Marketing or Representing? Which term is less loaded?
By Tom Foremski - July 7, 2006
me
The term "marketing" is broadly used but it carries a lot of baggage such as "spin" and "selling."
Yes, marketing means so much more than the commonly understood term--it is how product development is monetized. But in many uses of the term "marketing" there is an uncomfortable implication that there is some kind of persuasion or manipulation going on, to sell something for which there might very well be no actual need.
"Selling refrigerators to Eskimos," or "taking coals to Newcastle," are examples of sayings that describe this issue. Marketing often seems to be about the use of persuasive marketing/selling techniques rather than the meeting of real needs--not that the two never coincide.
That's why some people are uneasy about doing "marketing" or "selling" because of cultural associations that seem to be more about smoke and mirrors rather than creating value. For example, many times I have had people tell me that the iPod is rubbish because it is "just marketing." As if "just marketing" can be applied by anybody, as if it can be bought off-the-shelf. Clearly, that is not the case, but that sentiment serves as an example of a less than positive attitude towards the term marketing.
Also, the term marketing doesn't seem to fit easily within the culture of the emerging generation of Silicon Valley Web 2.0/Internet 2.0 startups, (and older companies too). Those companies constantly talk about communities: customers, developers, consumers, etc.
But, do you apply "marketing" to those communities...? Within such a context, the term "marketing" feels uncomfortable, awkward, and even inaccurate.
A better term might be "representing." When you represent someone, or a company, or a service there seems to be an associated meaning that there is some personal integrity involved.
For example, it is difficult "representing" something if you don't believe in it. It is much closer to the concept of "keeping it real."
But "marketing" or "selling" doesn't seem to require the same kind of personal involvement or personal integrity.
"Representing" is also a more apt term in describing the way companies or organizations integrate into their communities. Startup teams and their members "represent" themselves, in their day to day activities, and in their interactions with their communities and peer groups, based on their actions as good citizens, and as good members of their communities. That is much more powerful than "marketing" because it is about walk-the-talk rather than spin-and-win.
If I am "representing" something, rather than "selling" something, it feels like I am much more invested personally--with a company, or product, or service. And it is these types of nuances in meaning that are important and have to be recognized when you represent your business, IMHO.
Also, marketing is a different function and set of skills from corporate communications. Corporate communications should not be run by marketing, as it is in most organizations. Corporate comms should have its own seat in the C-level suite. Communications is a strategy-level function and one of the most important departments within a company.
It is no accident that at Cisco Systems, Dan Scheinman, who heads corporate M&A (the core strategy of Cisco's growth), also heads Cisco corporate communications.
« Rocketboom founders split: Lucaso's recent Amanda interview | Main | This&That: Green envy: the Tesla sports car is coming; 3VR and robot assassins from the future; good review for Long Tail book. »
July 7, 2006 | Permalink | Comment | Category: CultureWatch | Subscribe to SVW
- Top Stories:
- Tech Awards For Benefiting Humanity
- The Death Of The Search Algorithm? Techmeme Has Six Editors
- TEDxSF - Little TED Just Like The Big TED
- SNCR Research: Social Media IS Influencing Business Decisions
- What's Next? Beyond Real-Time...
- PearlTrees: A Novel Approach To Human Mapping Of The Internet
- MediaWatch Analysis Part II: Google Has More To Lose Than Murdoch
- MediaWatch Analysis: Murdoch Will Negotiate Payment For Access To Basket Of Content With GOOG et al
- WeekendWatcher: The Sheer Number Of Things Will Devalue Them
- ChipWatch - Where Will The Next Generation Of Engineers Come From?
- Public Healthcare Could Cut Startup Costs And Help Spur Innovation
- Is GOOG's $750m AdMob Buy Strategic Or Dumb? An alternate view...
Comments (3)
The term "representing" is very appropriate for salespeople, as they do represent the companies they work for. When I sold for a Fortune 100 company I was pleased to say that I represented that company because everyone recognized -- and respected -- the brand.
However, most marketing people are engaged in internal functions that don't "represent" the company out in the marketplace. This includes sales administrators, pricing analysts, strategic planners, as well as people in marketing communications.
Perhaps the biggest challenge to replacing "market" words with "representing" words is changing usage in our society -- such as "supermarket," "Tech Mart," and "Furniture Mart."
It's great to encourage marketing people to be proud to say they "represent" the companies they work for. And, company executives need to work hard creating companies worth representing.
Posted: July 7, 2006 8:03 AM
Tom -- thanks for developing this conversation. You know how I feel. In my mind, there are two big issues: (1) the sad fact that marketing is in such disrepute, and (2) the little-known fact that corporate communications goes well beyond marketing. Theoretically, everyone is a communicator, and the smartest businesses are building communities of communicators.
Posted: July 7, 2006 11:38 AM
Hi, Tom.
I liked your post, and I think you're right that marketing has a bad image. A lot of people in Silicon Valley think marketing = clever lying. They're wrong, but no wonder so many people don't want anything to do with it.
I disagree with your statement that corporate communication should be separated from marketing. I've worked with companies that separated the two, and inevitably the two organizations fought over what the company's core messages should be. Marketing and PR need to be coordinated intimately, and if you separate them at the C level, you won't get that coordination -- or the CEO will have to waste time settling messaging disputes.
Posted: July 10, 2006 12:27 AM