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.

The iPhone has passed the 1% market share status but does so with very little help from a consistent media campaign that fully integrates the Internet.

The iPhone was introduced with great fanfare as a phone and Internet device. Today, we are seeing the device promoted as a client side distributed application device in addition to its core offering. This recent back cover advertisement from the Economist touts the device’s ‘apps’ as a consideration set.

This type of messaging and placement is often utilized as awareness, perhaps early stage consideration media, but here we see Apple utilizing the premium real estate in deeper consideration phase. Could this work? They are operating off an assumption that market awareness of the iPhone is near saturation, and reach and frequency media would only serve to reinforce. Could this form of media drive a business reader from consideration into purchase? I think yes, but it has to be done correctly. For instance, many of the applications in the ad are not targeted to the Economist reader. (Certainly finding an apartment should not fit this audience–unless it is an investment banker who can still afford a subscription.)

They should include applications that really appeal to this reader. A search of iPhone apps reveals many appropriate apps available for Economist readers; PortfolioLive and iFutures – Mobile Commodities Tracking are just two examples.

Furthermore, anyone reading the Economist in print is likely to take the next step online. For example, one likely next step in the customer journey is to search for the iPhone itself or for the applications – depending on whether you already own an iPhone.

And this is where Apple may lose their customer by not following through online: While anyone searching for iPhone will find Apple.com, any long tail search for iPhone finds an array of options that do not take the potential customer to Apple or even ATT.com

For example, a search for ‘iPhone financial apps’ produces web site results that do not include Apple.com. Having a reseller control the next step in the customer journey experience should be avoided here, as there are app developers not affiliated with Apple.

Some of the web sites within the top 10 have content, editorial, and creative media that do not support the Apple brand experience – one that is highly controlled in offline media and by its stores.

Another search for the generic, non-branded description of an iPhone is ‘smart phone’, which does not yield any Apple.com results. It does produce several comparison sites, which are difficult to read and can be trying to a potential searcher who is bombarded with different messaging and claims by a variety of merchants, manufactures, bloggers and news site.

For any product seller who has had the benefit of innovation, a consistent, contiguous media campaign both off and online is a must. Failure to participate can result in higher cost per order, limited or inconsistent growth, and lack of momentum. To say the sum is greater than the individual parts is very important to understanding how the customer journey works both financially and cognitively for your customer.