I've tried both types of campaign-specific URLs, and I've never really noticed a difference in response using www.danavan.net/campaign or a subdomain such as campaign.danavan.net. However, ClickZ has an article today about the world of campaign-only URLs. It's certainly worth a read.

Can You Remember the Address?

One thing I'd love to see is fewer onerous domain extensions in marketing materials. Nothing pains me more than seeing an industrial-size URL in an ad or brochure. The company expects users to type something like www.brand.com/goheretoenterthisreallycoolcontestnowtowinsomethingnow.

Yet one could argue using the brand domain consistently, across all media and over a period of time, helps build awareness. It reminds customers your preferred method of customer interaction is online through the brand site.

Who's Got the Answer?

I know there are some really sharp marketers out there who've already thought this through, conducted some research, or actually implemented a control and exposed research methodology to solve the question. So I'll appeal to your altruistic nature and ask you to share your knowledge with the marketing world. Save us from future bad addresses!

Have you seen or heard any information that indicates campaign URLs generate better results than extensions of corporate URLs? Any case studies or second-hand facts that document better business results or customer interactions?