…equation.
A couple articles I read recently put me into this mindset. The first article talked about the increasing effectiveness of email marketing, and some tactics that are working well. The second declared that “old-school” marketing is dead.
As you might imagine, the conflicting messages of these two articles sparked a couple thoughts. The main one is this – why choose one marketing method over another?
If you’re doing it right, you’re looking at return on investment – ROI, for short. There are variations on the ROI theme, but at the end of the day, if you’re not getting results for your money, you should stop doing that thing.
But there’s one thing that many people forget about equations – there are two sides. For example, the ROI equation has cost on one side, and return on the other, and ROI is expressed as a percentage.
That’s one of the reasons that email marketing won’t die – there is veritably no cost on the left side of the equation, meaning that any result creates enormous returns by percentage.
Email marketing won't die because there is veritably zero cost on the left side of the ROI equation. Any result creates large percentage returns. Share on XThe same can be said for a lot of digital marketing – it’s cheap to do, especially when compared to “old-school” marketing, so the ROI is skewed by the near-zero cost.
Be aware of why ROI is high for any campaign. Are the results extraordinary or the cost of entry cheap? Share on XI’m not saying that marketers should go back to the old school. What I am saying is that we should be aware of why the ROI on any particular campaign or effort is high. Are the results extraordinary, or is the cost of entry cheap?