From MarketingExperiments.com:
PR Campaign Delivers Greater Return on Investment Than Pay-Per-Click Advertising, MEC Labs finds
Atlantic Beach, FL (PRWEB) September 28, 2005 — A new research brief released today by MarketingExperiments.com (MEC) announced that public relations campaigns can cost less and deliver better returns on investment (ROI) than pay-per-click (PPC) advertising campaigns.
The research brief is currently available for free in the Marketing Experiments Journal (http://www.marketingexperiments.com/pr.asp)…
Over a six-month period of time, MEC tested nine news releases covering various topics that were sent out over professional and free newswire services. MEC tracked the direct incoming traffic and backlinks on its site as well as the interview opportunities that resulted from each press release. It also compared the average cost per visit associated with each news release versus both the cost per visit associated with its average optimized PPC campaign and the cost per click for relevant targeted keywords in Google.
Results showed that the cost per click of the public relations efforts was less than the cost to drive traffic to the site through purchasing keywords in a PPC campaign. They also demonstrated that the news releases created significant spikes in site traffic and helped to create a five-fold increase in the number of incoming links to MEC’s site…
While most of my clients use paid news release distribution services such as Business Wire or PR Newswire, I would add that, for a low-cost campaign to drive traffic, free news release services such as PR Leap and PRZOOM can be very effective.


Debating the Undebatable: Anderson Cooper Interviews Hermann Goering
From AP: “‘Intelligent Design’ Court Battle Begins.”
This one makes me go ape-#$%@! — not only because we’re still debating a topic that scientists put to rest 100 years ago, but because I’m afraid I will throw something at my TV and break it when I see how the brainless 24-hour news channels debate the undebatable.
There’s a difference between fact-based objectivity and giving equal time to competing idealogues. But 24-hour cable shows don’t want to be confused with the facts; it’s much easier for the producer to book two combatants and let them go at it, the host acting as referee.
How would this courageous media approach have worked at different times during history, I wonder…
Why don’t we hop in our time machine and find out?
—
The time…circa mid-1930s
Anderson Cooper: Mr. Goering, there are many people in the U.S. who believe your policies toward the Jews are cruel and unfair.
Hermann Goering: Jews are responsible for virtually every social ill in Germany; this is documented fact. We are simply protecting our country, which was on the verge of collapse before the Nazi Party came to power.
Cooper: Mr. Bonhoeffer, you have a different perspective?
Dietrich Bonhoeffer: Goering and his Nazi Party are making scapegoats of the Jews. Jews represent a tiny percentage of the German population; how can they possibly be responsible for all of the country’s problems? The Nazis have a hateful agenda that will ultimately consume us all.
Goering: This man is lying, which is especially shameful because he claims to be a man of God. He knows that the Jews controlled the Social Democratic Party, and this is exactly the kind of disproportionate, harmful influence that the Nazi Party was formed to combat.
Bonhoeffer: Yes, I AM a man of God, and your party has forced our church undergrou…
Cooper: I’m sorry, that’s all the time we have. Thank you both for sharing your opinions here tonight.
—
Speaking of Goering, he said this at the Nuremberg Trials:
We never learn, do we? And in our loud-mouthed, media-sanctioned tit-for-tat that passes for intelligent debate today, we never will.