Alice LaPlante writes in an article, “Creative - and Contagious - Marketing“, in the August 23rd InformationWeek that spending cash on marketing is, well, not a great idea. She cites Steve Jurvetson’s thoughts on “zero cost” marketing.

“Venture capitalist Steve Jurvetson doesn’t see any reason for startups to budget funds for marketing anymore.

Indeed, Jurvetson, a partner with the legendary Silicon Valley venture firm Draper Fisher Jurvetson, has one question for companies that do.

Why?

Instead, Jurvetson tells businesses to go for “zero cost” marketing, where customers themselves spread the word about the products and services for sale. “If they have other plans, we wonder what on earth they are thinking,” says Jurvetson, who coined the phrase “viral marketing” back in 1997 in an influential note published in Netscape’s M-Files newsletter.”

Well, I sort of agree. But “zero” is taking this a bit too far. Yes, viral, influentials, word-of-mouth marketing must be considered for every program. But, announcing that paid marketing is dead and dying is just plain wrong. Hey, VC’s that invested in Google are mighty happy with how paid search  advertising is working.

Alice goes on to point to the 75% sales increase of Whish Body Products due to PR and product seeding – vs. advertising. Yes, I get it. Put the product in the hands of “evangelists” and the word will get out. But, she is talking a 75% increase over what? How am I to really tell what this means?

My take: Do whatever it takes. Sample, PR, WOM and pay for play if you have to. There isn’t one size fits all marketing and I find Jurvetson’s comments a bit disappointing in their simplistic view of the complexities of marketing in 2006.