$1,340.28

That post would probably be a lot more helpful if you had posted the link to the thread you are referring to. I haven't seen anything similar here but, of course, I haven't read all the posts, either.

Tina

If you are going to make accusations like that
you'd damned well better be able to back them
up with facts and data or you'll be out of here
faster than you can name Paul Myer's cat.

John

Thanks for the feedback so far.

Yes, you can spend 1K on a newspaper ad and make a substantial return.

You can also spend 1K and get no return.

And I guess that is true with online as well. You can run a PPC ad and make
a killing or make nothing, or somewhere in between.

Yes, it's all relative and Michael Hiles made a great point.

My point, and one I probably should have made clearer (my bad) is that
the testing process online is much cheaper and less risky. It doesn't mean
that you will do any better or worse with it...just that you don't have to
sink so much into it in order to test the market.

I'm more willing to run a PPC campaign at even $1 per click than I am to
sink 1K into a newspaper ad that's only reaching a small segment of the
population, especially if that $1 per click keyword has 400,000 monthly
searches.

Again, there is no right or wrong here. But marketers who think that they're
spending a lot of money online (another point I tried to make but failed at)
don't know the half of what spending money could be if you take it off
line.

So my bad for not making my points in the original OP more clear.

As to what brought this thread up, in case anyone cares, my wife was
put in charge of running an ad for an organist for our church.

That's how much a 5 line ad for 3 Sundays costs.

It kind of boggles my mind after the low cost of entry for Internet
marketing (another point I obviously didn't make very well)

In other words, this thread wasn't meant to be a "this is better than that"
deal...though I am sure that's how it came across. And in part, that was
another point in regard to low cost of entry, targeted mostly to people
just starting out on limited budgets.

I don't know about anybody else here, but when I first started out, I
didn't have 1K to spend on a newspaper ad.

And even today, unless I really knew that there was a large enough
market out there to justify such an ad, I still wouldn't run one. For me,
taking a 1K shot in the dark isn't worth it when I can take that same
amount of money and know what kind of return I can get from it online.

As to whether print ads are dying or whatever, I have no idea. I can't
even remember the last time I read a newspaper other than the sports
section.

But that's another topic altogether.

Anyway, thanks for all the feedback.

Hi Martin,

This quote caught my eye - I agree.

A few weeks ago I read an article in the mainstream UK media about how a certain US pharmaceutical giant had gained a reputation for treating women badly in the workplace. Some of the women who had been 'permanently relieved of their duties' for getting pregnant were turning whistleblower and angrily relating stories of sexism and poor treatment etc.

Being the curious type, I did some Googling of the company and on the first page was something about them coming top in an online 'survey' (term used loosely) for...wait for it...the best big companies for women to work for in the USA.

I checked out the site and it was an authority site, in the style of askmen.com but for women, although probably not quite as authoritative/established/well known. I noticed a couple more pharma companies with good ratings and what smelt like a hint of bias.

So I dug further into the ownership of the publishing group but couldn't find any telling links.

I found no proof, but I had a strong gut feeling that this pharma corporation in question (or a group of companies) had created (or bought, or paid) this site and it's network as a kind of shill/sock puppet - I guess it would appear to the naked/untrained eye to be a typical, independently run women's interest site.

It was clear that it was a very well built site, with quality writing, interaction with it's users etc - but as I said, if pushed I would wager that it wasn't independent at all, but it's real owners were shielded through the usual business methods and it's main purpose was to be able to provide glowing social proof for the hidden corporation(s) that owned it.

To put it in basic terms, my gut suggested it could be a website built purely to promote and provide positive social proof about either a company or a group of them, masquerading as nothing of the sort - a typical, independent, niche interest authority 'magazine' style site.

The thought made me ponder just how prolific this type of activity could be, because it seems it would be particularly easy and effective for these companies to create social proof online in comparison with offline and therefore (to connect with your point) I wonder how long it will be before the offline big boys are controlling a noticeable amount of the online traffic and therefore play their usual 'raise the little guy out of the game' tactics?

Plus, many of them seem to own, or have strong connections with large chunks of offline publishing/media already for this very purpose, I presume. So it makes sense that they would move horizontally to cover this area (online) too, particularly as it is so easy to make the proof look like it has come from the unbiased users, as well as being easy for those with such deep pockets to either crush or simply buy out the existing competiton - how many average webmasters who have managed to build an authoritative online presence would be delighted to flip their site to some generous consortium with deep pockets?

Yeah, I hear you. But at the end of the day, if they want to compete at a serious level, they have to put people on payroll... experienced, skilled, hard working people.

It's not just gonna be a guy in the corner of the office. It will require researchers, writers, editorial teams, technicians, programmers, managers... aka, a whole team.

And as they try to roll out more sites and content, the staff count goes up.

These big corps may have money, but they're not too fluid on throwing tons of people on the payroll (and all the admin, recruitment and other red costs and BS that goes with it) just at the drop of a hat...

...and especially "just for credibility."

These guys can potentially get better results from traditional advertising... as they are already set up to handle and execute it... and it's been getting them the range of results they expect for many, many years.

I do see your point though, it's certainly uncertain how it will all pan out, that's for sure.

Haha! Rocks are fun...

I should clarify that I meant that one day we will exclusively be reading online, as in, everyone no longer receives the newspaper in print.

-Christian

It may be obvious to you. You've been at this, obviously, at least since
2004. Many people just starting out don't realize how much easier it is to
start a business online than if they were to get a brick and mortar business.

When you read all the complaints about how it's so hard to make money
on the Internet, then you can understand the point of the post.

But I'm not going to get into a pissing contest with you because I don't
do that stuff anymore.

If you think the thread is pointless, oh well. That's life.

Fair point. So okay, I'll qualify this as coming from my own experience.

I have never run a brick and mortar shop but have family that did and do.

And I can tell you from seeing their operation and hearing their horror
stories of expenses, especially advertising, that if I had to go into business
for myself and didn't have the Internet as an option, I'd rather go out on
the street with a tin cup, dark glasses, a monkey and a guitar and play
for loose change.

But again, it's just my personal observation and everybody's take on this
is going to be different based on the perspective that THEY'RE coming
from.

Hope that qualifies my position on this matter.

And yes, there are always going to be exceptions where some businesses
would never have a chance with online ads and offline ads would be the
only way to go.