http://smallbusiness.chron.com/difference-between-mass-media-internet-advertising-30503.

html

Difference Between Mass Media and Internet

Advertising
by Luke Arthur, Demand Media

When trying to promote a product or service, businesses have the option of using mass media
advertising or Internet advertising. While both of these options can help you sell more than what you
are doing now, one may be a better option to consider for your particular business model and sales
methods.

General vs. Targeted

One of the differences between mass marketing and Internet marketing is the level of specificity that
advertisers are able to achieve. With mass marketing, advertisers typically send out a message to a
large audience all at once. This results in some wasted resources, as many people see the ad who are
not interested in it. With online advertising, it is possible to zero in on a specific audience. For example,
with search engine ads, your ad is only shown when someone types in a specific keyword.

Budget
Another difference between online advertising and mass media is the budget required to accomplish
both. With mass media, you typically need a larger budget to get started. For example, you might have
to spend thousands of dollars to start a mass media ad campaign. By comparison, with an online
campaign, you could realistically get started with any amount of money. You could potentially start a
search engine advertising campaign for as little as $5 as of the date of publication.

Return on Investment Tracking

When you put money into advertising, you want to know you are getting the most bang for your buck.
When you use a mass media campaign, it can be difficult to measure your return on investment. For
example, when you put out a television commercial, you may not be sure if sales are increasing
directly because of the ad or for other factors. With online ads, it is simple to track when someone
clicks on an ad and then makes a purchase. This shows you exactly what you are getting for the
money you are investing.

Considerations
While online advertising does have some specific advantages over traditional mass media, many
businesses still rely on mass media to get the job done. This is because it is sometimes more effective
at creating a brand image. Online behaviors are not the same as they are while watching a TV show or
listening to the radio. Because of this, they produce different results. Many businesses should use a
combination of both types of advertising for best results.
http://smallbusiness.chron.com/main-differences-between-social-media-tv-radio-advertising-
61434.html

The Main Differences Between Social Media and

TV and Radio Advertising
by Neil Kokemuller, Demand Media

Social media, television and radio formats provide very different opportunities for advertisers looking
to get their brand and product messages to target customers. In some cases, your business might
prefer a concentrated message approach that emphasizes only one of these media types. Other times,
integrated approaches rely on all of these media to reach and impact customers.

Costs
These three media avenues have very different costs. TV is traditionally the most expensive medium in
terms of absolute cost. Even in local markets, you can spend $10,000 to $25,000 at a minimum to
produce a commercial. Then you would spend at least a few thousand more to buy a package of ads on
a local TV channel for a month. Radio is a more affordable option for local businesses. Production
usually runs a few hundred dollars, and you can buy monthly packages for as low as $500 to $1,000
for a couple hundred spots. Self-managed media has little to no placement costs, though you pay
employees to operate your accounts. If you outsource social media, you normally pay by the hour or
message quantity.

Historical Comparison
TV and radio are part of a small category of media often referred to as traditional or mainstream
media. Newspapers and magazines are also typically lumped into this group of media that have been
around for decades and have become mainstays in advertising plans. The Internet's emergence in the
late 20th century and social media's rise in the early 21st century have seen the rise of such
prominent platforms as Twitter, Facebook, Linkedin, YouTube and Pinterest. New social media spring up
each year, with some demonstrating greater longevity than others.

Format
Each of these media offers different message formats. TV provides one of the broadest sensory
appeals and creative opportunities. You can present stories with characters, movement, visuals,
written and verbal copy, sound and product demonstrations. Radio has no visual component, and
message effectiveness is based on creative copy mixed with effective sounds and narrative. Social
media ranges from video streaming through YouTube to brief text copy exchanges with the marketing
on Twitter or Facebook.

Engagement
Social media's emergence has coincided with increased emphasis on customer engagement in
advertising. This means companies want more direct, real-time and interactive exchanges with
customers that provide immediate feedback and personal connections. TV and radio advertising are
part of the old guard in advertising known more for passive messages aimed at creating a memorable
effect that ultimately leads to buying activity. Follow-up research is usually necessary to determine if
customers got the message and reacted.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brett-king/digital-versus-traditiona_b_563732.html

Digital versus Traditional Advertising? Wrong Question - BANK

2.0
Posted: 07/04/2010 5:12 am EDT Updated: 05/25/2011 4:20 pm EDT

There is a debate that has been raging in Advertising quarters for almost a decade now - which is better
Digital Media or Traditional Advertising. The fact that this question is being asked at all shows that most
advertisers and institutions don't get consumer behavior in the interconnected world. Considering that
agencies are in advertising, you'd think they would get it right? Considering the declining ROI in
traditional marketing approaches, you'd think marketing staffers would get it too right?

Over the last couple of years the debate on Advertising spend has centered on where the money
is going. In March 2008 General Motors shocked the traditional advertising world when they
announced they were shifting US$1.5Bn of ad spend to the digital space and while some shift
towards digital has been hailed as 'game changing' most advertising spend is still heavily biased
towards traditional media. Susan Wojcicki, Google's vice president of public policy and
communications, was quoted in Digital Media Buzz as arguing that Ad spending has not caught
up with consumer behavior.

"U.S. users spend 12 hours per week online, which represents about 32 percent of
their media time. However, online advertising makes up only 13.6 percent of
advertising spend in the U.S."
Susan Wojcicki, VP - Public Policy and Communications, Google

This is accurate, but what is holding back the shift? Long entrenched marketing behaviors, lack
of digital skills in-house, lack of agency drive away from traditional media buy, or lack of
understanding of changing consumer behavior...

It's probably a combination of all of these. The fact that most financial institutions, for example,
have minimal social media or mobile advertising spend today shows either a complete lack of
understanding of consumer behavior, a lag in internal adaptation of 'digital' or organizational
inertia that is just too hard to shift?

I think all of the above contribute, but the real problem lies in the 'campaign' mentality. Brand
marketing is very well suited to traditional media, because it is about creating a ubiquitous
recognition of your brand, logo, image or message. To fit broadcast mediums for product ROI
advertisers created the campaign - really mini product or service branding initiatives designed to
create recall at a time when customers are compiling their 'evoked' set of purchase alternatives.
But while the campaign worked in the 70-90s utilizing broadcast, this is no longer the case in the
digital world.

The question over Digital or Traditional is the wrong question. The question should be, how do
we better engage customers today so that they are compelled to buy?

Campaigns on traditional media are struggling in the one area that digital is increasingly
effective - measuring ROI. Measurability is a strong advantage in the new world because the
ability to understand why, when and where customers need a product or service should be
considered the Holy Grail. But traditional broadcast methods such as TVC, Radio, Newspaper,
Direct Mail, and static outdoor, only work efficiently when it is a static message directed at a
wide audience that doesn't need to change.

It was for this reason that Pepsi started its shift to Direct Response Marketing this year as they
moved their entire SuperBowl TVC budget to online and social media. At the Sears Annual
General Meeting on Tuesday, Edward Lampert explained that even a major retailer is having to
conceptualize a shift away from broadcast methods to much more targeted conversations with
customers, something that static media can't deliver.

"It's not just us broadcasting to customers any more, he said. "It has to be
interactive, and it has to be relevant."
Edward Lampert, Chairman of Sears

Retail organizations, whether banks, financial institutions, or retailers like Sears need to
understand that Brand advertising can survive and thrive with traditional media, but campaigns
are effectively dead in the IP-conversation space. Companies need to re-gear their marketing
teams toward conversations, not just telling their customers a message and hoping for brand
recall at purchase time.

In the next 5-7 years TVCs will largely disappear because consumers aren't watching them, why?
Because we'll either be downloading or TiVo'ing and Ads won't be a part of the experience.
Newspaper will shift to digital format so that ads in that space will go from static to just like web
banner Ads. Radio will survive, but perhaps be delivered differently based on subscription feed
models. Billboards just like Newspaper will move to digital format also. The question over
Digital versus Traditional is kind of redundant. The way media is morphing everything is going
digital, even traditional.
What marketers and advertisers need to work on is the conversation, not broadcast. It takes a lot
more competency internally, and initially the cost of delivering conversation marketing is alot
more expensive than traditional broadcast production. However, the ROI in direct response,
permission or conversation marketing blows anything in the traditional media measurability
space away. We have the technology now to target messages at customers at the right time,
across the right channel, but we're not using it because we can't fit campaigns into this model. It's
tough - but reengineering our approach to customer engagement is the only way through this
discussion.

Marketing staffers better go back to school, and fast...

http://ccl.northwestern.edu/courses/mam-winter-03/student_projects/blokh/ad%20research.doc

Mass Advertisements versus Word-of-Mouth of Advertising

Background of Traditional Advertising

Advertising has come a long way since its roots in the 1800s. It first came in the form of flyers
which were placed in newspapers and magazines. By paying for a large portion of the printing costs,
advertisers made newspapers affordable to everyone. Today, commercial media still look to advertisers
to pick up the slack of operating costs. Supporting all the major television networks, newspapers, radio
stations, magazines and almost every other imaginable form of media are advertisers.

The most common formula for deciding which media are best is called CPM, short for cost per
thousand. For example, if airtime for a radio advertisement costs 7.2 cents per thousand listeners, and if
space for a magazine costs 7.3 cents per thousand readers, and both will reach the targeted audience,
the lower CPM will be the medium of choice. Media buyers have the difficult task of deciding which
medium to place their ads for the best results.

The four most popular media sources are:

Newspapers: This is a hot commodity because it is theorized that newspaper readers are
predisposed to consider information in advertising seriously.
 Magazines: As another print medium, magazines have many of the advantages of newspapers,
plus a longer shelf life, which is an advertising term for the amount of time that an
advertisement remains available for readers.

Radio: Radio stations with narrow formats offer easily identified targeted audiences. Time can be
bought on short notice, with changes possible almost until airtime.

Television: As a moving and visual medium, television can offer unmatched impact, and the rapid
growth of both network and local television advertising, far outpacing other media, indicates its
effectiveness in reaching a diverse mass audience.

However, being the shrewd devils that they are, companies are constantly on the prowl for other
methods of maximizing profits without shelling out millions of dollars for mass advertising. A recent
article in the Chicago Tribune proclaimed Mass advertising may be gasping its final breaths. We know
that's a bold statement considering how awash our society is in mass ads everywhere we look. However,
there are many research studies which show that mass advertisements are in fact not very effective at
all. According to the worlds fifth-largest advertising agency network, Euro RSCGs report ("Wired &
Wireless: High-Tech Capitals Now and Next"), word-of-mouth is 10 times more effective in generating
excitement for new technology products than either print or television advertising. The report found that
mass advertising is the least effective way for technology marketers to reach their target audience. The
most effective tactic: word-of-mouth.

Statistics from Euro RSCGs Report:

How consumers get most of their information about technology products:

- 13% from advertising
- 20% from Web sites
- 34% from word-of-mouth

What "generated excitement" about a tech product or service:

- 0% from radio
- 1% from billboards
- 4% from TV ads
- 4% from print ads
- 15% from magazines
- 40% from referrals by colleagues or family
The reasons behind this phenomenon are complex and varied. The globalization of commerce has
produced an economy rich with choices and many consumers have begun to feel overwhelmed with the
multitude of available options. Thus, marketers and ad agencies feel the need to scream louder and
more often just to be heard. Research by Yankelovich Partners released in 2000 found that the average
person is exposed to more than 3,000 advertisements per day. As a defense mechanism, many
consumers have become immune to the cacophony of advertising messages.

The purpose of our model was to compare and represent the effect of mass advertisements
versus word of mouth advertising (WOM). By modeling the differences between these two, we aimed to:

1) determine in which situations it would be advantageous to use one method over the other
2) investigate the interaction between the two methods when used in conjunction

The theory of Word-of-Mouth was originally presented by Katz (1975) and relies on the social network
through which word-of-mouth flows. According to this view, WOM is a dynamic social process with four
key characteristics which distinguish it from other forms of marketing communication:

1. Non-marketing source

2. Face to face exchange

3. Free exchange of information

4. Two-way flow

Due to these characteristics, WOM generates higher order beliefs and thus stronger attitudes because it
is believed to have come from an unbiased and more credible source than traditional mass media ads. It
is thus used frequently by customers as a risk reduction strategy. One study showed that 40% of
Americans seek the advice of others before buying a product or a service (Griffen, 1995), and even more
commonly in situations when perceived risk and uncertainty has not been sufficiently reduced by formal
sources, and which involvement is high enough to justify seeking information through these informal
routes (Cox 1963). This has been shown in several studies, which demonstrates that word of mouth is
the most important source of risk reducing information and has greater impact than other forms of mass
media (Arnt 1967; Dichter 1966).

Word-of-mouth is a type of a viral marketing since it encourages the audience to pass on a marketing
message to others, creating the potential for exponential growth in the messages exposure and
influence. The name viral marketing was coined because it utilizes people as the "hosts" to carry the
advertising message in a similar way as virus operates. The idea is to make your message "contagious" so
it infects others that your company may not yet have come in direct contact with through the use of
hosts. Advertising costs are kept to a minimum since they are usually indirect costs such as time and
materials used in the effort to engage its customers in recommending its products. This expense is
usually miniscule compared to the cost of acquiring customers though any other advertising medium.
While the initial exposure is slim, when spread effectively, the area of influence rapidly expands by
exponential growth.

Elements of an Effective Viral Marketing Strategy:

1. Gives away products or services

2. Provides for effortless transfer to others

3. Scales easily from small to very large

4. Exploits common motivations and behaviors

5. Utilizes existing communication networks

6. Takes advantage of others' resources

"Free" is the most powerful word in a marketer's vocabulary. Most viral marketing programs give away
valuable products or services to attract attention. The following successes show the effectiveness of
WOM over glossy magazine or flashy TV ads in certain cases.

HotMail. Instead of marketing their product, they gave away free email accounts to anyone who
wished to sign up. The only catch was each email message they sent from their Hotmail account
was accompanied with a little notice in the footer telling people how they could get their own
free Hotmail account with a clickable hyperlink. This led their user base to explode as people
who used this email system continued to spread the word whenever they emailed friends or
associates.

MP3s. This popular music format was an overnight success. WOM first passed through a network
of college students. Within 6 months, the phenomenon spread to all campuses across the US
and now has become a common household acronym. All this without a single penny spent in
advertising funds.

Amazon.com. Amazon.com has a "share the love" program in which you can send friends a 10
percent discount on any book you have bought. If your friends bought the book, you would
receive credit toward future purchases. The credit consists of the actual dollar amount of the
10% discount I saved my friend. Using viral and word-of-mouth techniques, "Share the Love"
employs standard refer-a-friend techniques but with an added kicker: You share goodwill of
letting your friends know about a great book, and you get paid for doing it.

Krispy Kreme Doughnuts does not spend any money on advertising. Instead, it relies on strong
word-of-mouth that is generated by the thousands of free donuts it gives away in the
neighborhoods of its new locations. Since its debut on the NYSE in April 2000, Krispy Kreme
 Doughnuts Corp. has gone through two stock splits and continues to exceed all financial
expectations.

The success of WOM led to the establishment of new companies specializing in creating WOM, such as
NewGate:

Our Core Word-of-Mouth Campaign proactively generates buzz about your offerings by seamlessly
integrating your product's key selling points into ongoing discussions relevant to your industry. NewGate
has a full-time staff dedicated to monitoring these discussions, looking for opportunities to begin
conversations and answer questions about your company while disseminating compelling information
about your offerings. Once group members start talking about your brand and products, word-of-mouth
gains momentum. The end result: increased sales and improved online and offline awareness.
Not only do they try to duplicate the extremely personal effect of WOM, they even have sneakier
techniques for creating positive buzz surrounding your products by such methods as their whisper
campaign:

Our Whisper Campaign is designed to piggyback on the publicity surrounding your competitors. We
begin by closely monitoring the Internet to locate conversations about products or services competing
for your audience's attention. Wherever we locate these mentions, we incorporate praise of your
offerings into the discussion. We never denigrate or criticize the competition, but rather add to the
conversation by "whispering" useful reminders about the advantages of your offerings.