-TW
October 4, 2006, 02:22 AM
I say hogwash to the notion that you can't make real riches on the Internet.
I never said that.
I said, if you run both online + offline marketing methods to their fullest extent, the offline methods almost always will 'win.'
Of course it's possible to make zillions online. It's done all the time.
But when you look behind the curtain of those who make mega-zillions, it's almost always through offline methods (mostly).
Imo, the main reason for this is: The net/web is great at 'snaging' all who are actively looking for something. Problem is, that portion of any given market is (usually) only a tiny % of the overall market. Imo, the first step in truly effective marketing is to GATHER a list of potential customers -- whether the people on that list WANT to be 'gathered,' or not.
To put it another way, 'permission' marketing is the kiss of death.
The web caters to the consumer's IDEA(L): 'Back off marketers! -- If I want something, I'll go out and find it (for myself).' The web has set it up so that one cannot contact someone without advance permission, as well as eliminating most 'intrusive' marketing, like pop-ups, etc.
Great for privacy -- terrible for marketing.
What most people do not realize is (all else being equal), the INITIAL 'spark' that leads to the vast majority of transactions, eminates FROM the marketER *TO* the marketEE. For the most part, the web does not allow that to happen.
On the web marketEEs can search for marketERs all day long. The reverse is generally not true. Thus the crippling limitation(s).
A capitalist society DEPENDS upon intrusive marketing (and I can prove it).
That is why offline methods are better. They can be intrusive -- and therefore more effective.
Cheers!
-- TW
PS: I find it somewhat amusing that you are defending online marketing, but are pushing an offline method (mugs). ;-)
I never said that.
I said, if you run both online + offline marketing methods to their fullest extent, the offline methods almost always will 'win.'
Of course it's possible to make zillions online. It's done all the time.
But when you look behind the curtain of those who make mega-zillions, it's almost always through offline methods (mostly).
Imo, the main reason for this is: The net/web is great at 'snaging' all who are actively looking for something. Problem is, that portion of any given market is (usually) only a tiny % of the overall market. Imo, the first step in truly effective marketing is to GATHER a list of potential customers -- whether the people on that list WANT to be 'gathered,' or not.
To put it another way, 'permission' marketing is the kiss of death.
The web caters to the consumer's IDEA(L): 'Back off marketers! -- If I want something, I'll go out and find it (for myself).' The web has set it up so that one cannot contact someone without advance permission, as well as eliminating most 'intrusive' marketing, like pop-ups, etc.
Great for privacy -- terrible for marketing.
What most people do not realize is (all else being equal), the INITIAL 'spark' that leads to the vast majority of transactions, eminates FROM the marketER *TO* the marketEE. For the most part, the web does not allow that to happen.
On the web marketEEs can search for marketERs all day long. The reverse is generally not true. Thus the crippling limitation(s).
A capitalist society DEPENDS upon intrusive marketing (and I can prove it).
That is why offline methods are better. They can be intrusive -- and therefore more effective.
Cheers!
-- TW
PS: I find it somewhat amusing that you are defending online marketing, but are pushing an offline method (mugs). ;-)
