If you asked a room full of marketers if marketing had changed in the last decade, you would get most of them telling you it had changed radically.
On the surface it has, the digital revolution has taken marketing by the neck and given it a great big shake.
There has been an explosion of sales, media, connection, and payment channels, customers are more wary, and do their own research before a marketer knows they are in the market. So called ‘content’ has almost infinite reach, but the frequency is rubbish, as there is so much digital noise, and so much competition for attention, that most of it is the digital equivalent of todays fish wrapper from yesterdays newspaper obituary section. The investment in marketing technology to manage all this has also exploded.
There is a welter of research, and opinion that confirms the notion that marketing has changed, some by very credible organisations. Most however have a dog in the fight.
I asked myself the question again, after a stumbling across this report by Adobe, one of those credible organisations that supports the ‘yes it has changed’ vote, and came to a partly different conclusion.
Marketing has changed, absolutely, at the tactical level. The means by which marketers create, and deliver a value proposition, then turn it into a transaction is unrecognisable from just a decade ago. However, tactical implementation is just a small part of the pie.
Organisationally, marketing has changed a bit. Generally, it is still a function in a group of functional silos that reports to a CEO. A range of new titles have emerged, chief marketing Officer, Chief Engagement officer, and so on, but that does not change the essential reporting and accountability of those in senior marketing roles.
The marketing organisation in large enterprises has also siloed, now there is digital, customer service, technology, and a range of other functional roles within marketing not previously present, but still reporting functionally.
Strategically, marketing has changed little if at all.
The role of marketing is to tell the future, and then to adjust the value proposition to customers ahead of the changing preferences and behaviour. That has always been the case, and remains so.
The only strategic change I can see is one of leadership.
In the past, marketing was a relatively passive corporate player, relegated to the role of managing one of the largest expenses in the P&L. Now the value of enterprises is so much more in the hands of intangibles, that marketing is increasingly demanding a seat at the big table, which demands that marketers are able to lead their peers and boss. Unless they can achieve this position of leadership, they will remain the simple gatekeepers to one line in the P&L, rather than being responsible for the future health of the enterprise.
Look at it from the other perspective.
Marketing has changed little strategically, but strategy is by far the most important component.
It has changed somewhat organisationally, and while it is important, in most areas, it is not a game changer.
Tactically, marketing is unrecognisable, but who really cares, tactics are just that, short term, able to be changed in real time as the situation evolves. Marketers need the organisational capability to be able to change in real time, but the impact of failing to do so is generally limited in the short term.
The marketing groups that will be successful into the future are the ones that are successful leaders of their organisation. To achieve this status, they must be able to identify the priority areas for investment and activity, and drive that priority by removing the organisational constraints that operate in every enterprise, which are not directly accountable to marketing.
Well, they are not accountable until marketers are in the corner office, which should be happening more and more, as they are the future tellers. Those who generally occupy that office are the engineers and accountants who are really good at reading the past in the data, and hoping the future looks similar.
Who is next in your corner office?
Marketing.
(1) Distorting realities about your own or others products/services to your own advantage. (2) Telling stories about one’s products/services that are overly simplistic and often untruthful, whatever it takes that’s legal. (3)Trying to create a need in advance of the consumers so doing, then hoping said consumers will accept your offer long before competitors pounce.
That is a bit cynical, but sometimes true.
The other side of the coin is that without marketing you would not have your iPhone, choices of differentiated products in any category, no innovation, no competition, and so on.
Sounds a bit like Russia pre the wall falling!