Comment

The Internet may be transforming the way that consumers shop but it appears to have done nothing for the way our industry spends its marketing budgets.

Chief marketing officers at European finance companies are guilty of failing to shift their budgets online, even when it would do them good. Recent research from Google lays part of the blame at the door of the traditional media agencies. Its answer is simple: spend more online and break free of those damned stuffy agencies....

Article continues below

... They just want you to throw more money at it - how very traditional.

Here are some less 'traditional' questions. Regardless of their size, how are budgets allocated? Does the money go to the right people? What's the point of spending tons of money to drive people to financial services Web sites if they can't understand what they read when they get there?

Again and again I see clients dedicate a tiny fraction, if any, of their budget on the most fundamental jobs, such as writing Web copy. Rather than hire an expert who understands how to write for the medium and gets the technology, they leave it to design agencies, marketers and the last minute. They're still paying for copy one way or another but they're not getting what they pay for.

I'm willing to bet that behind Google's disparaging use of the term 'traditional agency' is the idea that they just don't do online. Shame on them. But for those who do, how about a little recognition that it's constantly evolving? It's inexcusable to fob clients off with a one-stop shop new media package. It might have worked a couple of years ago but there are more options now: blogs, wikis, podcasts, chat forums, fan sites and so on.

How many more Flash-driven quasi-interactive brochureware sites do we have to endure before someone embraces the full potential of online technology, and the full range of specialist agencies? Campaigns and customers expect better and there are rich rewards for agencies that deliver.

For instance, research shows that good Web site copy can improve understanding, credibility and sell-through. This is doubly true when it comes to complex products like financial services or technology. Do you really want to trust such a crucial job to anyone who can string a sentence together, or someone who doesn't know the difference between a blog and a wiki?

Google's research cites lack of knowledge as the main reason for not shifting budgets to where they'd have most impact. If the poor, confused CMOs don't get it, I think it's because their agencies don't get it. Who knows, maybe when they see some campaigns using the full range of technology and deploying specialists to do it, they may see a good reason to shift more money online, however hard those 'traditional' agencies push them in the other direction.

Matthew Stibbe, writer-in-chief, Articulate Marketing