for these guys there are different types of budget decisions to be made since they’re dealing with a marketing ‘portfolio’. but there’s great value in doing both at this end of the scale – they just need to be sure of the value of online PR. and you mention some really good reasons for mega-brands to do it….

culture change and associated costs to my mind depend on the scale / ambition of the work and which parts of the biz it touches. great online firms live and breath it. to start experimenting you don’t need to change everything up… to become an all star might cost money though if the firm isn’t already geared to marketing this way…

Okay, maybe it won’t cost as much as trad PR, and it may help them reach new audiences more adept at filtering-out advertising. But surely there is a hidden and unpredictable cost – the cost of changing the culture of a company so that it adapts to the requirements operating in the online PR and social media space, which clearly encompasses more than SEO…

soooo – point i’m generally making is – if you’re not currently dish du jour and you don’t have very deep pockets – then try getting results with online PR first…. this ought to drive interest, traffic and sales. and then when this is humming, go the trad PR route. in other words, online PR is a better place to start building your brand platform…. (and online PR ought to be more than pure SEO tactics…. )

and thanks for the typo spot. that one was a howler. ouch!

cheers

roger

It’s integration surely – getting the brand name, URL or specific page links in the coverage – then your SEO magic joins the dots for all those who follow-up online… surely that’s the dream team? Broadcast-only or SEO-only are both missing something.

So am I imagining it or are you actually saying, by inference, that SEO on its own delivers greater ROI than other approaches on their own?

BTW, you’ve got ‘tradional’ instead of ‘traditional’ in your headline – you could fix it but the URL stays the same, sheesh