Yesterday you saw the quantitative portion of the program. Now the always-fun opened-ended question: Want to add your $.02 about any aspect of online marketing? Here’s the place to do so! Those brave enough to answer had this to say:

• Forget the bells and whistles.
• Each of the techniques you asked about can be implemented poorly and receive bad results or can be a tremendous success. The following variables always should be taken into account for any online campaign: the goal, the creative, the audience, the product, the offer and the timing. Relying too much on a single metric or variable leads to poor decisions and unrealistic expectations.
• Most online marketing is still too “broadcast model” and is easily ignored. Viral and word of mouth is where i see the future going.
• Online is finally proving out its value proposition that we sold back in ’98. Finally.
• It’s not so much the place as it is the message. A billion people can see or hear a bad message and it will not work. One person can see or hear a good message and respond to it. The money is in the message.

Yikes. It was well over a month ago that I posted a link to my third sorta-semi-annual online marketing survey. I never got around to posting the results. Till now.

Sixty professionals responded to survey one and 55 responded to survey two. This time around, 26 online marketers responded, so the margin of error continues to be plus or minus 100% and are as follows:

You’ve been professionally involved in marketing / advertising for how many years?
Mean: 13.4 / Median: 12 / Mode: more than 25
(Five respondents have experience of 25 years or more.)

You’ve been professionally involved in online marketing for how many years?
Mean: 5.8 / Median: 5 / Mode: 5
(Four respondents claimed more than 10 years each)

What online marketing tactics have you personally set up and implemented? (Do not choose tactics that you’ve had others implement for you.)
68.2% Search Engine Keyword Ads
54.6% Email Marketing (html)
54.6% Blog Writing
50.0% Email Marketing (text)
50.0% Banner Ads
50.0% Email Newsletter Ads
45.5% SEO Techniques
40.9% Viral Campaigns
40.9% Affiliate Marketing
36.4% Online Sweepstakes
27.3% Third-Party Email Lists
27.3% Rich Media Ads
22.7% Online Coupons
22.7% Blog Ads
18.2% Ad Network Campaigns
18.2% Search Engine Banner Ads
13.6% Optimized Press Releases
(Keyword advertising jumped from the number-four spot to the number-one spot while optimized press releases jumps to the bottom of the list. Email marketing, previously a clear one-two punch in both previous surveys, slips to a two-four split.)

If you had limited resources for online marketing, where would you focus those resources? (Respondents were asked to choose only three.)
40.9% SEO Techniques
40.9% Viral Campaigns
27.3% Email Marketing (html)
27.3% Search Engine Keyword Ads
22.7% Blog Writing
22.7% Optimized Press Releases
18.2% Email Marketing (text)
18.2% Email Newsletter Ads
18.2% Search Engine Banner Ads
18.2% Affiliate Marketing
13.6% Rich Media Ads
9.1% Blog Ads
9.1% Banner Ads
9.1% Third-Party Email Lists
9.1% Ad Network Campaigns
4.6% Online Sweepstakes
4.6% Online Coupons
(SEO techniques remains in the top spot from last time, but barely: viral campaigns move into a tie for first. Ad network campaigns, which received the big zero last time out, picked up a coupla votes this time around.)

If you had unlimited resources for online marketing, which tactics would you still avoid? (Respondents were asked to choose only three.)
55.0% Third Party Email Lists
35.0% Online Sweepstakes
35.5% Blog Ads
30.0% Online Coupons
20.0% Viral Campaigns
15.0% Banner Ads
15.0% Email Marketing (text)
15.0% Search Engine Banner Ads
15.0% Optimized Press Releases
10.0% Search Engine Keyword Ads
10.0% Ad Network Campaigns
10.0% Affiliate Marketing
5.0% Email Newsletter Ads
5.0% Blog Writing
5.0% SEO Techniques
0.0% Rich Media Ads
0.0% Email Marketing (html)
(Once again, third-party email lists are clearly the way to waste money in the online marketing world. Interesting that 20 percent of respondents would avoid viral campaigns, the tactic that tied for first in the previous question. And in the grand scheme of tactics, I think respondents are missing the boat on blog ads; I’ve personally had great success with them.)

Tune in tomorrow for the qualitative wisdom portion of our program, answers to the question: “Want to add your $.02 about any aspect of online marketing?”

iMedia Connection posted this interesting article yesterday about the home page and its place in the broader scheme of a Web presence. It’s tasty food for thought for anyone involved in Web marketing or site management.

Takeaway for marketers: Think more holistically about your online presence. Gone are the days when your home page is the first online impression most people have of your company or brand.

On the face of it, Simpsonize Me from those online envelope-pushers over at Burger King seems like a great idea: Upload a photo of yourself and become a Simpsons character.

First you need to find a photo. Make sure it’s a minimum of 640×480 pixels, it can’t be black and white, there needs to be a lot of contrast, it shouldn’t be full-body or profile, and preferably it’s a .jpg or a .png.

I’m pretty handy with Fireworks, so it didn’t take me long to find two or three photo options.

Next you need to upload your photo. Here’s where it’s gets dicey. I tried uploading one of several photos about three dozen times. Sometimes I stared at a rotating donut for minutes. Other times I got an error message telling me the photo was no good. Other times I got an error message telling me the application was too busy, try again later.

About one time out of five, though, I’d wind up at a screen that would be encouraging: I could choose male or female, determine age, choose clothing and hair type and pick a skin color. Then I’d wait about a minute … and see an error message once again.

After dozens of attempts to Simpsonize myself over the course of about a week, I was left with one thing: A bad brand experience.

But I like the Simpsons, and after successfully turning myself into an M&M I wanted to see myself as a Springfield resident, too, so I didn’t give up. Early Sunday morning, I gave it another shot. I thought it would be a good time, since Web traffic would likely be much less than during the week.

I guess the application really was groaning (Groening?) under the weight of too much traffic, because the same photo worked. I Simpsonized myself, sent a postcard, downloaded the image to my hard drive and could have created a screensaver or ordered a mug with my Simpsons self on it, if I wished. Pretty snazzy stuff.

Simpsonize Me really is a terrific online toy (assuming you have the graphics savvy to get the right type of photo to upload in the first place), and I’m sure BK paid a whopper of a fee to have it built. So it shouldn’t have taken me 30something tries to get one successful experience with it.

And ultimately, the cool (but awkward and frustrating) step of uploading a photo really isn’t necessary. All it does is establish a baseline character that you further customize and refine. So why not just avoid all the photo uploading errors and Simpsonize yourself right in the browser, like when you create your own Simpsons avatar over on the official Simpsons Movie Web site?

(Come to think of it, why do we need two separate Simpsonize yourself Web thingamajiggers?)

Simpsonize Me should have been an A+ online experience. I give it a C.

Takeaway for marketers: If you’re gonna push the envelope, watch out for paper cuts.

Back in January of 2006, the New York Times analyzed the accuracy of Wikipedia and concluded it was no less accurate than any other encyclopedia.

In a bit of one-upsmanship, there’s now this Wikipedia entry detailing errors in Encyclopedia Britannica that have been corrected in Wikipedia.