Do Ad Agencies Have Better 'Strategy' Than SEM Firms?
Andrew Goodman compares the strategy of ad agencies to SEM firms, noting that most ad agency synergistic strategy revolves around schmoozing:
So traditional ad agencies are still indulging alongside some top execs in traditional, difficult-to-measure, glitzy multichannel campaigns that allow at least a few of the top agency people and execs to spend more time on, say, the golf course, or meeting with the celebrity who got tagged to be the spokesperson based on extensive customer profiling. This "strategy" and relatively costly-per-impression exposure have come at a massive cost, as any observer of advertising knows. The edifice is steadily crumbling.
- Y! MyWeb
in short - no But they win
in short - no
But they win as far as wankary and bullshit go The Truth In Ad Sales
Nope
I just got declined by the local radio station to be their online community expert on SEO/SEM. Apparently their current ad agency/marketing firm does all that and they saw a conflict.
I declined to ask what they were ranking for because I already new the answer.
*yawn*
Well, first, I'd say that a considerable amount of schmoozing in traditional Marketing and PR Agencies and very much less so in Ad Agencies, given that marketing and PR are very much about putting people together, doing and calling in favours, and encouraging people to prioritise your client because they like you, while Ad agencies are, very generally, much more about providing a specific payment for a specific service. While Agencies which do both do exist, anyone who thinks marketing and advertising are the same thing is, erm, probably not fully realising the potential of either.
Second, I'd say new media promotion is generally more aking to marketing and very much about schmoozing, knowing the right people, putting people together, doing and calling in favours and encouraging people to prioritise your client because they like you. Linkbaiting for a blog mention isn't so different than a night at a strip club for an editorial mention, when you get right down to it.
Flame me now, I'm out for a while and will be back to answer any sufficiently hysterical assertions that old media was and is crap, you couldn't track newspaper ads and the wheel didn't exist before 1998 or so later. In the meantime I reckon the interweb has opened up some new and wonderful opportunities for marketing but whether the old boy network meets on the golf course or on the second night of SES in a small smokey bar in soho is largely irrelevant, its still where much of the business gets done.
Well said, Gurtie.
I've often thought that the definitions of "marketing" and "advertising" get smooshed together, when they're not quite the same thing.
Ad Agencies should stick to print
Most of my clients are ad agencies.. they go out and build a 100% flash site.. and then when their client is miffed that their 200,000 dollar site doesn't rank for anything we have to go out and build a spiderable html version.
They don't understand the concept... it doesn't matter how 'cool' the site is if no one visits it... if no one visits it they don't own a website.
They should spend 5 min on Google's Guidlines.
>> They should spend 5 min
> They should spend 5 min on Google's Guidlines.
LOL, you should send them to Dave Pasternack for guidance :)
Yes they do!
If your sole focus is rankings or bidding for #1 position, you're in a lot of trouble. Smart companies ALSO focus on branding, user experience, and driving visitors to do what we want them to do. Having worked for both an SEM firm and an ad agency, I can tell you that an ad agency is going to beat the SEM firm on the latter every time.
Search engines are interested in getting the best results for their customers, and that means having a good site that meets the needs of the customer. That means a well-branded site fueled by traditional marketing push. And that requires a better strategy.
wrong
Yeah. Even the worst ad agency is better than the one of the best SEOs, even if that SEO has a background as an executive at an ad agency, right?
Search engines are
Truer words were never spoken.
The only thing I've ever
The only thing I've ever appreciated about the ad agency model was the shear number of husband-hunting, Ivy League educated, hot chicks roaming the halls. I did my best to fuel them with my "traditional marketing push".
>>> Having worked for both
>> Having worked for both an SEM firm and an ad agency, I can tell you that an ad agency is going to beat the SEM firm on the latter every time.
Yeeeeah. You would have had a different perspective if you'd worked for a GOOD SEM firm I think. "PPC agencies" that measure their success on #1 rankings and CTR are just about the lowest of the low, burning client budgets for the managemenbt fee, and precious little else.
More effective SEM agencies measure ROI on users actually taking the actions required by the client (sales, sign-ups, registrations, phone enquireies, whatever)
Re: >>> Having worked for both
In other news, the sun is hot.
You're referring to site design and strategy based on user behavior (and cross-referenced with a client goal). And I absolutely agree with you. A ranking and/or clickthrough that doesn't lead to conversion is about as effective as never having the SERP impressions to begin with.
Personally, I don't believe most SEMs give a damn. They would classify under the "the lowest of the low." Sounds like you're not one of them.
Not my intent
Hard to inflect tone on here. My sincere apology to anyone who may have been offended.
The comment was brought up about working for a "GOOD SEM firm." My contention is that anyone who does not care about click-throughs leading to conversions is doing their clients a disservice. They would qualify (IMO) as "the lowest of the low."
The fact that TallTroll even brought up this need leads me to believe he is NOT in that group.
Again, apologies if there were any misunderstandings.