"But it's only online..."

Over the years, I've been in an ongoing back-and-forth (conflict sounds too harsh) with clients who say they want to embrace "New" (hate that term) Media, but are very much stuck in an "Old Media" way of thinking. You know these clients -- the ones who hear some buzzword and immediately want to get their brand in on it -- whether or not it's possible/correct/etc. For example:

"Can you make me a Viral Video?"
"We need a blog for all our press releases..."
"Let's put our blog on Twitter and then it'll go viral, right?"

Blurgh.

Then there are the others (identities will be hidden to protect the naive), who can think of nothing more successful than getting their brand on a Network AM Show or The New York Times. Don't get me wrong-- there's definitely a ton of value in hits of those magnitude. But these are the same people who completely discount the value of online hits; as if, unless you can 'hold it in your hand', it didn't really exist.

So when I saw this video on Richard Laermer/Kevin Dugan's Bad Pitch Blog (both of whom I unfortunately missed meeting at their party last week), and I thought I'd pass it on.


The Online Media from RealWire on Vimeo.

I've heard the headline of his post ("It was just on the web site, not in print") from countless clients and colleagues and managers. I'm sure you probably have too.

Of course, nothing compares to actually holding a great hit or seeing it on TV. But isn't that really just an ego thing? Granted, my Mom and Dad are probably more impressed when I snag a placement on Good Morning America or the NYT, but which is actually serving the client better? A lot of clients feel just like Mom and Dad, unfortunately, because that's they way they were raised to consume media. They need to understand why an online placement is valuable to their brand, sometimes even more than a print placement (but ideally with both). The video above is a great way to show them the power of Digital.

What really got me, however, was a comment on the blog. To wit:

"I've gotta be honest - if you think a placement in Wired's blog is as good as a placement in the magazine then you're kidding yourself. I certainly see benefit in online placements - they do get (limited) readership, they have hyperlinks that can drive people directly to the product/service and they have SEO benefits.

But, pound for pound, print placement gets us more results than anything. Period."

SERIOUSLY? First of all, leaving "Anonymous" comments is kinda lame --own up to your views. I agree with Kevin's response... Making absolute statements about media relations is *very* short-sighted, and I think discounts the credibility of the comment itself.

As for the comment itself: This is the constant discussion with those aforementioned clients-- what's 'more results than anything' mean? Is it more eyeballs? Not necessarily. How many people actually read a magazine cover-to-cover? Are you absolutely sure that the person read your product's mention? With online, readers are more active -- they may have found your mention via search, or trackbacks to the piece.

In addition, the MSM picks up stories online, and goes online for research, so that placement lives on far longer than the newspaper that is now lining the litterbox, or the magazine that is left in the bathroom. As the video also says, bloggers may pick up the story as well -- and then the aforementioned MSM may take notice. It also has the opportunity to go GLOBAL, which is less likely for a US-based long-lead pub. I won't even go into the fact that the run-up time makes most info covered in mags very old by the time they're published. They're called "long-lead", right? That usually means a few months, at least.

So, once again, how do you quantify "more results than anything"? Are you talking 'impressions' that are an inflated number based upon circulation numbers? Can you directly correlate those numbers to sales figures? Probably not. Or is it just because the client likes a fancy masthead or pretty pictures in a magazine that his boss likes to read?