March 29, 2009

If You Had $1,000 Of Your Own Marketing Funds To Invest

You might be interested in seeing the results of last month's poll --- "If you had $1,000 of your own money to invest in marketing, which channel would you invest in?" Only 26 responses, but the results are worth considering (the responder could pick up to three choices ... visit the site to take the poll, still one day left):
  1. 73% = E-Mail Marketing.
  2. 57% = Paid Search.
  3. 23% = Affiliate Marketing.
  4. 23% = Shopping Comparison Sites.
  5. 15% = Blogs.
  6. 15% = Catalog Marketing.
  7. 15% = Direct Mail.
  8. 11% = Twitter.
  9. 7% = Facebook.
  10. 7% = SMS / Text Messaging.
  11. 3% = Mobile Marketing.
  12. 3% = TV / Newspaper / Radio.
  13. 0% = MySpace
  14. 0% = Portal Advertising.
  15. 0% = Banner Advertising.
Obviously, this poll isn't scientific, it only represents what 1.5% of this audience thinks. And yet, the shiny new toys (Twitter, Facebook, Blogs, Mobile) are not channels you'd spend money in. Nor are traditional tools (catalogs, direct mail, TV, radio, newspaper).

Nope, you'd invest in e-mail and paid search.

And yet, CEOs are always telling me about two fundamental truths.
  1. E-Mail marketing has unlimited potential, but never achieves it, yielding $0.15 per e-mail when done with little effort ... yielding $0.25 per e-mail when executed in a targeted, personalized manner.
  2. Paid Search doesn't scale ... you "max" out your opportunity --- online CEOs are all looking to "detether" from Google.
So what is it? Are these the places to invest money because of their own inherent potential, or are the alternatives poor performers?