Marketing Pilgrim Published: “Local Business Marketing Dollars and Conflicting Local Data” plus 1 more

Link to Marketing Pilgrim - Internet News & Opinion

Local Business Marketing Dollars and Conflicting Local Data

Posted: 04 Apr 2011 07:10 AM PDT

We talk about the importance of local Internet marketing here at Marketing Pilgrim pretty regularly. What is interesting is that only 25% of our readers that responded to our recent survey were looking for local Internet marketing information (you can still complete the quick survey here and we would appreciate it ) .

I find that fascinating because the reality of the market place is that no matter how big or small your business is, purchasing decisions have a decidedly local bend to them. In other words, everyone should be concentrating on local as it applies to their business whether you are big or small.

Recently, BIA/Kelsey reported on how local marketing dollars are shifting from traditional to online channels. This chart provided by eMarketer shows this slow change.

By 2015 almost 25% of local marketing spend will be in the online space. That is certainly impressive but there still seems to be confusion as to just where this local money will be spent or where the other soft resources (people, time etc) will be concentrated.

As with any research it depends on who does it and what they are trying to say. For instance, I find any data regarding the acceptance and full optimization / utilization of Google Place Pages as important. Google has placed such an emphasis on these entities but depending on who you are getting your information from you can get conflicting reports about has done work with this online marketing tool or who even plans to. Look at this data from MerchantCircle, which we have talked about in a past post.

The claim here is that 51% of the businesses surveyed are using Google Place Pages.

Now look at data that we also examined in another post from American Express' OPEN Forum. The number of small businesses using the very same Google Place pages is significantly smaller at only 10%.

So which is right? 51% vs. 10% is a pretty big gap. Do you split the difference and just say about 25% of businesses are using Google Places? That's not a very smart way to determine this but it would be nice to know a real number.

So why is this even important? It's important because we all have to realize that this talk of local Internet marketing, the potential market it represents and the use of the techniques available may just be another case of the Internet industry talking out of various parts of its anatomy and not really having a clue of how many are using what technique. More importantly, the industry has done such a pathetic job of educating SMB's about their options that it can be almost impossible to predict anything about how far the local market will go.

So how does this change? It changes from the top with search engines like Google and Bing getting down from their ivory engineering towers and actually mingling with the commoners. Now, since that is about as likely to happen as lightning striking me twice in the same day in two different places how will this effort grow?

It's going to take an Internet marketing village to raise the SMB into real understanding of what is available to them online. Consultants and industry evangelists who actually talk to real business people will need to work beyond the research and the data to help local businesses truly see the opportunity.

Imagine if those in power in this space (Google, Facebook, Twitter, Bing etc) actually stopped the train for long enough to educate the masses rather than steamroll them with 'innovation'? There's no telling where this could all go but until then we'll just have to wonder how many people really get the whole local online marketing space.

What would you propose as a way to educate the larger audience about the opportunity that exists in the online space? Do we just 'let them eat cake' and see if they figure something out on their own?

Pilgrim’s Partners: SponsoredReviews.com – Bloggers earn cash, Advertisers build buzz!

Top Companies Still Bashful About Social Media Presence

Posted: 04 Apr 2011 05:45 AM PDT

Social media is a strange animal at times. Everyone is very willing to talk about it. It's become like all other aspects of the Internet marketing puzzle where it is accepted and now marketers are at the least required to have what I call a 'cocktail party level' of knowledge regarding social media. In other words, if you can't say "Oh sure, we are on Facebook, Twitter and are exploring our mobile opportunities" type brush off that says "I know we have to be there but I don't know a darn thing about it" kind of talk.

Well, Advertising Age reports that maybe the Fortune 50 are indirectly saying they have this same level of knowledge because only 40% of the them even mention their social media presence on their homepage. The article notes

Surely, as we head into the second quarter, the Fortune 50 — if not all big companies — are now at least involved in social media and want us to find them everywhere they have an online presence.

Nuh-uh! Only 44% of the Fortune 50 have any social media icons on their home pages, and 60% hide their Twitter streams. Call Inspector Clouseau if you want to find the rest. Kind of amazing considering the prevalence of social buttons of all types all over the web.

The article is the first in a series that will look at this elite group and their social media practices. I suspect this will be interesting in that it seems like the biggest companies are usually the last to catch on to what many of the rest of us see as 'business as usual'. Possibly, since they are bigger and much better known the assumption could be that there is less need for brand recognition.

What is more likely though is that bigger companies have a fair amount of fear around the idea of transparency. These days it doesn't take much to find a story about large company practices that would curl your toes (take the story from 60 Minutes last night about how banks have been forging mortgage documents). When stories like this break the amount of negativity that could flood a social media channel like Twitter can be something that no company, regardless of their size, can manage.

Social media poses a problem that many big companies have been able to avoid in a less connected environment. You've heard the saying, "With great success comes great responsibility". Well, before the social media age these companies were reaping rewards and often without any scrutiny or attention from the larger population. They like it that way because they can generally get away with more. If they decide to become more transparent through social media they are exposed to the results of some of their less than ethical activities. It's a bit of a quandary.

So the greater question that comes from all of this is "Can social media demand and eventually create more social responsibility for companies?" In theory, yes. In practice, that remains to be seen.

What do you think? Are they hiding because they have something to hide or are they just not catching on yet?