impact and info. TV more impact, Online more info"

Ray Taylor added, "...the best filter for TV advertising is, of course, the kettle. It goes on without fail as soon as the ads start. No need to program it, it does the job automatically using a highly advanced intelligence-based bio-computer system. What's more, it does no harm whatever to the TV advertising industry (you know, the business that just about everyone in _this_ industry aspires to, thinking internet advertising is crap) because the TV advertising industry has decades of experience misrepresenting meaningless audience data to make buyers believe they are buying audience, when really the kettle won all the loyalty a long time ago.

My money's on banner ads delivered to IP-enabled kettles via the national grid. Three minutes worth of guaranteed exposure per user, per cuppa. Same goes for IP fridges if targeting the Bacardi Breezer generation."

Sean Dillon added, "Or how about this Java Toaster. http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/2/19442.html Instead of the toast having images of the weather on it, you could get it sponsored :-) i.e. your breakfast this morning is brought to you in association with blah blah blah."

Like the web, TV is beginning to suffer from the abundance of channels. So many are available, how on earth do you create advertising broad enough to reach your audience but niche enough not to annoy them.

Jay Gooby took up this theme, ":Niche programming and themed channels on digital TV is going to make this situation even worse - ad over-exposure is generally the final insult to a badly executed campaign. If you're watching the Sci-Fi channel for instance, just how many times are you going to be able stand seeing that ad for a collectors edition Enterprise, Season 100 of the X-Files on DVD or available-only-by-phone Sci-Fi soundtracks?

Will we start to the see the kind of churn & refinement we already have with banner campaigns? Or perhaps shorter ads, but more varied? Will the same ad proliferate across channels or will it be themed by channel audience? Will Enhanced TV ads improve things? The promise of enhanced ads is to turn the 'lean back' experience into an interactive one, combining the 'best' of both TV & the web; but we know categorically that click thrus are dead, and that most people channel hop or make a nice cup of cha when the TV ads appear..."

Jay continued, "How representative of people's tolerance to advertising in general do people think the web is? In tracking terms it's easily the most directly measurable of any ad media, and yet if these measurements are showing that click-thru rates are rock bottom to non-existent, what does this say about traditionally estimated audiences via TV, billboards, etc and their perceived value?

We've only had five or six years to learn to filter out banner ads - less for people relatively new to the web, but we've had our entire lives to learn to filter TV, print and radio ads. I realise that there's a distinct difference between reacting/responding to an ad and brand-awareness imprinting, but is the beleaguered web ad industry just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the entire industry? Once every urinal, school textbook and packaging surface carries a message, where then?"

John Braithwaite replied,

"1. Cinema/TV = BIG adverts that take up the whole screen, with sound and visuals, for up to 40 seconds. Billboards/Ambient = Media that hits people with messages when they've got the time and space to digest them. Banner Adverts = Small things that get in the way (at the most irritating level) of what you want to look at/see.

2. Cinema/TV/Ambient etc. = 'lean back media' where people are waiting for messages to be transmitted to them and are therefore receptive. Internet = 'lean-forward media' where people are trying to interact and therefore are looking for contextual relevance in order to engage.

And that should be enough to tell you why you can't apply 'offline advertising' models to the online space. Still, there's enough people out there trying!"

Is all the focus on the responsiveness of advertising, missing the whole branding effect? Sally Krumholz emailed, "Interesting point. In actuality there is a movement now to measure the impact of online advertising on brand awareness. one company, dynamic logic, contract with advertisers via site publishers to run such tests. Here's a link on one of their studies measuring Travelocity's online campaign:

http://www.dynamiclogic.com/site/travelocity.html

It's a new company but has been getting a lot of attention for running case studies to show that online advertising can be used to build general brand Identification which cannot be measured by clicks alone. The argument has been positioned that some consumers will go to a site or purchase a product after being exposed to adverts, just as it may occur in the 'traditional' advertising world.

I believe in a market where CTR's are appalling in general and you are trying to maximize your conversion rates, this type of research ad some value. In our agency we are beginning to propose integrating dynamic logic as a component of measuring our campaigns' impact. The cost from the advertiser's site is minimal i believe."

Hanne Tuomisto agreed, "I believe strongly in the power of the new branding research online done by Dynamic Logic. I was introduced to their research tool just a couple of weeks ago, but it has already changed the way I think about measuring successfulness of online campaigns. It also proves that the way online advertising is 'optimised' at the moment is incorrect (at least when the objective of the campaign is branding). Agencies (and media owners) are capping online campaigns in order to improve the click-through rate. However, at the same time they (we) are doing no good for the branding effect of the campaign. Dynamic Logic has research that shows that increasing the frequency of a person seeing an ad online to 4 times or more has an 88% lift on the brand awareness (whereas frequency of 2-3 has a lift of 72% and frequency one a lift of 66%).

[When it] comes to the cost of the research, I am a bit worried that in the climate of tight online media budgets, advertisers cannot afford to buy into this type of research. They can hardly stretch their online media spends to cover their target audiences online properly, especially when talking about pan-European campaigns, which I am working on. I believe the research cost starts with $6,000/study and goes down the more studies a company buys. There are also implementation and maintenance fees involved. I don't know... do you guys think that advertisers could find the money to buy into this type of research online?"

Commenting on the costs, Sally Krumholz wrote, "We actually incorporate some of the costs into our media budget and have been working with them for some time now on a project with the ad council. In an environment where clients are asking for accountable results that extend beyond CTRs, dynamic's research and studies can potentially give our clients more than just reports on direct conversions. We all know that sometimes an ad's impact can't be measured on a click alone. I mean, when you see an advert on TV do you run out to the shop to buy the product? No, you think about it and maybe do it later. I know that we can't always compare interactive to traditional media. But in the beginning, clients and agencies became spoiled by getting 'instant' results in the form of CTRs and traceable acquisitions from banner campaigns. What we are now realizing is that it's only part of the picture."

LINKS OF NOTE:
A quick round up of interesting, funny, useful and other links gleaned from the uk-netmarketing list, office gossip and other nefarious sources...we take no responsibility should you chose to click...basically, it's not our fault. Enjoy:

receive uk-netmarketing-roundup by email, every week
Just pop your email address in the form below and receive the uk-netmarketing roundup via email each week. You'll receive an email with details on how to confirm your subscription.

return to top