Marketing is Dead - or is it?

Somewhat belatedly I have just read this blog - Marketing is Dead - on the Harvard Business Review (HBR) website. As a marketer, obviously I wondered on seeing the title if my career was doomed but reading the blog I guess it isn't, it just needs to change in ways which I have already been doing. As is so often the case, the word "marketing" has been mis-used here, it should say  be titled "Advertising is Dead". The copy points out that traditional communication methods - those which Seth Godin refers to as interrupt marketing - are no longer effective. I sort of agree and disagree with that, it is certainly the case that customers of all types are using recommendations from others as a major part of their purchase decision, but I do think there is a place for good, traditional advertising, to make people aware of a new product or service - the only people who will recommend at that stage are those who have been paid to do so, directly or indirectly. 

A customer needs to be made aware of a product before they will investigate if it is what they want, and good advertising, online or offline, can create that awareness. Take the traditional purchase decision model:

Need recognition and problem awareness

¦

Information search

¦

Evaluation of alternatives

¦

Purchase

¦

Post purchase evaluation

The basic process still applies, but now rather than talking to the supplier or their representative at the information search stage we may ask for solutions to the problem online, and then evaluate the alternatives through recommendations. But if something is new and different, solving a problem people don't know they have, the awareness has to be generated somehow and that is where traditional marketing still has a role to play, but it may need to be much more creative than was previously the case.

What do you think?

The Men Who Made Us Fat

I watched the final episode of the programme "The Men Who Made Us Fat" on BBC2 last night and did get very frustrated about the continual criticism of marketing throughout it. Whilst in principle I can agree with the contention that the food industry is concerned with making money for shareholders (it is their primary responsibility, after all), I do not entirely agree that is all down to marketing that people buy the high fat foods, and as ever that is using the word marketing for promotion rather than the broader aspects it should cover.

It does seem potentially short sighted of the food companies to produce products which can cause obesity and therefore reduce the life of their customers, however. Surely they should want to help the customers to live longer and therefore make more money from them over a long period of time. But is it really the fault of marketing that people want to buy quick and simple to prepare, tasty food at low prices even if it is very processed? Isn't the marketing response one of providing that to meet the lifestyles people lead rather than convincing people it is what they need?


The problem comes with the potentially misleading labelling which suggest things may be healthy when they are not particularly so, but again, if people want to see that something has fruit in it and it does why not state that? If everything else is on the label is it not the customer's fault for not reading it and seeing the reality? I am a believer in freedom of choice provided the customer is well informed rather than the regulation which was being suggested by the programme, but that does rely on educating customers as to what things really mean and that is where I do think the food producers and retailers are failing. 


But it isn't all the fault of marketing!


For the moment the programme can be viewed here - BBC iPlayer

Laws against marketing

Not a crime against marketing in terms of the use of the word, but a crime against marketing in terms of the ability of marketers to do their job.

Today the UK government have made an announcement which goes against marketing, and the freedom of marketers within organisations both large and small. I am referring to the ban on open display of tobacco products in shops. I am not a smoker and therefore have no axe to grind on that score, but I do think this is a government imposition which is a crime against marketing. Tobacco companies have already had the freedom to advertise taken away from them so they can't tell anyone they exist, now the innocent act of displaying products which are legally allowed to be sold is to be made illegal.

I am not sure I believe that this will actually harm small shopkeepers - I think that those who smoke are not influenced particularly at the point of sale to suddenly decide to buy some cigarettes, and neither can I imagine that anyone ever started smoking just because the shop they were in had cigarettes on display. Somehow, despite what Alan Johnson, Health Secretary, says I suspect peer pressure plays a much larger part.

However, my real issue is that this is going to take away another element of marketing from the tobacco companies, and retailers. If it suits the powers that be, who knows what they may restrict next - should we really allow this to happen?

While the product is legally allowed to be sold, surely the manufacturer and retailer should be allowed to tell customers, current and potential, that the product is available. Maybe what I have said about the lack of impact of point of sale displays indicates that these are not making a difference to the sales level through the promotional element of marketing - that may be the case, but it should not be taken away as a small part of that promotional effort.

At least they have not stopped branding of packaging as had been suggested - now that would be a major crime against marketing....

Details of the story available here

The Apprentice

Having been meaning to write something here for ages I now have to write about a crime against marketing which I saw last week on the BBC series The Apprentice. When the losing team were in the boardroom they were questioned about their expenditure, a major part of which was their "marketing". This was picked up by Sir Alan Sugar who made much play of them overspending on marketing. The problem is it wasn't on marketing, it was on promotion - this being just one small part of marketing rather than the totality it was portrayed as.

It is this misconception of marketing which I find really frustrating and is one Sir Alan has made before in previous series. I suspect the understanding Sir Alan has of the word marketing relates to advertising and promotion rather than the much wider remit it should cover. I am sure however, that he is actually a pretty good marketer - anyone who has amassed a fortune of over £800m has to be pretty good at identifying customer needs and satisfying them profitably (Amstrad emailer maybe being an exception where he got things wrong). I just wish he would use the correct word and not keep perpetuating the common myth that all marketers do is advertising.

You can find more information about the series The Apprentice at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/apprentice/

The Marketer

Even the Chartered Institute of Marketing seem to be able to print things in their magazine - The Marketer - which confuse the role of marketing.

The January 2008 issue has Theo Paphitis on the cover with the line "It's all about marketing". In the interview with him he is asked the question "Is marketing essential for a start-up?" The response is:
"It's all about marketing. Marketing's the most important part of any business [great so far!]. Even if you've got the best product in the world, if you can't tell people about it and convince them that they need it, they're not going to buy it. Plenty of average products become successful because of tremendous marketing."

Whilst I fully agree with the sentiment of what Theo is saying, he does seem to be saying that marketing is about communication, the best product in the world he mentions is also part of marketing - communicating about it to people being another. Two of the seven P's - Product and Promotion - are included here so why is one associated with marketing but the other not? OK, I'll give him some credit for Physical evidence and Process when he says about making lingerie special (through La Senza) when he says about ensuring it was nicely wrapped.

Further into the interview Theo says he is very marketing led and when times are hard he increases his marketing budget, a great philosophy which certainly seems to have made him wealthy. Unfortunately, it seems that he is only referring to the communications budget when he says this. As a saving grace, he does finish by saying that "the good marketer is innovative" - absolutely true, but across the whole range of the marketers toolbox please Theo!

Find out more about The Marketer journal via the Chartered Institute of Marketing website