Mixed signals from automotive content syndicator

Three articles this past week published by [tag]AutoRemarketing[/tag] are giving seemingly mixed messages.

Oct 18 – Traditional Media More Productive than Online?
Oct 16 – Dealer Web Sites To Take Higher Priority
Oct 11 – Automakers Reaping Results of Investing Online

The first article talks about how some research performed by a company showed that conversion rates for business generated online were lower than the conversion rates of business generated through traditional advertising. But there are some loopholes in the representation of this information.

For one, the research (or maybe just the article referencing the research) is bundling in all forms of traditional advertising against Internet advertising. If you extract radio advertising from the former and replace it with Internet advertising, then theoretically the headline could read, “Traditional Media More Productive than Radio?” There are other loopholes, but the point is that there is some misrepresentation. It should also be noted that a lot more money is invested into traditional media so naturally the outcome should be greater and better.

The previous two articles talk about how and why dealers are investing more into their web presence, and how OEMs are now on a parity with 3rd party automotive sites. If one were to read only the Oct 18 article then one would be inclined to invest more into non-Internet media. And vice-versa for those who read only the Oct 11 and/or Oct 16 article.

Now this brings up an interesting thought. What is the point in presenting this information to car dealers? All it leads to is confusion for car dealers.

This is where new media such as blog marketing becomes relevant. If ARToday were producing podcasts or vidcasts of this stuff with non-bias no-spin dialog about these topics then that would be great, but I don’t think they are which as far as I am concerned suggests they are merely publishing it for the sake of publishing content. Where is the utility?

Maybe that is our duty. To talk about this stuff. Personally, I like original content that is useful, objective, and non-biased. But some of this stuff seems pointed, misleading, and misrepresented. I don’t think it is intentional. Just unoriginal.