Dave Morgan of Tacoda pens a piece in MediaPost today which I think nails why Google has (apparently) struggled with its bid to sell ads in magazines. From it:
….the failure had much more to do with Google’s inappropriate approach to print advertising than it did to print advertising’s inability to deliver results for its clients.
Why? Google has not created the world’s greatest all-purpose advertising machine. Rather, it has created the world’s greatest yellow pages directory. There is a big difference.
Search is intent-based, just like yellow pages. It is used to generate leads. It focuses on creating immediate and measurable effects. Clicks are like phone calls.
National print display advertising is media-based or audience-based. It is about creating or influencing brand and product perceptions. It focuses on creating longer-term–and harder to measure–effects. Clicks are not like creating warm, fuzzy feelings about driving a Jeep up a mountain.
Dave also discusses differences in sales approach, creative, and the like.
But I’m more bullish on the idea, generally, because at the end of the day, what Google I think is trying to do is take over the back of the book, or marketplace section, of most vertical magazines. These are the fractional ads that clutter up the last few pages of most titles like PC World, Stereo Review, and the like. Here, I think, Google could really have a field day, but the market is so scattered, it might take quite a long time for it to find traction.
Nope. It failed because print advertising is dramatically inferior to online and Google customers know this. Even online campaigns generally have negative ROI, but I suggest that most large, image driven print campaigns have negative ROI unless flimsy methodologies are used to measure ROI.
Few clients measure print effects well if at all, allowing advertising reps and companies to BS their way to keeping TV and print in play which is the main funding source for large media companies.