Lost in translation: the changed context of marketing terms.
Was reminded once again by some recent readings and projects of just how divergent the thinking is between proponents of new and (old) classic marketing. The list above is not exhaustive by any means but serves to highlight a few of the bigger changes.
Classic marketing is about relentless reductionism and focus down to one core message. The products of classic marketing are images that exist within the minds of customers (consumers).
New marketing is about developing a rich set of ideas and assets that accrue to your brand. It is about creating interactions and experiences that communicate and (more importantly) deliver value to customers (people).
Classic marketing evolved in parallel with and as a direct result of the broadcast medium. Classic marketing simply made the best use of broadcast, it was not necessarily the best way to market.
New marketing isn’t terribly different in that respect, it is an outgrowth of new media developments. We now have the ability to actually reach out and touch people – lots of them and we don’t have to worry about confusing people with lots of different ideas because by and large people are smart enough to take what they want and ignore the rest.
However, because both classic and new marketers still talk of brands, values, targets, segmentation, competitive reviews and so on, it becomes quite easy to assume that they’re talking about the same things when in fact they’re quite likely to be talking about completely opposed things.
The gulf in world views is quite literally irreconcileable and is most likely to rear its head in the middle of a meeting that both sides have (up till then) assumed was going quite well. I have a hunch these kinds of meetings are happening daily around the world in agencies and marketing departments everywhere.
