« Einstein on information | Main | Mac Anderson on change »
"Of course I think marketing is incredibly important, but I think it intellectually comes second after sales." (Click here for Tom's entire rant).
William Gibson once remarked that the future is here. It's just not evenly distributed. My guess is that Tom Peter's has yet to receive his share of the future. Or perhaps he simply doesn't understand the discipline of marketing. And his "incorrect bias" can not be linked to the fact that he's an older, white guy. Here's what an even older Peter Drucker wrote:
"The aim of marketing is to know and understand the customer so well the product or service fits him and sells itself."
I have a deep respect and appreciation for the discipline of sales. After all, I was raised by a consummate salesman. But unlike the other Tom, I do not see sales as being intellectually superior to the discipline of marketing.
In my view, sales is a lot like package design. Its purpose is to make those who are exposed to the company's offering believe in the effectiveness of that offering to provide value. Like a product in a box, there are many valuable aspects of a brand that are not visible to a prospect. A great salesperson brings those aspects clearly into view - and to life!
Unlike a package, however, a salesperson is also a wonderful source of strategic information: competitive maneuverings, customer feelings, channel issues, and other marketplace insights. But here's the rub: what discipline is responsible for making sense of and leveraging those insights? Exactly. Marketing.
Marketing is ultimately responsible for the customer and channel experience, which includes design, pricing, audience selection, messaging, etc. Things that the sales people ultimately utilize in their jobs. I think the question of which discipline requires the greater IQ (vs. EQ) is pretty clear.
One last thing. We love your rants Tom Peters. We really do. But sometimes we'd like a little more intellectual rigor. Also, not all of us are interested in where you're speaking next. Perhaps you should simply post a sign on your site like McDonald's:
Tom Peters: Over 3 Million Served ;-)
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c684b53ef00d834c116ec69e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Tom Peters on marketing:
The comments to this entry are closed.
(Rest assured, we will never provide your email address to anyone. Period.)
RSS feed
Tom on Twitter
@tomasacker
Tom is timely, thought provoking and all about the new brand vision packaged as a Seinfeld stand up. I went to school on his ideas.
Jeff Taylor, Founder, Monster.com and CEO, Eons.
I agree and disagree.
I don't think we should diminish the importance of marketing at the expense of sales, but you seem to diminish the importance of sales at the expense of marketing.
What is the ultimate goal of marketing? Sales. If it's not, then why do we do it?
I think there has been a disconnect between marketing and sales for too long, that they need to work together to grow businesses.
Posted by: Kevin | May 19, 2006 at 04:20 PM
It's odd to me to hear the talk of sales and marketing being defined as "intellectual" in the first place.
As we all know, when someone buys something it's the intellect that justifies it when they get home with the product, not the reason they buy in the first place.
Posted by: Gary Bourgeault (thealphamarketer.com) | May 21, 2006 at 12:51 AM
I agree wholeheartedly with your thoughts, Tom. I constantly see that the key missing element in profit and non-profit organizations is better marketing. And sales doesn't do their job because they aren't educated in marketing. Thanks for the honesty...I'm with you.
Posted by: Bryan Davidson | May 21, 2006 at 01:52 AM
Hi Tom,
I believe you are taking Tom words to much literally. In my humble opinion, I think that Tom is speaking about those that develop fantastic marketing strategies, able of winning marketing prizes, but unable to promote sales.
Marketing people should see themselves as enablers of "good selling practices", as "enablers of staged positive experiences", in that sense marketing is an instrument to increase sales, its purpose is sales growth.
I really like Tom Peters rants and books, they are galaxies away from the European mainstream (we are becoming more and more like an Union of European Socialist States), nevertheless I have mixed feelings about his opinions on Jim Collins works. If we take Tom’s ideas to the ultimate level… it is good to build a meteor successful company, you got sales and revenue, but in the long term… in that case, who cares about marketing…
Posted by: Carlos | May 21, 2006 at 05:59 AM
Tom
One might say with tonque not too far in cheek that marketing generally talks AT customers whilst sales talks TO them.
It is my experience that most marketing people do not like talking to customers at all, preferring the relative safety of market research instead.
Perhaps that is why marketers are so bad at coming up with the next big thing; research on successful innovation shows that marketers new product ideas FAIL four times out of five. A poor record when compared to sensing changes in customer needs and responding in double quick time which succeeds 13 times out of every 14.
And who does most of the sensing? Sadly, not marketers!
Graham Hill
Independent Marketing Consultant
Posted by: Graham Hill | May 22, 2006 at 03:06 AM
Great comments everyone, thank you.
I'm pretty sure that we can agree that there is a difference between "sales" the transaction, which is the result of someone exchanging his or her money for a product or service, and "sales" the function or discipline, which is "a systematic process of repetitive and measurable milestones, by which a salesperson relate his offering enabling the buyer to visualize how to achieve his goal in an economic way (wikipedia.org)."
My post refers to the latter, which in many cases is curiously nonexistent in many modern organizations. For example, does a salesperson help you visualize the purchase of fuel for your car, a book purchase at Barnes & Noble, a computer purchase at Dell, etc. When was the last time you were aided in the purchase of a television, watch, dishwasher, car or the selection of a real estate agent, accountant, lawyer or doctor?
Please let me know your thoughts. I'm in the process of writing a new book, A Clear Eye for Marketing & Sales, and your insights and inputs will be invaluable to my process. Thanks.
Posted by: Tom Asacker | May 22, 2006 at 11:49 AM
All sales is accountable, not all marketing is.
With no marketing departments or zero marketing dollars, creative sales guys drive themselves to make their own marketing tools -- interesting dynamic, focus on that.
As for research, buy a short subscription to Monster. Search resumes (complex sales cycles) in both disciplines. Interview only those currently employed and proactively looking. What causes someone to look may be more revealing than view in retrospect.
Posted by: Ghena | May 24, 2006 at 11:06 AM