Monday, October 04, 2004

More Mis-interpreting the impact of Blogs

I know I harp on this topic sometimes, but I really think the blogging community is either a) fooling itself and/or b) actually holding themselves back by insisting that blogging represents a revolution, not an evolution.

The latest example: A political strategist that was critical in running howard Dean's online campaign has written a book, and the blurb that promotes his book tour includes this lofty statement:

"Trippi turned traditional campaigning upside down with his use of the Internet in managing Howard Dean's 2004 presidential bid."

Maybe if they had said "traditional fundraising" upside down, I would buy it. But campaigning? Not so much. If he really had, then Dean might have won in at least one state. No, in the end, it was the traditional campaigning techniques that won out: ads and feet on the street.

More evidence? Just today MarketingVOX posted a Pew research report indicating that the Kerry and Bush campaign made less than 1% of their media buys online.

I don't think folks are really fooling themselves; I actually think they're trying to self-promote themselves into some new segment of business.

But it continues to be my opinion that blogging, just like any kind of marketing tool will have to compete against the other traditional marketing tools for the mind and budget share of businesses out there. Promising a revolution will result in dashed expectations. Comparing your results to existing tools used will paint a better picture of blogging and online advertising as part of any smart Marketing Director's mix.

Comments: Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?