Subscribe by Email

Your email:
Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Youtube Google+ Inbound Marketing Blog

Latest Posts

Kuno Bloggers

Categories

Inbound Marketing Agency Blog

Current Articles | RSS Feed RSS Feed

The Truth About Inbound Marketing vs Outbound Marketing

Posted by John McTigue on Mon, Mar 29, 2010 @ 07:28 AM
 

It's popular these days to be a thought extremist. You're either on one side or the other. Everything is either black or white. There is no gray. In marketing, you're either into inbound marketing via the Web or you're a traditional PR and advertising fan. Truth is, nobody is right when we're talking about extremes. The truth always lies somewhere in the middle.

What's the argument about?

  • blended inbound and outbound marketingInbound Marketers say that consumers have changed and are no longer willing to accept e-mail blasts and TV ads and any other sort of "push" marketing. The only way to market is by publishing interesting content and building communities online.
  • Traditional Marketers agree that things have changed, but there is still plenty of room for advertising and reaching out to prospective markets via e-mail, TV and radio. They're not against Internet marketing, just the idea that you can never cold call or blast an offer out to millions.

Who's right?

They're both right and here are some key reasons:

  1. While it's trendy to focus on blogging and social media, webinars and videos, marketing companies are still channeling a large proportion of their clients' budgets into traditional media marketing.
  2. There are true synergies to blending inbound and outbound marketing. An example would be a company rolling out a new product and desiring to make a big splash in a short period of time. In this case it makes perfect sense to build a groundswell of brand awareness by establishing social media communities and attracting members via conventional advertising as well as PPC, e-mail marketing, radio, TV, etc. Whatever the budget allows and based on historical click-through rates.
  3. While it's true that inbound marketing can be a highly successful strategy for improving lead conversion, unless you already have a well-known brand, it can take many months to build up a loyal following. Again, blending targeted outbound marketing into social media marketing campaigns can accelerate awareness and growth.
  4. Finally, to think that one size fits all marketing strategies is foolish. Every organization has different marketing needs, and successful companies are quick to adapt to new market conditions. The best overall strategy is one that is flexible enough to consider all kinds of marketing and apply the most appropriate mix for the goals of a campaign.

Are you a marketing extremist, or a chef creating tasty campaigns from a variety of ingredients?

Photo credit:


Tags: , ,

Comments

John, 
 
I agree that both works in parallel when there is enough budget, but in the current time where budget is tight Inbound Marketing is more effective. See my posting on http://www.haschek.com/blog from last week. 
Michael
Posted @ Monday, March 29, 2010 9:41 AM by Michael Haschek
Well, yes and no. I agree with the points you make in your blog post but the idea that inbound marketing is inexpensive is not true. It takes lots of time and and talent to crank out good content, promote it and engage in social media. That translates into either direct cost to hire the right people or opportunity cost if you choose to do it yourself. Depends also on what you are trying to do with marketing. If you need a quick strike, inbound marketing by itself just won't get you there unless you already have a big following.
Posted @ Monday, March 29, 2010 11:33 AM by John McTigue
I agree with Michael, above and have found Inbound Marketing to be very effective, especially when there are budget constraints. It's also easier to get things in the air right away over the new media. Be authentic, add your voice and humanity, and they will come.
Posted @ Monday, March 29, 2010 1:30 PM by Susie Sharp
John, 
 
I agree with you that it's a little of both these days. While I am able to tune out and often reject things I am not actively looking for, occasionally one piques my interest and I will sign up for an email list, read the blog, sign up for offers, etc. For that traditional "push" to work though, I have to be interested in or in the least, open to suggestion. 
 
If you want a better chance that I will become a "converted" lead - I am probably looking for your products and/or services. Obviously this is a much more successful approach in this instance. Traditional "push" marketing works - but if I wanted to catch a lot of fish, a net would sure works better than a fishing pole (if my analogy makes sense!). Thanks!
Posted @ Monday, March 29, 2010 3:08 PM by Missy Stanisz
I agree that there's no one-size-fits-all solution. I think that is why we're seeing more and more people talking about integrated marketing these days. I think the key thing is to get all of the players involved, from mktg and social media folks to PR and cust. svc. Then create traditional and inbound strategies designed specifically for the goals at hand, and make sure those efforts co-ordinate together.  
 
Sometimes it is as simple as making sure you include the Web address on the T.V. spot, other times it may be more complex. But if all involved can sit down at the same table they can find ways to creatively leverage all the options available in the most productive manner.  
 
Posted @ Monday, March 29, 2010 3:12 PM by Heidi Cool
@Missy 
I like your analogy to fishing and using net is definitely more efficient than a pole. I think a well-crafted and target pulse from outbound techniques can often help to drive the herring into the net. We're not talking about the 24/7 saturation bombing you get from Geico and other brands - just a pop in the right direction at the right time. 
 
@Heidi, 
I totally agree about integration, not only cross-referencing the channels and the message, but getting everybody in their silos to talk to each other first.
Posted @ Monday, March 29, 2010 3:24 PM by John McTigue
John, 
 
 
 
Your comment about "thinking one size fits all...is foolish" is right on the mark. I work at a relatively large (20K+students) community college. Sure, we're not selling packaged goods and consumer products, but we're definitely "selling" enrollment. Based on market research, we know that the ways in which an incoming 18 year old freshman is likely to hear about the college is very different, for instance, from the 50+ continuing education crowd. The latter is very interested in hearing about us through "old" channels like TV and (gasp!) email, even if they're actively engaged with various forms of social media.  
 
 
 
That's one of the problems I have with the broad statistics that are thrown around regarding usage of social media. While they may show activity among various age groups, they rarely discuss context and purpose. Simply because the fastest growing segment of Facebook users is skewing older doesn't of itself mean we need a Facebook fan page. Unfortunately, both the sm cheerleaders and naysayers miss the point by using popularized stats to support their claims about what we should or shouldn't do. 
 
 
 
And I'd echo Heidi's comment about integrated marketing. We might well use social media to target the boomers, but it would part of a broader strategy that included other combos of inbound & outbound marketing.
Posted @ Wednesday, March 31, 2010 11:20 AM by Ed Lube
Edward, 
That's interesting about the age groups responding differently. You do hear about 50+ being the fastest growing segment in social media, but that's not the same thing as the largest segment, nor does it address context, as you put it so well. It would be interesting to run side-by-side tests within the groups to flesh out which things worked best with which channel. Thanks for your comments.  
John
Posted @ Wednesday, March 31, 2010 11:34 AM by John McTigue
Comments have been closed for this article.