4 ms·

> it doesn't compare to old school word-of-mouth, visibility, coupons, local magazine ads, etc. This matches my experience working for small biz owners as well

> it doesn't compare to old school word-of-mouth, visibility, coupons, local magazine ads, etc. This matches my experience working for small biz owners as well. It's funny, years ago we (techies) all told these business owners what a waste "traditional" advertising was. "Shift your print/radio/tv ad budgets to digital" we said, "it's trackable" we said, and now it's shifting back as digital ads are not returning the same value thanks to ...very accurate tracking. Meanwhile, local radio was destroyed and rebuilt, local print is also currently rebuilding (not quite there yet) and TV is becoming more affordable as they have to now compete with digital.

pbhjpbhj 7y ago
Is it that social media is worse, or that returns on advertising for local businesses have always been bad but only when we could track them have we noticed? We (a local micro-business) tried tracking our print adverts by including coupons and found nearly the only people using them were current customers. Direct word-of-mouth was by far our most successful advertising (either from customers, or staff handing out leaflets in the street).
- josefresco 7y ago
  > Is it that social media is worse, or that returns on advertising for local businesses have always been bad but only when we could track them have we noticed? IMHO the latter. Returns were and are always terrible, with occasional "home runs" that then get parroted by every marketing guru as an example of how powerful social marketing campaigns can be. But of course, your plumbing business, or accounting firm doesn't have the same business model, market or customers as said example. My point is that social media is no worse, or better than traditional marketing, it's just that, we can prove it's terrible with data. Of course, if everything is "terrible" ... none of it is.
  - couchand 7y ago
    > Of course, if everything is "terrible" ... none of it is. Well, it's just advertising that's terrible. Businesses can spend their money in lots of different ways. If advertising is understood to not be effective, perhaps we'll see more investment in things like wages and product quality, which, unlike advertising, deliver real social value.

pbhjpbhj 7y ago

Is it that social media is worse, or that returns on advertising for local businesses have always been bad but only when we could track them have we noticed? We (a local micro-business) tried tracking our print adverts by including coupons and found nearly the only people using them were current customers. Direct word-of-mouth was by far our most successful advertising (either from customers, or staff handing out leaflets in the street).

josefresco 7y ago
> Is it that social media is worse, or that returns on advertising for local businesses have always been bad but only when we could track them have we noticed? IMHO the latter. Returns were and are always terrible, with occasional "home runs" that then get parroted by every marketing guru as an example of how powerful social marketing campaigns can be. But of course, your plumbing business, or accounting firm doesn't have the same business model, market or customers as said example. My point is that social media is no worse, or better than traditional marketing, it's just that, we can prove it's terrible with data. Of course, if everything is "terrible" ... none of it is.
- couchand 7y ago
  > Of course, if everything is "terrible" ... none of it is. Well, it's just advertising that's terrible. Businesses can spend their money in lots of different ways. If advertising is understood to not be effective, perhaps we'll see more investment in things like wages and product quality, which, unlike advertising, deliver real social value.