Let me try to top it...
Brand marketing, as in, what everyone did before measurable return on ad spend. When media buyers bought advertising just for the sake of exposure. If one company advertised more than their competitor, they arguably won the 'mindshare' of the market for their brand. For example, television ads.
Performance marketing, as in, measurable sales, leads and clicks. Google and Facebook are performance marketing companies, making money from ads because the results are measurable to the buyer. Educated buyers can pay more because they know how much they can risk. They for pay performance, not just the opportunity to be in front of people.
Tv, for example is old, dying, small and worst of all: overpriced. The only way to have any clue what your return is, is if you channel that attention into a measurable channel.
Maybe a silly/unnecessary term, but I swear I didn't make it up.
I know a thing or two about marketing -- so I'm following you now. Usually I'm using the terms 'direct response' versus 'branding' -- potato/potato.
I've always been a big fan of direct response and made a pretty good living off of it... but there's something to be said about creating a brand that speaks for itself. That's something that won't ever die out (as long as there's a human element to it).
I think we get so engrossed in the numbers sometimes that we forget all of those 1's and 0's are humans on the other end. What I see with the ads above here from Apple is some dumbass on Madison Avenue who convinced some exec that this was a good idea.
And since most of those agencies rely on "branding" -- they aren't held accountable to their results... ALTHOUGH there have been incredible advertising campaigns brilliantly crafted that created huge up-ticks in sales for large companies. And even though you can't necessarily directly link cause and effect, there's often quite a correlation from superb brand-marketing.
Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum:
Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.