In response to the purported shift in advertising dollars from traditional to online for 2009, and for the foreseeable future, I would suggest that we keep some necessary perspective on the subject.

First, we can agree this is happening due to the following suppositions, which I would argue are not entirely correct: Marketing dollars are shifting online because of the perception that it requires less to get more – Less money, more reach, less time, more response. Furthermore, it’s more quantifiable (in terms of direct-tracked sales) so there’s more justification for spend. Lastly, all the key growth markets seem to be online: Search, Social Media, and even online TV and video, so the advertising pursues the eyeballs.

But I would caution against jumping ship too quickly, or too completely, from the traditional channel, of under-valuing offline efforts in favor of a pure online-focus.

To start with, I don’t believe that online media can create sufficient brand demand, which is a enormously important factor in maintaining and growing sales and a healthy customer base. To some extent, the online channel will always be dependant on offline media, or mediums, for this reason. In 2000, I started marketing what are now very well known Internet-based travel and insurance companies online when they were brand new, and now I see their offline TV ads frequently. Why? Because you can’t sustain or grow brand purely online.

I also believe that some of the justification behind moving media spend online is flawed, or based on faulty attribution of sales. The industry as a whole is not yet looking at holistic on-and-offline marketing efforts, so the effects of on-to-offline, and vice-versa, are not being accurately reflected. This makes it difficult to judge the true value of either media channel. Furthermore, every client is different, so it’s a double mistake to look at poorly grouped, generalized data points.

Finally, when considering the key growth markets, I would argue that Social Media is not a mechanism of advertising per se – it is a social networking tool. It should therefore not be quantified in the same way as other media because it is not a media, but a medium, nor should the same expectations be attached. It is not a direct sales tool; at the very most I see it being used for brand building, loyalty purposes and engagement.

In spite of the bold-face headlines screaming abut the decay of traditional advertising in favor of online media, there are nuances involved in this shift which are dangerous to ignore. I am fortunate to be involved in the discussion, but I fear that the necessary changes in perspective will be slow to occur.