“I went to school on Tom’s ideas!”
Jeff Taylor, Founder, Monster.com
A Clear Eye.
On customers, brands and marketplace success
by Tom Asacker
“I went to school on Tom’s ideas!”
Jeff Taylor, Founder, Monster.com
« Marketing and the mind | Main | Why you should not hire analysts to handle your marketing »
Have you ever hiked up a snow-covered mountain trail? It's a frustrating, two steps forward and slide back a step ordeal. So, it appears, is the AMA's attempt at defining the word "marketing."
Take a look at its "evolution:"
1985 - 2004: Marketing is the process of planning and executing conception, pricing, promotion and distribution of goods, ideas and services to create exchanges that satisfy individual and organizational goals.
2004 - 2007: Marketing is an organizational function and a set of processes for creating, communicating and delivering value to customers and for managing customer relationships in ways that benefit the organization and its stakeholders.
2008 - : Marketing is the activity, set of institutions, and processes for creating, communicating, delivering, and exchanging offerings that have value for customers, clients, partners, and society at large.
Does this represent a progressive change? I certainly agree with the idea of "creating, communicating, delivering, and exchanging offerings that have value." But there are two glaring problems with this new definition, excluding the whole "society" bit:
1. It sounds passive as hell. Since when does creating and communicating value automatically motivate human behavior? In today's supersaturated marketplace, incitement, education, inspiration, and stimulation (of customers, employees, media, et al) count as much, if not more than all of the creating, communicating, delivering and exchanging combined; and
2. Why no mention of profitably, growth or even achieving organizational objectives? All of this "activity" requires resources, and over time those resources come from the creative planning and backbreaking execution of the "Big M" marketing plan.
So what's your take? What would you say to a CMO who has created, communicated, delivered, and exchanged offerings that have value, but has shrunk the customer base, reduced operating profits, devalued the brand, and lost the election?
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/5144/26185476
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The "evolving" definition of marketing:
"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.
(Rest assured, we will never provide your email address to anyone. Period.)
RSS feed
I once remember attending a Marketing society of Great Britain dinner on a similar subject. I think they were trying to agree on a marketing manifesto document.
At the time, 3-4 years ago, the focus was on accountability and the need for profitable growth, return on investment etc. something that is clearly lacking from the statement above as you remarked.
I just wonder if this is driven by the current evolution (ok maybe not evolution anymore for some - perhaps well entrenched) of marketing practices - WOM, influencer strategies, social networking etc. Tactics that for many marketers are more difficult to prove when it comes to justifying investment to the CFO. Indeed it can cost as much to communicate meaningfully with 1000 people in a carefully targeted influencer campaign as it can to broadcast a spot to 100's of thousands of the general public.
Not that this is right, but perhaps the statement is just capturing the mood of the marketing community?
Posted by: Andy Wright | February 24, 2008 at 07:17 AM