Dear Prof.Quelch,

Google's model is appealing since it replicates, in a sense, a widely accepted notion - pay for performance. Traditional advertising often fails due to the reluctance of organizations and advertising agencies to measure the impact of advertising. By turning this practice on its head, and by adopting the more risky road of being held accountable for results, Google has probably changed the dynamics of marketing communication.

Yet, the very nature of on-line advertisements appears to need a re-look too. Many of us do not give the attention that the ads deserve either because they are either too cryptic, or require navigating other sites, or are perceived to be more of a nuisance than a value proposition. Advertisers would do well to look at Google and similar portals as huge opportunities and come up with new models of communication that would create an instant rapport with viewers.

Warm regards

These are all good comments. A premise seems to be the relationship between the traditional advertising agency approach and Google - they're enemies (or poor friends maybe); the real conversation needs to be around the role of the television and it's entrenched business system. Traditional agencies and Google should be partnering to drive consumer interest in branded communication. I'm not sure of the migration from the radio to black and white TV but we are on the cusp on the next major media transition.

Just like billboards in traditional advertising clutter and deface the beauty of the landscape, online advertising is proving to be more of an assault on our senses and more annoying that entertaining or informative in nature. The reason is simple: excessive online advertising junk. While Google might be offering advertisers "more eyeballs at a lesser cost" than TV and the press, it nevertheless has the potential to annoy customers who do not want to be bothered by advertisements. Just like on TV, it is just a matter of time before someone comes up with a software or a device, which virtually eliminates any advertising on the screen or the cell phone. If the customer is indeed the King, then who is taking his side, especially when it comes to invasion of his personal space and time by incessant bombardment of unwanted advertising ?

Raj Bose
Faculty - University of Phoenix

I would like to share the perspective from India, where I work. As per estimates the share of online advertising is less than 2% of total advertising which continues to be dominated by Print (Newspapers and magazines)and TV, with Out-of-Home(Outdoors) and Radio following behind.

Online advertising is growing rapidly and is playing the role of a support or reinforcement medium . However, the popular advertising platforms remain news and business portals, job, travel and matrimonial (yes!)sites, general and entertainment portals, and mailing websites.
In this context, Google having a significant bearing in India in the near future seems a little distance away. It could, however, inspire others to emulate some aspects of their business plans.

The other aspect Google may have to factor in, which Raj Bose has rightly touched upon, pertains to individual privacy. Customised advertising is a great idea from a marketer's perspective. But there seems to be a growing awareness and movement towards respecting one's privacy currently being violated by unsolicited telemarketing calls on mobiles. In your face and annoying approach is less likely to be appealing to users of internet, a medium which is seen as more personal, interactive and over which one believes that one has more control.

Vigyan Verma

It's quite interesting thought about pay-for-performance driven model existing in marketing mix as a "mordern" channel. From a marketer's standing point, I don't think the Google way will dilute the importance of TV or other media channels.

It an integrated marketing mix(campaign), each channel has their particular and specific role, some is drawing comsumers' attention and interests emotionally, and some is providing pertinent details in a rational way.

It's more possible for Google to enrich marketing tools than replace or lighten current (traditional) medias' roles in the future.

Google Adwords is a the main revenue generator for Google. With the predicted increase of Internet marketing spend their dominance can only grow. The success on online advertising is evident in the falling number of new magazine publications. Where once there were 5 or 6 high profile launches per year, I cant think of any.

In the beginning there were newspapers and magazines. Then came television. Now we're repeating the same conversation. Technology here is not "innovation". Google and all SEOs just offer another "channel". Our choices went from stations to networks to cable to internet ... to? Let's not get bollixed up in this. What is more important is that the users of these media vehicles, be they agency or manufacturer have lost the ability, "the muscle", the brain to position and differentiate their products to create the Perceptual Monopolies(tm) that once made brands great. Sure there is Clayton Christiansen's technology innovation world, and IDEO's product design innovation world. But what about the disappearance of Perceptual Innovation - doing with the mind, changing consumer habits and practices with ideas rather than with a tsunami of apparently correct but less well thought out media and marketing strategy? For example, Starbucks thought it was doing the right thing becoming more things to more people with the introduction of Milder Dimensions, candy bar beverages and expanded menu items. But what they were really doing was simply paving the road for copy cat competitors to follow. Starbucks would have been in a strategically stronger position had they pursued harder to find equity directions that strengthened early consumer's love/hate relationships with stronger and darker roasted products. THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN MORE DIFFICULT TO COPY - but now McDonald's can chip away at share and still enjoy a good margin. That would have not been the case had Starbucks specialized in the other direction. So the children of television and the children of the internet now running these things must try to do with media brawn what more clever thinkers once did with brain - it has become a flabby muscle. Martin Calle www.CalleCompany.com

I am not sure who should I doubt about the weak performance (effectiveness) of the online advertising, over exposure to online ads or the over enthusiasm of the advertisers. First, When we talk that online advertising has a tiny percentage of the overall advertising budget and people spend relatively higher time online and so online advertising budget should also go is flawed assumption. We believe on some market research data analysis that will have a limited sample size and even the sample will be of highly educated people or the people more prone to spend too much time online. I know many people in UK who are doing higher studies (Masters and phd) and dont check even email everyday. Because of this hype, some advertisers seems to overspend money online and then websites become too cluter with the ads that it become difficult to find the content on the websites and visitors rarely pay any attention to many ads and sometime they just click to check what this ad this talking about. People needs to understand priorities of every channel of advertising and then spend appropriate budget.

-
Satyendra
http://ceospeaks.mrkconsultancy.com

The web and other digital media are currently disruptive and opaque media, just as TV once was. The attractiveness to clients in an over supplied service economy is that for many clients these technologies give an apparent self gratification of a measurement of consumer behaviour, response numbers that gives some quantification of marketing activity. What Google does not do is measure 'why' and 'how' people got to decide which button to click. The 'interesting stuff' is going to be discovering, not what the consumer does , but 'why', particularly as we move away from non linear media controlled progamme scheduling, and often group viewing,and towards personalised 'me' media content usage, driven by the emergence of the semantic web and the evolvement of digital media into more transparent forms.

Vic Davies
Course Leader Ads and Digital Marketing Comms
Buckinghamshire New University

What people really must understand about Google's business model and search engine advertising in general is that it has altered the face of marketing by shining a light on the promise of performance marketing. Search has put enormous pressure on traditional advertising's "push" model.

Look at all of the world's greatest content creation platforms ... the film, television, print, radio & music industries are under enormous, unrelenting pressure to evolve how they monetize their prized content because advertisers (the financiers of all that content I might add) have seen the green lawn on the other side of the fence. The genie is out of the bottle. Thanks to Napster, Tivo, RSS, iTunes and Slingbox (to name just a few), there is no turning back for traditional media ... evolve or die.

Search engine advertising "pulls" consumers rather than directionally pushing them. Who wants to be pushed anyway? Google or any other search engine's results pages (SERPS) should not be considered nor compared to a traditional media platform. It's an apples to oranges comparison.

Comments from BV Krishnamurthy seem to indicate some confusion about the real value of search, claiming anecdoctally that "[many] of us do not give the attention that the ads deserve ... because they are perceived to be more of a nuisance than a value proposition."

If you're talking about a 30 second TV spot, a billboard, a radio jingle or maybe even a banner ad for the latest Sony TV, that's advertising that has always simply been forced (pushed) down our throats. In that case then, yes, I would agree with your supposition.

Alternatively, with respect to search, someone goes to Google (or any search engine for that matter) and does a search query for the term "buy HD 60 inch Sony plasma television screen". They are shown a text ad from Best Buy touting the latest and greatest HD 60 inch Sony plasma screens. How could that possibly be considered intrusive or a "nuisance"?

That is the sweet spot of advertising. Plain and simple.

Push vs. pull marketing is a critical distinction in advertising that should be noted as the primary difference that separates search from all other forms of media.

Will traditional media die? Maybe, but probably not quickly. But I can tell you with certainty that if traditional media doesn't change the way it does business, it will, in fact, die.

... and the bloggers will inherit the earth.