Recently, a client of mine asked if I could start running ads for her house in the local newspaper. I explained to her that my internet advertising was much more effective, and cited the numerous studies that have proven such. It got me thinking, though... how much of a dinosaur is print marketing?
I think that it all depends on the TYPE of marketing that you do. If you're just running image ads, or ads with no direct response marketing aspect, then the ad is basically pointless. On the other hand, direct response marketing still has a place in the print ads.
I'm still going to keep my houses out of the print ads in the newspaper, but perhaps it's time for me to run a few more direct response ads. There is still some readership of the newspaper that would react to those ads, I would assume.
What are your thoughts on it?
Our office tracks it's advertising budget very closely and as a whole we are still having some success with the Real Estate Books, not so much with newspapers and other print ads.
Newspaper and real estate magazine publications are ineffective at bringing buyers, but PERFECT for attracting SELLERS. And, since I'd rather work with listings right now in the era of buyer craziness that we are seeing, you can figure that I am using those dinosaurs to attract the din... er, sellers I want. My print ads prompt readers to visit my website where I have lead capture in place, so I basically have the best of both worlds.
I agree that newspapers are a waste of money. I try to allocate my budget for regular impact print ad in a prominant real estate book. What about direct mail? Mail walks?
Newspaper = expensive and little or no payoff
Internet = Cheap or free and is what everyone is using.
If a client asks why we dont print an ad for a listing we say we are the number one company in our area and we sell all of our homes without paying the paper to run ads ( not counting open house ads). We say the marketing formula we use works and there is no reason to change. Usually that satisfies the question.