Marketing has been undergoing a slow identity crisis in recent years. Most obviously, it has suffered the ignominy of being ranked with other pariah trades such as banking and real estate:
“Marketing is held in very low esteem. Just as the theme pub receives more than its fair share of public disapprobation, so too marketing is a byword for gimmickry, dissimulation, flim-flam and exploitation.” (Professor Stephen Brown, Professor of Marketing Research at University of Ulster)
Marketing has also become conflated with other related activities such as sales and communication, whilst many of those working in the numerous and growing (many of them digital) sub-disciplines seem to have lost sight of its core purpose and driver. At the same time the focus of attention has become more and more short-term in nature. Little wonder then that much of the outside world both misunderstands and denigrates marketing.
The core of marketing
In many ways marketers have been their own worst enemy. They have failed to establish a sufficiently well recognised series of professional qualifications: the CIM (Chartered Institute of Marketing) certifications are simply not a requirement for employment, or a licence to practice, as in many other professions. Marketers have also not sought to protect the core integrity of the profession, allowing a multitude of misconceptions to flourish on the back of poor practice and the ability of a vast range of activities to be labelled as ‘marketing’.
Perhaps the biggest failure has been the inability of marketing practitioners to hold on sufficiently well to the central tenet of the customer being the start-point for all marketing and business activity. The ability of marketers to understand the different customer groups that an organization serves, or wants to serve, and to translate that understanding into products and services that meet those customer needs, better than the competitor does, lies at the heart of the marketing philosophy. In so doing, marketers build brands that secure the profitable future for businesses, their employees and shareholders.
Nothing that the advent of digital and social media has introduced changes the centrality of this truth; the only modification has been the recognition of the need to understand and serve the needs of a wider group of stakeholder groups, such as local communities, all the actors in the supply chain, society at large and – perhaps most importantly of all – future generations.
The ‘frothy bit’
Marketing has become sidetracked into a concentration on communication. The promotional ‘P’ of classical marketing plays a critical role, its primary purpose being, of course, to convey a compelling story about the product or service being sold, and the brand behind it. The advent of digital and social media has added a lot of firepower to this activity, in particular due to its invaluable interactive nature. But it’s not the core of marketing.
Helen Edwards, in her excellent column in ‘Marketing’, recently referred to the phenomenon of marketers increasingly being so caught up with the ‘frothy bit’ that they have forgotten about the core product, and the supply chain that plays an intrinsic part in the creation of that offer. She states that “marketers have lost their sense of what the word ‘brand’ actually means”.
Clare Sheikh, former marketing head at Vodafone, RSA and ITV has highlighted the rash of new marketing job titles related to the digital world and was recently quoted as saying: “The really scarce skill-set is the one allowing a marketer to judge the right proposition for the right target audience, the personality that will distinguish a brand from its competitors, the right price point and the right media mix to bring it to people’s attention”.
Marketing and sales
The slide towards a concentration on the short-term, on selling and on communication, has led some to propose that marketing and sales should be more formally merged at director level, whilst the CIM itself was recommending a merger of the functions in a report published in late 2011. As many pointed out in the subsequent debate though, the two disciplines fulfil fundamentally different – but connected – roles; not least, one is concerned primarily with long-term strategy, the other with more short-term objectives and targets.
The irony will not be lost on those familiar with the history of modern marketing. In the ’60s and ’70s many organizations, believing that they were being left behind, relabelled their sales departments as marketing departments and their sales managers as marketing managers. Until they took on board that it was a substantially different discipline and mindset, however, they inevitably failed at what they were trying to do. Sales departments and marketing departments each have vital and complementary roles and can be managed successfully together or separately, but we are at risk of going backwards.
The separation of brand and marketing
Responsibility for the organization’s brand, or brands, has traditionally always been the preserve of the marketing function – and still is in most blue-chip marketing organizations. But the tendency for marketing to become more focused on the short-term, and on sales and communication, has begun to result in the division of the marketing function into marketing (i.e. largely communications) and brand (i.e. the strategy) roles, with the appointment of brand directors alongside their ‘marketing’ counterparts.
Some organizations have felt the need to create ‘brand’ roles, separated from marketing roles, to counteract the growing perception that marketing is concerned only with the tactical. Added to this is the tendency for commentators (particularly those with an agenda, such as a digital agency) to try and reinvent history and set up straw men: e.g. that all marketers used to do was ‘push’ sales via mass media.
The brand management role (created by Procter & Gamble in the 1930s) is still the classic marketing role in an organization that ‘gets’ marketing: the mini-general manager coordinating the company’s resources (the 4/7 Ps) to build brand equity and thus fulfil company objectives. Other marketing personnel may well look after other sub-disciplines (including, critically, responsibility for the core product or service), but the management of the brand is seen as an integral part of marketing, driving the other elements, not a separate discipline.
The separation of brand and marketing not only muddies the water, but serves to further reduce marketing’s strategic role. A natural continuation of this trend might well, indeed, result in the merging of marketing with sales; the former being responsible for the communication aspects of selling, but all of it focused on the short-term. Yet we have all experienced in recent years the disastrous consequences of a concentration on the short-term, particularly its calamitous results in banking.
The criticality of strategic marketing
The irony of all this is that the underpinning philosophy of marketing – of serving the needs of customers (and other stakeholders), thus creating stakeholder value, has never been more necessary. As Hugh Davidson commented in an article in ‘Market Leader’: “Marketers spend too much of their time on external communications and not enough on ensuring that the customer’s voice is heard by all their colleagues.”
A recent editorial in ‘Marketing’ made a similar point: that it is critical for marketers to bring their understanding of the customer into the boardroom. This is the strategic role that marketing ultimately fulfils – taking a long-term view of the outside world and identifying the challenges and opportunities for the organization. Operating sustainably is an intrinsic part of this: as Amanda Mackenzie, CMO of Aviva, said at the 2012 Marketing Society Conference: “Marketing needs to be concerned about creating a legacy”. Those who think it is primarily concerned with the latest tweet have failed utterly to grasp its history, purpose and potential.