Confusing Outputs with Outcomes


Share on LinkedIn

Since about 2005 when pressure began to mount on marketing professionals to prove accountability and ROI, marketers have looked to demonstrate value by measuring. This desire to measure has also caused “track-able” media, such as the web, to become preferred to “impression” media such as newspapers. However, track-able does not mean valuable.

In a recent article in Advertising Age, the author notes that “fake web traffic is worse than you thought,” and may be costing online advertisers millions of dollars in wasted ad impressions.

In today’s world you want to pay for engagement not impressions when possible. YouTube‘s True View program where you only pay if the video is watched completely is a simple example. You can construct other engagement devices as well, but if you are going to pay for outputs, why not buy print media, they are very hungry for your ad spend.

While how much web traffic is actually “fake” and counted is subject to valid debate, if you invest in outcomes, not outputs, it won’t matter.

Republished with author's permission from original post.

Mitchell Goozé
Mitchell Goozé is the president and founder of Customer Manufacturing Group. His broad scope of business experience ranges from operations management in established firms, to start-up and turn-around situations and mergers. A seasoned general manager, he has headed divisions of large corporations and been CEO of independent firms, always focusing the company strategy on the most important person in business . . . the customer.


Please use comments to add value to the discussion. Maximum one link to an educational blog post or article. We will NOT PUBLISH brief comments like "good post," comments that mainly promote links, or comments with links to companies, products, or services.

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here