greenpencil
Revisiting the end goal of marketing:
Eyeballs or loonies? M
arketing seems to be an espe-
cially painful aspect of running a business. Nobody questions that promotion works, is perhaps even essential. But assigning value to marketing dollars seems to get tougher every year. Current conventional wisdom dictates every business, no matter how small, must market electronically or eat dust. Online venues promise huge exposure — crudely but commonly called “eyeballs” — at rock-bottom cost. On top of cheap eyeballs, everybody assumes electronic marketing reaches a younger, hipper audience. And wouldn’t the green industry love to touch a younger demographic? Amid the chatter, it might be helpful to take a deep breath, step back, and reconsider the purpose of marketing: to generate market response. Stated more simply, to make sales. Most Landscape Trades readers operate in local markets. Does worldwide exposure to millions of prospects generate more sales than targeted efforts in local media? Rates for online advertising started off low, and are going down. How many Landscape Trades readers believe in discounting products? Or do you think that prices charged support a product’s claimed value? But back to ROI; can anybody point to research, or even anecdotal evidence, that online pitches actually drive sales from younger customers?
By Lee Ann Knudsen
4 | MAY 2013 | LANDSCAPE TRADES
No doubt you have heard buzz about retail giant Target entering Canada. The brand is known for its size, progressive strategies and eye for design. A recent news story covered the launch of Target’s first Canadian advertising flyer. The story cited research by Toronto agency BrandSpark International; 75 per cent of Canadians look at weekly flyers. How interesting. Target is investing in flyers, the identical marketing strategy used by many of our garden centre readers. Our November Landscape Trades reader survey shone some light on electronic marketing, specific to Canada’s green industry. While 60 per cent of Landscape Trades readers do not promote their businesses through social media, a significant 40 per cent do. Of those, just 17 per cent saw a return on their investment. The question addressed a new medium, and readers are certainly still feeling their way — nearly half of those investing effort in social were not sure if they were getting any return at all. The point is, marketing exists to attract customers and drive sales. The medium, whatever it may be, should serve that goal. Local and traditional may well be what works best for your business. Internet Grinch? I only wish; I spend far too many waking hours on the web as is. If new media produce results, great. My modest purpose is to suggest the promise of free intergalactic electronic exposure is getting way too much play. Horticulture industry marketers might be better advised to plan strategies geared toward response. As in, sales. Which is better for your business: millions of eyeballs, or dollars deposited in your operating account? LT