Pick up any of the trade papers or read any of the marketing blogs recently and you’re likely to notice Amara’s law at work: “we invariably overestimate the short-term impact of new technologies while underestimating their long-term effects”. We read a lot about the rush to do something ‘on’ the next tech phenomenon - do something on Facebook, have a presence on Twitter or (yes, still) launch a viral marketing campaign. But there is precious little conversation about the impact technology is having long-term on culture, and how this might challenge some of the assumptions we have built marketing programs on for the last few decades.
While I would never be foolish enough to claim any ability to predict the future, I think there are four interesting signs of where marketing may be heading.
1. Brands will be built on cultural and social missions, not commercial propositions
Marketing historically has been obsessed with the concept of positioning – how you are different to your competitors in your category. Increasingly, great brands are realizing that people don’t see categories and don’t obsess about them. What actually matters is having a point of view on the world, a cultural mission to ask people to rally around. You can begin to see this come to life in marketing ideas like Dove’s ‘Campaign For Real Beauty’ and, more importantly, embedded into the very DNA of businesses. Howies, a UK clothing brand is a great example. As its founder Dave Hieatt said, “We’re not trying to sell things. We are trying to make people think about stuff.” That belief (make people think about the world around them) is self-evident in everything from the materials they use to their design to their catalogues to store design.
2. Marketing will be about what you do, not what you say
Marketing has for far too long been built on the notion of saying things at people, rather than doing things for or with people. Great marketing will increasingly be about what you do, not what you say. And that means that rather than being a silo within a business, marketing needs to be an ethos pervasive throughout an organization. Great marketing ideas today and in the future are as likely to be ideas that ‘live’ in operations (think Zappos unannounced upgrade to overnight shipping or Amazon’s one-click shopping), retail design (handheld registers in Apple stores to cut down queues and increase staff/customer interaction) or HR ( the Zappos culture book).
3. Lots of little ideas, not one big idea
The future of marketing lies in breaking the tyranny of the big idea for two reasons.
First, we must remember that while marketing (and brands) exist for a commercial purpose, they live in a cultural space. And culture is far richer, deeper, complex and nuanced than 99.9% of marketing. Marketing will be more culturally interesting if it is made up of lots of coherent ideas than repeating consistently one idea.
Second, given our inability to predict the future (despite the fortunes spent on research) it makes much more sense to start lots of fires to see what takes hold and place lots of small bets, rather than putting everything on black 35. We need to think about investing lots of small bets, learning from them and then scaling up behind the ideas that seem to be working. (It’s worth noting that this has been made practical by the fact that the internet is reducing the cost of failure to almost zero).
4. People first
Marketing in the future will be about putting people first. This may sound ridiculously obvious, but too often marketing is about convincing people how great you are rather than working out what people are interested in and working out how you might be able to help or add value.
A great example of this was the Tate Tracks campaign created by Fallon London for the Tate Modern gallery. They needed to increase the number of under-25s visiting the gallery and quickly realized that the conventions of gallery marketing – show the art on display – was unlikely to change behavior. So instead they thought about what this audience were passionate about – music – and created a campaign around art inspiring new, exclusive music.
So, there are four signs of where I think marketing may be heading. If I had to sum it up I think the future lies in realizing that creating cultural value will create commercial value. Whatever the future may bring, it’s certainly an exciting time to be in the industry.
5/5/09
|
|
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
| dg |
on 14 May 2009 at 10:04 am |
|
Talk about a brand on a mission...
"Our vision is 'to elevate the world from mediocrity to greatness,' and we are growing so we can train more people and spread the word of The Secret -- which to us at Lululemon is not so secret."
|
|
| Gareth Kay (Boston) |
on 12 May 2009 at 3:16 pm |
|
Mel,
Don''t disagree. I think great brands need a mission and/or purpose. I think the sad thing is we have devalued ideas as being executional rather than conceptual or about a belief that can be brought to life in lots of different ways. I like the notion of curating conversations a lot. |
|
| Paul (www.insightbbydesign.com) |
on 11 May 2009 at 5:52 pm |
|
| A 5th prediction I would add to this is that Marketing Will Be About Customers... Again. This ties into the People First thought - but it's Customer's First. We will give up the futile attempts at mass conversion ingrained into the Marketing culture by years of mass media adoption, and begin again to realize existing customers are our most valuable asset. From a revenue point of view, as well as a communications point of view. Advertising will become an act of desperation from companies unable to convince their own customers they are valuable enough to care about. |
|
| Mel Exon (London) |
on 09 May 2009 at 8:29 pm |
|
Great post Gareth. I particularly like the summary thought that brands need to create cultural value if they are to create commercial value.
I also buy the argument that we need to set lots of hares running - small ideas, if you will - and see where they take us. The days of developing expensive brand monologues behind closed walls and launching them fully formed on the world in the hope someone will pay attention are over. My only observation here is that I don't think an iterative, even proto-type-led approach should excuse brands from having the discipline of a creative & compelling expression of their point of view, a strong sense of what they're here to contribute. Call that a unifying thought, call it a big idea. I absolutely do not mean a 'wrap it all up in a neat bow - ta da!' endline or an identical, singular message transmitted & repeated ad nauseam. Rather, that marketing's role is to find ways to create, listen to, fuel and curate conversations & stories that support a brand & give it a strong sense of self. Perhaps the truth is we're rejecting language like 'big idea' simply because of an association with the past, as opposed to what that term really means or, at the very least, what it could be redefined to mean now. |
|
| Britt Benston (Los Angeles, CA) |
on 08 May 2009 at 11:20 pm |
|
I guess I'll just go ahead and start the Paul van Winkle fan page on Facebook...
If you're just tuning in, scroll to the bottom, to Paul's comments.
And on top of what has been said, as if anything more needs to be said, we're approaching a point where products had better add something to our lives -- a palpable benefit or competitive edge. Otherwise our advertising falls into one or all of the following camps: me-too corporate presence on a new tech platform, entertainment with a logo attached, or old-fashioned huckster-y hokum that slings an opinion at the weary, wary consumer: "Buy Cheese Bitz cuz they're chee-lectable!" Funny enough, these tactics still work pretty well, even though we love to talk about how much things are changing. But if the subject is the future of marketing, then these tactics are in trouble. |
|
| Chris Faria (Denver) |
on 06 May 2009 at 2:19 pm |
|
| Very insightful and prophetic even. |
|
| Rob McEvily (NYC) |
on 06 May 2009 at 8:46 am |
|
| With Paul van Winkle's permission, I'm turning his comment into a PDF and selling it. I'm gonna make a fortune! (Excellent!) |
|
| Gareth Kay (Boston, MA) |
on 05 May 2009 at 10:58 pm |
|
Thanks for all the comments. I want to clarify something raised in the first three responses. This was not meant to be a piece arguing that marketing is not about selling - I believe that this is marketing's sole objective (albeit, one that is sadly not often met).
Rather, I wanted to argue that perhaps the 'how' of selling needs to change. It's about moving the dialog on from thinking about 'messaging' to or at people and instead thinking about how we can do things with people that creates value for them as well as business. I firmly believe we have to stop thinking about this strange idea of capturing eyeballs and minds, and instead thinking about how we can create a value exchange between companies and people.
With all due respect NY Ad Guy, I'm not confusing online business tactics with great marketing ideas. I'm trying to suggest that there may be a better, more effective and more sustainable approach. Given that all the data suggests the current model is broken, shouldn't we at least be prepared to try something different? If we don't, marketers and agencies, like the brands they 'manage', risk irrelevance. And that would be shameful. |
|
| Jameel R. Gordon (New York) |
on 05 May 2009 at 4:38 pm |
|
I agree with Mr. Paul van Winkle on one point: "we may in fact be readying for some extinctions ":.. and that is marketing as you all know it.
It doesn't take guts to see that right after the transformation (collapse) of traditional media platforms is the transformation (collapse) of marketing and its related industries. When it hits the fan, the only firms, agencies, and marketing individuals that will survive, are the ones who evolve towards the four points detailed by Gareth.
Why? As noted: Amara's law.
While newspapers were excited by the prospects of digital, I don't think they expected the same technology would allow anyone to create and aggregate content. Look where they are now.
The same will happen to marketing. With the same technology marketers are excited about, Brand A can now present Product B (the true Idea) to Consumer C without the marketer's BS. And they can do it for 80 - 90% less than they did before. Which means 80 - 90% of marketers will become like newspapers and their editors... irrelevant.
The remaining 10 - 20% of marketers are the ones that are smart enough to see value in the actual market... the actual exchange and what value is added at the point of exchange. You see this with the mommy bloggers.
That's what we all have learned from the "OWNERSHIP society" we're coming from... what true value is being added? True value being your cultural relevance by putting people first through what you do with your ideas. (How great an idea is that?)
Gareth is only gutsy for almost saying what 10-20% of marketers want to say but they are afraid. The future of marketing is here! |
|
| Langston Richardson / infuz (Saint Louis, MO) |
on 05 May 2009 at 3:25 pm |
|
Well stated and thought provoking as well as Paul\'s rebuttal. I think where Gareth comes from however is the point of authenticity of the brand and how that comes across to the consumer. Excessive demands of selling and meeting the quarterly revenue goals have built a strain in the consumers trying to keep up. In today\'s economic climate, we see many agencies shifting as both a consumer starts not to spend and as brand marketers demanding \"greater red from a turnip\"
The change we see is that the culture of excess which inflated everything from the over extended credit of both businesses and people to the drive to inflate profits to extremes and the responses of the MarCom industry to service that excess will soon retract in a sustainable level. What won\'t change however is the nature of human needs. Business and brands that develop meaningful touch points and \"honor the contract\" will be rewarded with loyalty of consumers. The Old way of simply thinking that if agencies throw a party (create a campaign for brand quarter X), kick up some dust, (agencies talk at people called \"consumers\" with shiny signage for momentary reactions), and self-congratulate themselves with speeches (the after-campaign metrics song and dance to brand marketer). New marketing will be beyond the campaign and redefine the campaign. Some call it engagement strategies.
Big ideas start out as ideas backed by insights with a little bit of buy in by the partners (eg brand marketers), a bit of choosing the moment and adapting that idea to meet the human needs. Big ideas prove themselves big over time.
Langston Richardson
VP, Executive Creative Director / infuz
URL: langstonrichardson.com
Twitter: @MATSNL65 |
|
| Mark Bean (Fair Oaks California) |
on 05 May 2009 at 12:32 pm |
|
| I'm calling BS on #1 - unless everybody wants to start a cultural mission to give me loads of money of course. The rest I very much agree with. |
|
| Stephen Chukumba (New York, New York) |
on 05 May 2009 at 12:02 pm |
|
I liked the article immensely, but I enjoyed Paul's comments even more (sorry Gareth). I think that we are marketers because we intend to SELL to audiences. Whether it's a vision or a product, we want the eyeballs, and the dollars that invariably flow from capturing the eyeballs (and ears, and minds, etc.)
I think the future of marketing lies in how effectively we understand and utilize these ubiquitous tools to engage audiences in conversation. The one-way dialogues of brands are over, especially since brands have become co-opted extensions of their audiences anyway. The issue is how do you roll with being co-opted and flip it to your advantage.
As long as people want, there will be folks prepared to market to their insatiable desires. That's the future of marketing. |
|
| NY Ad Guy (New York) |
on 05 May 2009 at 11:40 am |
|
Couldn't agree more with Paul. Just want to add that you're confusing online business tactics with a "great marketing ideas" by saying that switching to overnight shipping or one click shopping is marketing. "Ease of use" is a big marketing idea, and if that can be played out throughout the user experience with tactics like one click shopping, so much the better.
As for espousing cultural missions to build brands, this works for some marketers, but not others. Just ask Benetton. |
|
| Paul van Winkle (www.artisticimage.com) |
on 05 May 2009 at 11:15 am |
|
First, it takes guts to put this kind of predictive thing out there, so you get a ton of credit for that. Guts are authentic. Such guts speak to the work your agency is known for striving towards too, BTW.
But I'd like to add a few caveats to this important series of small bets you've put down.
The quote: "We’re not trying to sell things. We are trying to make people think about stuff", is pure unadulterated bullshit. And it follows the adage, Never believe anything until its officially denied. A product company IS selling things. And they better make me want what they have by doing certain things, or I won't. To the degree the packaging and promos are nicer and more appealing to me, I may pay for its image and how such image affects me. To the degree I get service or add-ons with the product, I may pay additionally for said commodity, if I need it or want it. And if I gain some effervescent "experience" via said product, I may indeed pay a higher premium. But any other conversations about "ideas" and "thinking" at this stage should be confined to philiosophy club, because such semntics lead to false business practices -- like, "We're an OWNERSHIP society" and how that line built enough froth to get millions to buy big homes they couldn't afford becuase the "leader' of our government at the time said we should. I thought we were largely tired of all that.
Secondly, I'm not so sure marketing "creates cultural value". And suggesting that it does again confuses the role of marketers and the function of marketing in society. There have been impressive and well-known figures in advertising and marketing, but such elevated statuses served only to establish and maintain their own credible and tested idealogies and methodologies for advancing their firm's objectives. And the objectives of marketing? To sell more products, to more people, at higher prices, over longer periods of time. If there's a new definition based on some "new economy" as yet to be defined, and its new objectives (are there any?), I'm all for dialog on that. definition revision . But until otherwise notified, marketers' roles have been defined by the financial imperatives set by the economic system we still all find ourselves thrust in. And those roles ain't gonna change until ideas can be monetized in different ways.
Thirdly, big ideas aren't dead and if they are, tell APPLE. Fewer firms now have the tenacity, funding and savvy to build, prommote and launch big ideas, though. Like the Titanic and the Hindenberg affected ship-building for years to come, we now live in a disaster-prone age. No one wants to be responsible for yet another flaming financial or operational failure and thusly, smaller bets spread risk. We live in riskier and more uncertain times.
And lastly, if the brilliance of unique, breakthrough, elegant ideas that are clever or impeccably simple and affordable - and which make my life better -- is now DEAD -- than what are we marketers doing?
Are we just all merry bands of Twits, Twats, Dweebs, Xcellers, FaceBookers, MySpacers, online/offline wage slaves? Have we become idiots to the spawning technologies that are now ubiquitous? Are we LinkedOut, Deconstructed, iPhoned, YouTubed regurglers? Or can we gestate something new for our clients that perhaps thhey haven't thought of?
We, the lucky benefactors of this country at this time in history have access to the vastest wealth of all the TiVO'd ages: history, literature, science, economics, art, music, philosophy, myth, religion, theatre, psychology....it's all at our fingertips -- do we know the best of all or any it? If so, what shall we do with such grateful access we who are called upon to build economies and brands from ideas?
Let's hope our souls, bodies and brains are fast enough and bold enough to leverage at least a slice of it. Because if ideas for helping people engage with their lives on the planet in gentler, safer, better, more aware ways are now passe', we may in fact be readying for some extinctions. |
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
About the Author Gareth Kay |
|
 |
 |
 |
As head of Planning for Modernista!, Gareth oversees the strategic direction of all accounts. His department has won accolades from the EFFIEs, AMA awards, and the AAAA Account Planning Awards. Gareth has also worked at TBWA, dfgw, and Lowe on Unilever, the BBC, General Motors, fcuk, Waterstone’s and Reebok.
http://www.modernista.com

Advertising Jobs |
Marketing Jobs |
Media Jobs |
Digital Jobs |
Advertising Assistant Professor WVU Perley Isaac Reed School of Journalism Morgantown |
Interactive Director Two By Four Ltd. Chicago, Illinois |
Senior Project Manager Two By Four Ltd. Chicago, Illinois |
Scientific Strategist LEAP PHARMA New York, New York |
Media Supervisor with Multicultural Expert... Draftfcb Chicago, Illinois |
Associate Media Director with Internationa... Draftfcb Chicago, Illinois |
Accounting/Billing Coordinator Muse Communications, Inc. Los Angeles, California |
Account Manager Freeworld Media Atlanta, Georgia |
Ad Operations Lead, Technology and Solutio... COXnet Atlanta, Georgia |
Junior Art Director USFI Dallas, Texas |
Account Supervisor Vitro San Diego, California |
Copywriter MARC USA Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania |
Web Designer Moore and Scarry Advertising Fort Myers, Florida |
Art Director Cranford Johnson Robinson Woods Little Rock, Arkansas |
|
|