In the world of ROI measuring, it seems that advertising always wins over marketing. Advertising has very measurable costs and very measurable benefits, while marketing seems to have neither. This is only a problem with the measurement, though it is often interpreted as being a problem with the medium. I contend that if we could measure both well, we would find that marketing always has positive ROI while advertising has negative. I think this is true because of the following factors: 1. Marketing is longer-lived. Advertising is short-lived. This gives the marketing more time to pay back. 2. Advertising media costs are much higher than marketing. 3. Advertising conversions are supported by marketing, thus marketing gets to share in the success. This is not to say that we should abandon advertising. Rather, we should understand the important role that marketing plays in advertising. What's more, we should be careful to allocate sufficient funds to marketing to support the overall lead generation effort.