Am I missing something?

According to this article from Special Events, a survey of U.S.-based corporate marketing executives conducted by the George P. Johnson Co. and the MPI Foundation found that face-to-face events deliver a greater return on investment than other customary marketing tools.

    Event marketing was the most popular marketing tool among the survey respondents, with 44% giving it top marks for effectiveness. Advertising ranked second at 18%, followed by direct marketing at 15%, and single-digit marks for public relations, sales promotion, and Internet advertising.

Well, that's great. But the article also says, "fewer companies expected to devote more dollars to event marketing in the near future. Some marketers are shifting some of their resources to increased investments in Internet advertising and public relations. These choices likely relate to the executives' concerns for highly measurable results for economical investments."

I understand that they need to be able to measure results--which is difficult for f2f events--but wouldn't it make more sense to find ways to measure what works than to try new avenues that haven't been as effective in the past?

To receive a weekly blog update, e-mail Sue.

Hide comments


  • Allowed HTML tags: <em> <strong> <blockquote> <br> <p>

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.