Is print (newspaper) dead?

coastal · #**1 Is print (newspaper) dead?** 01-04-2007, 01:53 PM

I'm going through the motions of throwing together four 1/2 page color ads for the local newspaper to run while I'm out of town for the next month. We spend almost $1000 a month for newspaper because our sellers think it will get their home sold. If truth be told I'm lucky if I get one call or e-mail a week from our newspaper ads.

The web on the other hand up until recently was almost free for me. I did my own sites and had hosting for $4.00 a month. It was good for 20 - 40 calls and e-mails a day.

My ads look great but don't say much. Is there anything I can say in my ads other than

"Here is my phone number, web address and the 5 homes I am featuring this week"?

I usually also add any info on open houses that we will be holding that week.

It certainly seems like a waste of time and money.

Calgary Agent · #**2 Re: Is print (newspaper) dead?** 01-04-2007, 02:22 PM

Short answer is YES, print is dead.

Ryan Ward · #**3 Re: Is print (newspaper) dead?** 01-04-2007, 05:46 PM

Use your web expertise to educate these sellers about what you, as a professional realtor, know where best to spend your allocated marketing dollars. Provide emperical evidence to them and them let them decide.

Yes it is dead. I only read the WSJ editorial page and a small local paper called the revue and news that is specific to where I work. Why bother with it? It's messy.

keenjosh · #**4 Re: Is print (newspaper) dead?** 01-04-2007, 08:19 PM

I agree that mass print media is "dead" but would contend that the residual value of long term branding in a specific geographic region will pay off if done with consistency and creativity. I work in a large Metro Area and avoid mass print advertising (city newspaper, wide distribution papers, non-targeted direct mail, etc) - I do, however, continue to run half page color and b&w display ads in local (neighborhood) publications. I get a decent response on any given ad (5-15 calls for a $100 display ad using 24hr. info hotlines with call capture) and the residual long term value is well into the 5-10 transaction a year realm. If I can payout $1200 a year to close $15K in commissions I wouldn't consider it "dead". It's important that whatever you do it is targeted to a specific geographic area that you are looking to dominate long term. That's my 2 cents.

AaronSOLD · #**5 Re: Is print (newspaper) dead?** 01-04-2007, 09:03 PM

My broker just pulled out of our company-sponsored Open House Directory in our two Sunday papers. This typically ran 2-3 or even 4 full pages. Now all our open houses are list on our web site, and via Broker Reciprocity, on other broker's sites too.

Mike Colpitts · #**6 Re: Is print (newspaper) dead?** 01-05-2007, 03:06 PM

Yep it's dead. Years ago I use to advertise in the local paper alot and make a lot of sales from cheap classified ads frankly. But those days have been over for years. Short answer- Yes print is dead. Oh yea.... still seems to be good to rent a home every now and then. That's it!

ResaleBroker · #**7 Re: Is print (newspaper) dead?** 01-05-2007, 03:30 PM

What qualifies as "dead" or "alive"?

coastal · #**8 Re: Is print (newspaper) dead?** 01-05-2007, 07:17 PM

Dead = waste of money or no ROI

keenjosh · #**9 Re: Is print (newspaper) dead?** 01-05-2007, 07:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ResaleBroker

What qualifies as "dead" or "alive"?

I would assume we're talking about simple ROI.

My opinion is any given realtor can make a full time "wage living" running effective print advertising (fliers, direct mail, classifieds, etc.) Meaning, I could make a living...just not a HIGHLY profitable one.

The true measure of effective return on investment should be, in my opinion, the ability to create a profit. Meaning, how much revenue does this particular investment (in this case we're referring to print advertising) after the total cost of running the ad is considered.

I run ads to generate qualified buyer leads, simple right? Let's say I spend $100 to run an ad. That's the cost right? Well, actually, there's more to it. I also have to pay someone to create the ad. If I'm a one man show, it might take me 30 minutes to create the ad. At my hourly income of $150 (a decent hourly rate for a full time realtor working it alone) -- that's another $75 to create the ad. Let's say the ad generates 10 calls at 6 minutes per call -- that's another $150 to field the calls. Of those 10 calls I generate 2 qualified buyers that want to see a home I'm marketing. I spend another 30 minutes in follow up and prequalification through my preferred lender -- $75. Of the two qualified buyers one ends up being really qualified and keeps the appointment to see the home...I spend an hour total showing the home (drive time included) that's another $150. So, already the "total cost" of the ad is $550. Now, my ROI if I that buyer ends up buying the house is pretty good. I double-end the deal on a $300K home and make $18K. But if I have to run 10 of the same ads to only end up selling the home through the MLS to another agent then I've spent $5500 to make $9000 that I would have made without running any ads. Now, I would expect that running 10 ads that generate 100 calls that anyone with half-way decent sales skills should be able to convert an additional 2 buyer sides.

I've spent $5500 doing it. But then, I have to consider the residual value of creating a geospecific brand that produces income long term. A little more difficult to calculate...

The question of "alive" or "dead", in my opinion, is whether it's a cost effective way of generating leads that lead to a profitable business model that endures long term growth.

"Alive" = profit
"Dead" = wage

Print media is, in my opinion...still "Alive" (ie. profitable)...it takes a larger initial investment, strong sales skills, effective copy wrting, effective follow up, effective tracking and consistency.

The internet might be "Aliver" (more alive

)