| > I am not surprised that digital marketing is not that effective. To be clear, that isn't what the article is about. P&G still spends massive amounts on digital advertising. The point they are making is they were able to identify & eliminate $100M of advertising that was ineffectual. The other part is that P&G is largely into consumer products & I highly doubt they are measuring online advertising by clicks. Clicks are a decent measure for performance advertising but pretty poor for brand advertising. And when it comes to consumer products & digital products, it's mostly brand. (Consider, when a typical person needs tooth paste, do they hop online, type it into Google, look at results & then buy it? Or, you know, do they just grab whatever brand they've always gotten on a trip to the grocery store.) Digital advertising is largely held to the same standard where most of that brand spend is: television. And there are no clicks in television. With television, they first data point they're looking for is how many people did they reach & what was the demographic composition. They may later follow on with surveys to see if they achieved the change in awareness/purchase intent/whatever, as well as try to analyze for lift in sales. So does P&G care if you click ads? Probably not. What P&G cares about is shaping how you think about laundry detergent, making you aware of their brand, creating a positive association with the right attributes, and ultimately in you buying their brand at the store. |