Archive for Business

Marketing: Why do we Try to Hide a Forest Among the Trees?

Posted on 02 July 2013 by John Britsios

Over the last couple of years, we seem to have been inundated in a swarm of new names for old things. Analog, digital, inbound, outbound, inside-out-upside-down-outboard marketing… enough already!

How about…

Marketing in a Plain Brown Wrapper

“Marketing is marketing” is a statement that many have made, and there’s a good deal of truth in that. But admittedly, marketing in a four-color glossy magazine does have subtle differences from that in a black and white tabloid. Online marketing brings even more differences to the table.

Radio vs. television, billboards vs. flyers, email vs. snail-mail and print vs. Internet… all have some subtle differences. A failure to be familiar with those differences and exploit them could make the difference between success and failure. Different channels offer different opportunities.

At the heart of the issue, however, the goal of marketing is always the same: convince the viewer, reader or user to perform some desired act. Buy it, subscribe to it, donate to it or talk about it – the conversion is what it’s all about to the marketer.

That said, there are styles of marketing that are distinctively different in their approach. In years gone by, for instance, the soft-sell vs. hard-sell was often thought to present the extent of options. But at the end of the day, it’s all marketing. You may use a little different style, some different techniques or a different approach… but it’s all still marketing.

Let’s not conflate styles and techniques with disciplines.

Why Give it a New Name?

It seems someone is always trying to give a new name to an old process or claiming to have invented a new process altogether. Those that have been in Internet marketing since the beginning often scoff at such efforts, while those that are very new to the business may embrace the changes. thinking that doing so puts them on “the cutting edge”.

You need Flash player 8+ and JavaScript enabled to view this video.

The idea that the “new SEO” is social media, content marketing, co-citation or any other of the myriad claims of various marketers is seen as ludicrous by most of us. Yet it seems that every such claim also attracts at least a few avid followers, the number of which is usually in proportion to the notoriety of the promoters of the claim.

Some that have made their name in SEO have gone so far as to remove any reference to SEO from their profile, company name or website. Whether that’s because of a genuine refocusing of their company’s thrust or simply an effort to divorce themselves from a field that has had its share of bad press… that’s anyone’s guess.

Unfortunately, whatever the reason, when a prominent practitioner, widely read industry blogger or otherwise well-known entity says or promotes something, there’s usually a flurry of camp-followers scurrying to take up their hero’s banner. If what is being promoted is crap, then the hero is being irresponsible. With notoriety comes responsibility.

Giving an old protocol a new name can be done for a few different reasons that come to mind:

  • Perhaps the field has changed enough that the old name is no longer accurate;
  • The new name will clarify the process;
  • Maybe it was difficult to get decent search rankings for the old name and a new one would be much less competitive.

I don’t think marketing has changed enough in the last few thousand years to warrant tossing the name “marketing” out the window. Maybe a decent argument could be made for differentiating between print and digital marketing, though. There are nuances to online marketing that aren’t as pronounced in print media – even a couple of unique factors in each.

But interruption vs. permission marketing? Both are simply variations of style. If you’re going to propose that they each need a unique name, then may I suggest work vs. home marketing, male vs. female, single vs. married, maybe even winter vs. summer marketing. A little ridiculous, right?

Yet that seems to be the direction that some would take us. New names keep popping up, as do new meaning for old names (inbound marketing, for instance, referred to call centers long before the Internet was around).

K.I.S.S.

Apparently, some folks just don’t see the irony of muddying the waters in an effort to “clarify” things. Given that most clarification is (or at least, should be) intended for the benefit of those for whom we perform our various marketing tasks, keeping it simple should be the focus, no?

I would suggest online and offline marketing. Both marketers and site owners can certainly understand the distinction. In one basket or the other, they encompass essentially anything any marketer might do. Paid vs. organic breaks down the online possibilities nicely, and requires no renaming.

If there’s confusion among marketers over the flurry of renaming styles and techniques, just imagine the consternation of those outside the industry. To some, it must seem like an effort to baffle them with B.S., rather than dazzling them with brilliance.

The upshot, in my opinion, is that B.S. is some very poor marketing!

Ooh! How about Upshot Marketing?


Comments (0)

What is Your Idea of Online Professionalism?

Posted on 31 August 2012 by John Britsios

Like child-rearing and broccoli, if you ask 50 people what they consider to be the basic tenets of online professionalism, you’re likely to get 50 different answers. But it should be safe to say that professionalism is less subjective than broccoli… or even child rearing, for that matter.

Basic Decency

There ought to be at least a few basics that most people can agree upon, at least in what is euphemistically called “polite society”. For instance, here are just a few that I’d (like to) think most people would buy into:

  • Don’t attack a person’s faith;
  • Don’t make fun of their disabilities;
  • Don’t laugh at their loss of a loved one;
  • Don’t tell them how ugly you think they are.

To commit any of those faux pas would be fairly obvious departures from what most people consider to be “acceptable” behavior, and most of us would be appalled to see someone treat another that way. But there are other ways of presenting oneself inappropriately, without being directly insulting or abusive.

Inappropriate Actions

Some of those slightly less blatant methods might include:

  • Acting in a condescending manner to someone because of their race, gender or sexual orientation;
  • Deliberately ignoring someone for any of the same reasons;
  • Making sexually suggestive remarks or unwanted overtures;
  • Using vulgar or profane language in an inappropriate setting.

In limited circumstances, some of those last can be somewhat subjective, too. But since we’re talking about online professionalism, it should be obvious that we’re making some assumptions.

For instance, we’re talking about individuals that are either conducting business online or that do so at times, and are not totally incognito (which does not imply that said behaviors are acceptable, as long as nobody can identify you).

We’re also assuming that it’s not a setting among a casual group of friends, where certain behaviors might be considered forgivable because of the relationships between the parties.

And most of all, we’re assuming that an individual might reasonably expect a certain level of behavior, because of the open or public nature of that behavior.

Reasonable Expectations

So where does that leave us? We’re in a situation in which a businesslike demeanor can be expected, rather than a bunch of drinking buddies in a bar, and there’s absolutely no reason for anyone to expect to be on the receiving end of:

  • Sexual innuendos or overtures;
  • Vulgar or profane language;
  • Insults or abusive behavior;
  • Any form of discrimination.

That could mean we’re in a place of business, or possibly have business representatives calling on us, either in person or by communication.

Or it could possibly mean we’re in a gathering, where attendees expect to conduct business of some sort.

Finally, it could mean we’re watching a business presentation, such as a conference, webinar or media broadcast of some sort, where virtually anyone might be listening.

In any of those cases, it’s reasonable to not have to be subjected to any of the eight offenses listed above.

The Bottom Line

So, if you receive any of the above from someone that is not one of your drinking buddies, in any sort of environment that can’t be construed as strictly personal, there is something terribly wrong. That would include abusive emails, raunchy jokes, unwanted flirtation, discriminatory comments or actions, F-bombs during a phone conversation, conference or broadcast… the list goes on.

In short, such things are grossly unprofessional and shouldn’t be endured.

In a “no holds barred” forum or chat-room, it’s one thing – people presumable know what to expect – if they choose to stay, that’s their call. But lacking that knowledge and agreement, such things are totally inappropriate.

When a listener may be listening while he works, and his co-workers are suddenly treated to a series of F-bombs, the offense is compounded. If a listener is connected at home, and his wife or children may be within hearing distance, the situation is the same.

In such circumstances, any value that the broadcast might have had to offer may be lost, with the listener electing to skip that benefit rather than subject others to the language. And more importantly, any professional credibility that the broadcaster might hope for can be lost as well.

A Plea

Please, people – if you’re sharing any sort of content with an audience, think about that audience. If you hope to be seen as a professional, then you need to act like a professional. If you can’t do that, your own credibility will suffer for it and you may find others beginning to avoid you.

Tags: , ,


Comments (1)