Which, of course, will lead to the question “what were the objectives, anyway?”

Which will lead to a lot of argument and discussion.

Which is good.

To answer your question, no one should spend any money on poor advertising. The challenge here is being able to tell the difference between ‘good’ advertising and ‘bad’ advertising. You’re right, some of these ads are poor because they emphasize product features too heavily or are too heavy on the corporate speak. In my mind, many ads are ineffective because they aren’t designed to speak to a specific market – the message may be wrong, the image may be wrong, or the media choice may be wrong all together.

I also agree with your point about engagement – but advertising is usually a one-way street that does little to engage the consumer.

Bottom line: Bankers, marketers, and their agencies need to understand their markets. They need to clearly define objectives and goals. And they need to move forward with marketing efforts that are relevant and meaningful to their target. This may include advertising, but it may not. If it only includes advertising, you’re probably missing something.

I think an additional question can be asked: should banks continue to spend a good portion of their resources on poor advertising? Or, should they spend any money on poor advertising? And the problem isn’t exclusive to banking, it’s everywhere. Consumers are immune to product features and stiff corporate speak. The single most important benefit that interests consumers is how the “bank” will enhance their lives. Consumers are ready to be engaged by the people who are providing them services and experiences. That can be accomplished with quality targeted advertising. But as your post leads us, that can’t be the only vehicle. In most cases, it’s not the primary vehicle. I think that’s why SM was such a hot topic at the ABA conference.

In a nutshell, we believe it’s important for companies to develop relationships with their customers. And by relationships, we mean two-way. As an agency, we approach every client project in a way that will strengthen their relationship with their customers — regardless of what distribution method we use. If that means painting their sidewalk red, we paint their sidewalk red.

“I would argue that social media is here to stay. While the platforms and applications may change and evolve, I think engagement and discussion between businesses and consumers will still continue online through social media for years to come.”

I agree with your assessment. I didn’t communicate well. I should have said it wasn’t here to stay “in its current state”.

I thought Virginia was übersmart.

I would argue that social media is here to stay. While the platforms and applications may change and evolve, I think engagement and discussion between businesses and consumers will still continue online through social media for years to come.

In any case, I do agree with your point that marketers need to find ways to engage now – whether that happens with or without social media.

As for whether or not social media is a fad, none of us have a crystal ball. What we can predict with a good amount of certainty is that reaching people has changed and we will never do things the same as we used to. We may not be using social media in five years, my guess is we’ll be doing something not yet developed. But it will be an extension of what we’re doing now. My point is this, a bank shouldn’t be concerned if SM is here to stay, it’s not – they should be concerned that they need to engage now because it will lead them to what comes next.

There were definately more sessions focused on social media/online marketing than traditional advertising.