Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 126.96.36.199
Forum Moderators: buckworks
Any comments on this would be highly appreciated.
On my well introduced web site to a niche market, I am offering a new service for suppliers to this industry. Of course, I do not have a track record yet on how this upcoming service will perform.
However, the new program has raised sufficient interest allready and I am convinced it will work for anybody involved (users, advertisers and last not least me).
Apart from all the usual questions concerning visitors, click-throughs, overall marketing etc. I have run into an argument I am not sure how to handle.
A potentiall advertiser argued:
"...we need to conserve dollars and efforts to programs that we know will drive the business ahead." meaning they rather spend 10 times the money to buy print ads.
To put this into example numbers: They rather spend $1000,00 to gain one (1) new customer through traditionall media (having a 20 year trackable record proving they get this one customer) than spending $100,00 on a new web marketing opportunity without a proven ROI track record.
Needless to say, my web site attracts more visitors from their target audience in one month then the print media they are referring to does in one year.
Certainly, some of you have been in this situation before and any comment on how to educate the potentiall client about the benefits of web marketing vs. print media is highly appreciated. (Pp. I want the custumer now, not next year when I can show him the track record and have an easy sale).
i'd say get the track record to get an easy sale later. you may not want to do it this way, but this will probably be the easiest thing to do. you've got interest from others so make the most of that.
joined:July 21, 2000
At the start of this year, a company noticed that one of its newer resellers was outselling most larger and established outlets. On investigation, they found that this reseller was getting a very large proportion of their business from the 'net and had done some pretty good SEO work on their web site.
The company decided to do a test, researched the SEO/SEM marketplace and selected 5 SEO companies and offered them all an identical deal. They would pay a fixed sum for each unique visitor driven to the site via a relevant search term. It was up to each SEO as to how they drove this traffic.
They chose quite well and (after a couple of months) the SEOs started driving an average of 1K uniques each, daily to the client. By July they were getting over 100K unique visitors per month and sales had increased by over $1 million per month on a spend which was considerably less than would have to be spent off-line to achieve the same increase.
I am hoping to persuade this client to actually release some of the statistics which they have collected over the course of this campaign. As they used 5 competitors, they give to us the relative performance of each of the campaigns (great insite into competitors tactics - and into mine - which I don't really like) - including sales ratios on a monthly basis, which has allowed us to graph the growth in both traffic and sales.
Although every business is very different, this is a case which has proven the benefits of a pretty big online campaign. We do need more tangible, real-life facts and figures to assist in arguing why online campaigns can be every bit as effective (and probably more cost effective) than their off-line equivalents.
As pointed out, it is all very well us having our own anecdotal evidence - but where are the independant figures which can support our facts?