This post over at Idealog caught my attention this morning…
Google chief executive Eric Schmidt told a recent Advertising Age conference that the future of advertising lies in measurement. But, to quote the genius campaign for Toyota’s Signature range of imported used cars: they would say that.
It would be easy to assume that Google is utterly unbiased—the numbers don’t lie, after all. But data (gathered after the event) doesn’t necessarily amount to intelligence.
If Google is right we will have gone from one extreme to the other. Rampant idealism meets bloodless statistics.
read the full article
The point I think David MacGregor is making is that marketing and advertising are not just about statistics, and that we should not let Google’s algorithmic approach to what they do vanillify marketing practice. And I have to say that I agree in large part…marketing is about people and when it comes to people there’s always more art than science imho.
But marketing and advertising is an art in the conception and the execution (just like business generally). Google are pioneering ways to execute better but I don’t think that necessarily means there isn’t still plenty of scope for well conceived advertising creative.
Even in Google’s Adwords product there’s a need for creativity and persuasion. For sure it is very a limited medium, but good ‘creative’ copy in search marketing can move ROI + or – an enormous amount. And Google’s Adwords product isn’t just about what you do to get the click, that’s only half the job (or less), what happens after the click is probably more important…enter stage left talented marketers.
So, I would argue that Google’s algorithmic approach doesn’t reduce the need or importance of good creative marketing and advertising (the big idea!), but does bring some long overdue science to the execution. Measurement is really important. Particularly as the economy tightens good marketers want to know where the ROI is.
But then again, I’m a dyed in the wool search marketer so I would say that :)