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.
Dino Says:
August 27th, 2008 at 2:50 pmyour hunch is correct, adrian!
nice new look for the weblog, by the way
David Esrati Says:
August 28th, 2008 at 5:18 pmAdrian- I don’t see the word “Relationships” explained in your chart- but, I think it goes one step more- to creating “friendships”.
While branding was the end all buzzword of the last decade- it’s really about hanging out with products/services that are like good friends. Loyal, won’t screw you over, dependable, stand for something, valuable to you and help you define yourself.
Marketing begins with an introduction, hopefully builds into a connection- which becomes a relationship/friendship- that lasts until you either betray the customer- or lose out to a new, cooler, hipper friend.
Adrian Ho Says:
August 29th, 2008 at 8:41 amHmm…not sure about relationships/friendship. I think it’s possible with some brands but I think it’s a stretch for most. Companies provide things and services to people. Other people provide relationships/friendship to most people. I think that’s why there a brand backlash because we’re a bit too presumptuous about how important brands can be.
David Esrati Says:
September 1st, 2008 at 8:21 amAdrian- so the people who become an entire demographic- like Harley owners- is a stretch?
For people to continue to use google- and entrust all their data to pass through their hands- there has to be a friendship.
The brands that get it right- get it very right.
In this GM town- there used to be strong anti-Ford feelings, Chevy was American, right with apple pie, as Chevy broke the trust of it’s strongest supporters, it started its fall from grace.
Brands can be very important- but not self important.
Adrian Ho Says:
September 1st, 2008 at 9:33 amBut does the brand really fulfill the role of friend? Can a brand really do that? I don’t disagree brands are important to people - some more than others (brands that is) but I think the personification of brands can be taken too far.
David Esrati Says:
September 1st, 2008 at 2:17 pmAdrian- You are a Brit?
Think of some of your football fanatics.
I live in Ohio- the “Buckeye” brand is what defines quite a few peoples lives. People will spend $50K cloning a pet- you don’t think they can have a friendship with a brand?
I own a BMW motorcycle- I am accepted almost instantly by other BMW owners. Sure brands can fulfill the role of friend.
Sarah N Says:
September 4th, 2008 at 11:52 amAdrian, Did you attend the AP Conference in Miami this year? Digitas gave a nice presentation along the same on relationships + interactions. It’s nice to know more planner-types are taking this approach (I’m a junior planner in MPLS + continually baffled by the number of colleagues I come across who aren’t interested).
As far as friendship vs. relationship: If you approach your brand model just as you would any human relationship, the relationship is simply a start to a potential friendship. Of course, relationships can take on other formations… but I don’t think that is the point of the new model. This new model is meant to allow the user to move within, leave, come back.. they are in control of the relationship.
Adrian Ho Says:
September 5th, 2008 at 6:46 amHi Sarah, I didn’t go to Miami this year but I’m glad to hear that others are talking about the same things - not surprised it’s Digitas. There’s a big split in the community now. People trained classically are not always going to want to accept that their training isn’t as relevant anymore.
derek yates Says:
September 20th, 2008 at 2:50 amhi Adrian- a blast from the past
am just writing an assignment that involves students utilising the potential of sequence and interaction within a communication. a couple of ideas that i have found useful..
for apologies if you are already familiar:
attributes of successful interaction from Digit London
ordinary: familiar/ non scary/ approachablesurprising: unexpected & exciting
flow: dynamic/ excitingplay: drives investigation/instigates discovery/ enables
new information to be digested
reward: is it working? something should happenphysical: needs to have some tangible aspect- can you touch it?
also… “participatory culture…..
describes the way consumers interact with media content, media producers and eachother. As they explore the the resources available to them.. consumers become active participants in shaping the creation, circulation and interpretation of media content, such experiences deepen the consumers investment in the media property and expands their awareness of both content and brand.”
MIT, Convergence Culture Consortium/
i’m currently working on a project with onedotzero that involves graphic design and illustration students from camberwell, working with moving image and interactive students from LCC, responding to ephemeral cities by jason bruges to create work that is then passed on to students from the architectural association to interprete and react to. we hope to examine the nature of the creative process when it works across disciplines and invites to participation of others. i’d love to get your input on this and other projects.
Derek Yates, course director, design practice, camberwell, university of the arts, london
Adrian Ho Says:
September 21st, 2008 at 9:42 amDerek!
How the hell are you? Sounds like you’re working on some fantastic stuff.
I am familiar with some of the thinking coming out of C3, but haven’t seen the digit stuff you’re referring to. Anything more you can share there?
Not sure how long you’ve been reading, but I’ve been searching for work/thinking on the semantics or meaning of interactions. Are there global meanings that people will ascribe to certain interactions? Is there a common language of interactions? That sort of thing. Is that a part of your work over there?
I’d love to know more about what you’re up to, I’ll send you an email. Not sure if I have your latest address.
Steve Hartman Says:
October 17th, 2008 at 4:42 pmThe Streets Don’t Lie…
Through mismanagement and inexperience eBay has eroded the trust of millions and the publishers in the ePN program. Read this forum post about how John Donahoe and Steve Hartman are quickly becoming the laughing stock of the affiliate marketing commun…
air plane ticket Says:
October 25th, 2008 at 1:21 pmair plane ticket…
air plane ticket…
airline Says:
October 25th, 2008 at 1:57 pmairline…
airline…