Marketers appear to have less value for many of the most commonly used traditional and digital media than consumers do, according to a new study that simultaneously surveyed separate panels of brand marketers and consumers.
The study, which was fielded in February by customer data platform BlueVenn, found a poll …
Joe, as usual in studies of this type, the findings raise more questions than they answer. For example the sample of "marketers" rated newspapers and "TV" about equally while radio performed at half their level and magazines , I assume, weren't even included or did so badly that they were a no- show in the table. Meanwhile, the big winner---among traditional media---was direct mail which topped "TV" by a huge margin. Yet these findings bear no relation to how advertisers allocate their media ad spending---even if one includes local marketers with their national counterparts. Seems odd, in my opinion, and raises quyestions about the validity of the study, itself. Is the sample representative of all "marketers"? If, so, were the desion making job titles properly represented? Did the respondents understand the questions? etc.
As for the "consumer" respondents, it's a given that many people will not credit "TV" with having much influence on their buying decosions---even though it does--- but, unlike the "marketers, the consumer rankings of traditional media seem more in line with reality.
The challenge is reach and effectiveness of the medium. You may love social (or spend time with) but does it truly influence you to take actiion. Our research often finds big disconnects between "value" vs "activate".