Columnist Mark Ritson: Telstra’s marketing machine oversteps the mark on YouTube
September 26 2016, 7:58 am | | 5 Comments
It’s one thing to celebrate the power of a new channel like YouTube in contributing to a successful campaign, and quite another to exaggerate its relative potency, says Mark Ritson, Adjunct Professor of Marketing at Melbourne Business School, in today’s Media section of The Australian.
5 Comments
Don’t think I’ll give Rupert money just to read this.
This man is exactly the reason people are leaving the ad world and why brands are faltering. (Probably the same with Pollard as well though)
It makes interesting reading until the TV stats come out. None of which can be substantiated or proved.
It is also impossible to make the comparison he is trying to make. It’s apple and spanners. Now I know he’s a journalist and just wants to get readers, but so unbalanced.
To be fair, both Pollard and Ritson make uncompelling arguments.
And the ‘video’ for Telstra, was just the ad..
Ritson is either horribly biased (which seems likely given that he implies that Pollard should choose what to say based on her employer’s commercial interests rather than truth), or doesn’t understand what he’s purportedly an expert about. Neither is good for someone who teaches people about marketing. Pollard’s point was that YouTube is cheaper and more measurable. TV might have more reach, but if it doesn’t try to address those two advantages of digital then it will disappear from marketing budgets. You can already pick out the most successful new businesses and see that they don’t spend any money on TV – they’re focused on digital and user advocacy. Ritson references being under 30 like its a handicap – I’d rather hire a 29 year old than someone who wants to pretend that the world hasn’t changed or that it won’t keep changing.
Valid to question Ritson’s bias. He is after all only an Adjunct Professor in Marketing.
I reckon though, if you take the time to view his presentations (ironically) on YouTube, his credentials will shine. He doesn’t discount digital channels, he merely puts them into context. And its fair to say he probably doesn’t think digital is the future – it is just a part of it.
Advertising and marketing is about driving sales. If the research really tells you the answer is more than digital channels, why would you discount it? If on the other hand you are happy to encourage the wrong channel for the target market, based on a gut feel or simply accepting high level statistics delivered by vested interests, you may just be doing your clients a disservice. Did marketing not develop refine the sales process so untargeted time, money and effort could be better directed?
Interesting too, he doesn’t save his critique for under 30s. He is equally damning of baby boomers who don’t do their homework, too. 🙂
Jimbo @12:52am said:
‘You can already pick out the most successful new businesses and see that they don’t spend any money on TV.’
Rubbish.
If you take the time to read all of what Ritson says, you’ll note he’s not anti-digital, he’s just anti those drunk from drinking the digital Kool Aid – something P&G and other serious global marketers are becoming increasingly wary of.
Some of the negative responses to anything and everything Ritson remind me of Scientologists responding to any criticism of their ‘religion’.