The Future of Marketing

I recently read an online article, The Future of Marketing by Gareth Kay, at TalentZoo that I simply have to share ... because while the propositions made by the author are dramatic (within the marketing microcosm, that is), I sincerely hope he's right. You can read the piece yourself here.

Kay begins by referencing the vast amount of discussion we hear about new technologies for communication:

Pick up any of the trade papers or read any of the marketing blogs recently and you’re likely to notice Amara’s law at work: “We invariably overestimate the short-term impact of new technologies while underestimating their long-term effects.”

... and then observes, "but there is precious little conversation about the impact technology is having long-term on culture, and how this might challenge some of the assumptions we have built marketing programs on for the last few decades." He then notes four interesting signs of where be believes marketing may be headed:

1. Brands will be built on cultural and social missions, not commercial propositions
Marketing historically has been obsessed with the concept of positioning — how you are different to your competitors in your category. Increasingly, great brands are realizing that people don’t see categories and don’t obsess about them. What actually matters is having a point of view on the world, a cultural mission to ask people to rally around. You can begin to see this come to life in marketing ideas like Dove’s ‘Campaign For Real Beauty’ and, more importantly, embedded into the very DNA of businesses. Howies, a UK clothing brand is a great example. As its founder Dave Hieatt said, “We’re not trying to sell things. We are trying to make people think about stuff.” That belief (make people think about the world around them) is self-evident in everything from the materials they use to their design to their catalogues to store design.

2. Marketing will be about what you do, not what you say
Marketing has for far too long been built on the notion of saying things at people, rather than doing things for or with people. Great marketing will increasingly be about what you do, not what you say. And that means that rather than being a silo within a business, marketing needs to be an ethos pervasive throughout an organization. Great marketing ideas today and in the future are as likely to be ideas that ‘live’ in operations (think Zappos unannounced upgrade to overnight shipping or Amazon’s one-click shopping), retail design (handheld registers in Apple stores to cut down queues and increase staff/customer interaction) or HR (the Zappos culture book).

3. Lots of little ideas, not one big idea
The future of marketing lies in breaking the tyranny of the big idea for two reasons.

First, while marketing (and brands) exist for a commercial purpose, they live in a cultural space. And culture is far richer, deeper, complex and nuanced than 99.9 percent of marketing. Marketing will be more culturally interesting if it is made up of lots of coherent ideas than repeating consistently one idea.

Second, given our inability to predict the future (despite the fortunes spent on research) it makes much more sense to start lots of fires to see what takes hold and place lots of small bets, rather than putting everything on black 35. We need to think about investing lots of small bets, learning from them and then scaling up behind the ideas that seem to be working. (It’s worth noting that this has been made practical by the fact that the internet is reducing the cost of failure to almost zero).

4. People first
Marketing in the future will be about putting people first. This may sound ridiculously obvious, but too often marketing is about convincing people how great you are rather than working out what people are interested in and how you might be able to help or add value.

A great example of this was the Tate Tracks campaign created by Fallon London for the Tate Modern gallery. They needed to increase the number of under-25s visiting the gallery and quickly realized that the conventions of gallery marketing — show the art on display — was unlikely to change behavior. So instead they thought about what this audience were passionate about — music — and created a campaign around art inspiring new, exclusive music.

If I had to sum it up I think the future lies in realizing that creating cultural value will create commercial value. Whatever the future may bring, it’s certainly an exciting time to be in the industry.

=====

Those of you who know me or have followed my posts will quickly recognize why I am so enamored of Kay's Four Predictions. These are precisely the kinds of ideas I have been promoting in this blog and, in fact, in my conversations and other writing. Marketing — and communications in general (whether internal or external) simply MUST become more about "the other" than about ourselves. We must acknowledge our place as small atoms in the tremendous cultural entity and contribute to the environment in which we live rather than merely attempting to suck energy from it.

And now, an apology balanced by some good news:
My dedicated readers may have noted a recent absence of new posts from the Communication Heretic. A family emergency took me away from my desk for several weeks, but I promise to be back more frequently in the coming months. And thanks to those of you who inquired about my absence. I appreciate your loyalty and concern! Until next time —

Thanks for participating.

Jan Thomas
The Communication Heretic

The Elephant in the Room

I hesitate to jump on this bandwagon like everyone else ~ surely we're all beyond tired of hearing about it ~ but unfortunately the recent AIG executive bonus mess presents a perfect case study in bad PR. This is all the more baffling when one realizes that the very god of crisis communications, Burson Marsteller, is said to be guiding AIG through its perilous situation. Certainly it's not heretical to suggest that this one is a disaster that will have PR professionals shaking their heads for decades to come.

Can this possibly be the same Burson Marsteller who counseled the absolutely spot-on crisis PR response to the Mother of All PR Crises, the Tylenol poisoning tragedy of 1982? How can the response be so different? In the Tylenol case, the client stepped forward immediately, publicly and with tremendous humility and compassion. It called for an immediate recall and virtually oozed responsiveness, engendering trust. Had it acted differently, Johnson & Johnson ~ not just the Tylenol brand ~ might very well have been sunk by the sheer horror of the case. Because of its unquestionably responsible approach, Tylenol remains one of the most trusted brands in over-the-counter pain relief.

AIG's response to the bonus crisis could not be more different. Instead of acceptance of responsibility and public humility, we see defensiveness grounded in legalese and an apparent cluelessness to the pointedly visceral reaction of Jane Q Public to the news. From the beginning, one has been tempted to ask, What color is the sky in your world? Surely only aliens from another galaxy could be so thoroughly and blithely unaware of the disbelief and rage of the average citizen.

Is AIG a more difficult client than Johnson & Johnson? Has Burson Marsteller changed? Is the agency giving sound advice that is not being followed by client execs? Or does Burson not "get it" either? Does anyone believe that, simply because no one died in the AIG crisis the corporate response can be more self-aggrandizing? How to explain this seemingly inexplicable sea change?

Several days ago, Advertising Age published an excellent assessment of the situation, "No Easy Fix for AIG's Bonus Blowback" by Michael Bush. In it, he says, "Even PR pros are shaking their heads at the blundering giant insurer, which is fast becoming not only the poster boy for financial-industry greed, but also a company seen as too arrogant or stupid to keep out of its own way." Dramatic words, but hard to argue with. Both the industry pros he quotes in the piece and the many reader comments make it an informative read.

The immense size of the dollar amounts in this discussion defy comprehension. Even in the PR/marketing world, where big salaries and bonuses are well understood, surely we can see how utterly indefensible AIG's position in this matter looks from the outside ... Or can we?

Thanks for participating.

Jan Thomas
The Communication Heretic

Theories of evolution

Earlier this month the world observed the 200th anniversary of Charles Darwin's birth — coincidentally, or ironically, the same day as Abraham Lincoln's. As a communication wonk, I of course immediately began thinking about the evolution of language.

A website that I enjoy visiting when I have the time is Pain in the English, where users submit questions about usage or grammar issues to receive input, suggestions, answers and comments from others. However straightforward a question may seem, it is always illuminating to see how many different perspectives various respondents post. The most common — and certainly the most popular, or controversial — threads tend to surround changing usage of the language. Everyone has an opinion, and the opinions are strongly held, sharply articulated and fiercely defended. The discussions are interesting, enlightening, sometimes amusing and often engaging. It is difficult to sit on the sidelines as passionate people debate the pros and cons of common evolution — some would say devolution — of the language.

I'm certainly no stick-in-the-mud. I grew up in the '60s so change, even dramatic change, comes naturally to me. In communication, I am enthralled by the new possibilities supported by technology. And I welcome changes that simplify and clarify communication. But I also see a great many lazy shortcuts that diminish, rather than enhance, the message. I see slang and crude-speak making their way out of personal chats and onto the main pages of cnn.com and other mainstream news sites, and I don't see the benefit. I see our societal vocabulary shrinking and cannot help but imagine that the eventual result will reduce the clarity of our communications.

Of course, the sky is not falling. But bits of it do seem to be eroding, a piece here and a chip there. Can't we find a way to move forward — to evolve — in our language without diminishing it?

I wonder what Darwin would think...?

Thanks for participating.

Jan Thomas
The Communication Heretic