Combining Old Media and New Media
A lot emphasis is being placed on new media these days, and for good reason. After all, we are a society that thrives off other people’s experiences. For businesses, this can either be a great thing or a catastrophe. But regardless of its impact, new media has yet to take the place of old media. In fact, it’s questionable whether or not new media will ever replace old media.
To get people talking about your brand, you have to engage them. Whether it’s through a TV commercial that brings tears to your eyes, or a radio spot that has you singing along to its jingle, old media entices our senses. It rattles our emotions. It leaves us wanting more. In his article about Traditional Media, Stuart Elliott references a study called “When Advertising Works”. The study which was released by Yankelovich in association with Sequent Partners in June 2008 revealed that advertisements appearing in traditional media such as television are still “much more likely” to have made a positive impression with consumers than ads running in digital [new] media. When you think about it, Yankelovich’s findings makes sense. I feel that seeing an ad in a magazine or on TV is much less intrusive than the ones I encounter online.
With the influx of new media, it seems more companies are diverting their advertising dollars away from old media. This may have a lot to do with old media being extremely hard to track. But with trackability aside, old media continues to serve an important and irreplaceable role. According to J. Walker Smith, president at the Yankelovich Monitor division of Yankelovish in Atlanta, ads that made an impression in old media were more likely to stimulate word of mouth than ads that made an impression in digital media. Thus, old media creates the buzz that people take to the social media platforms.
Both the old and the new media have different components that are equally important to the overall success of the campaign. So when looking at the bigger picture, its not new media vs. old media; but, rather old media combined with new media. Thus, old media just got a whole lot better!
I think the ability to saturate your message in ‘old media’ and generate word of mouth is largely dependent on budget. If you can’t afford to do old media right, you can make a larger splash in new media for fewer dollars. Especially with a little creativity. I will say the brands I feel an allegiance to, find a way to blend both.
I’m all for new media in lieu of old media. We have replaced almost all old media with new media in our plan. Apples to apples? So far, we have only used new media to advertise a new product coming in Jan. Our competition is using old media plus new media. Same price, same location, same size product, same launch date. Result? They have collected 50 leads while we collected 150. We’re all for new media!
To Kelsey: would you say that you have allegiance to Apple? They practically use no “new media” in their advertising, but are big time into traditional media.
It’s great how enthusiastic you are about new media! Sounds like you’re getting a great return on your investment, using new media to help promote your up-and-coming product.
Hi Marco,
I certainly have an allegiance to Apple- I own many Apple products and speak loudly about them. Apple would fall into the group that has a large enough media budget to saturate traditional media. Although their presence in new media is not directly administered by them, they have a huge presence: product reviews, content generated by passionate fans (http://www.facebook.com/applestudents?ref=search&sid=784204416.2838417488..1) and strong word of mouth.
And according to this review, they’ve begun dipping their toes in, so it’s only a matter of time until they control their own presence. http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/10/20/apple-gets-a-little-more-serious-about-using-twitter/
Either way, they loudly exist in both spaces.