'Digital marketing' to become just 'marketing' in 2013
Share
Digital is set to lose its prefix and just be referred to as “marketing” this year as all marketers’ output will become “inherently digital” over the coming months, Forrester predicts.
The research company forecasts that digital budgets will become 20 per cent of the total, accounting for about $50bn (£31bn) worldwide.
It predicts the momentum of digital disruption will continue to grow across all verticals in 2013 – such as healthcare providers being challenged by personal tracking devices, broadcasters threatened by the likes of YouTube and banking platforms competing with new services such as Square.
Forrester’s “Trends for the B2C CMO to watch in 2013” report warns these disruptors threaten to challenge all businesses if marketers do not expand the utility and value of the experience their brands deliver.
The report, compiled by Forrester’s CMO and market leadership professionals analyst Corinne Munchbach, advises CMOs to work across departments and with executive peers to assess their digital readiness and identify where messages, actions and products can be improved by digital.
Munchbach advises marketers to use surplus budget at the end of the fiscal year or tie funding for new projects to positive business results to ensure their companies commit funding to innovation projects.
Budget should also be reorganised out of channel silos and into new cross-platform teams organised around consumer segments, with experts on the relevant media, channels and devices for that particular vertical, Muchbach says.
The report also advises marketers to maintain a shared “centre of excellence” for broader campaigns to help achieve scale for overlapping initiatives and to establish a multifunctional group from the marketing, R&D, IT and operations divisions to track how digital elevates their parts of the business to improve the brand experience for consumers.
In the UK, online and mobile ad spend increased 13 per cent to £2.6bn in the first half of 2012, according to the IAB and PwCs advertising expenditure report.
Readers' comments (48)
Anonymous | Thu, 10 Jan 2013 4:49 am
What you your saying is not logical as digital marketing cannot be learned over few months! Actually I disagree, Offline marketing and online marketing should be separated because online has too many thing to give that require a full team attention.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | Thu, 10 Jan 2013 12:28 pm
Whether it be online or offline the fact remains that brands need to create an experience for customers and in todays world majority of that experience comes from online initiatives. Offline "push" marketing is becoming obsolete as people are tired of the constant buy my product messages. Tying both online and offline marketing strategies together will be crucial for brands moving forward.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Jonathan Bass (Managing Director, Incentivated.com | Thu, 10 Jan 2013 1:54 pm
There are three different issues being discussed here, between the headline, article and comments: [i] digital marketing is marketing and always has been, which is why there is only ever one marketing director in a business (unless the CEO is mad); [ii] if you are offline (bricks and mortar) then you can’t survive without a digital marketing strategy as well (but that doesn’t mean you have to sell online - ecommerce is not marketing and the high street/trading estate will always exist); however [iii] the most important issue is that digital threats are likely to blind-side you. Brands fail to see them coming. There is form here – poor old Jessops being another example within the last 24 hours. Are the first two issues insight? Probably not. The third one is the one that Forrester (Munchbach) warns about but what the headline of this article does not talk to – digital allows for new business models, i.e. new markets, aka opportunities. It’s the senior marketer’s job (just as much as the CEO’s) to spot these new markets. That’s marketing strategy, not ‘how shall I split my media between TV and online?’ TV vs. online vs. mobile is about tactics. As for the distinction in the headline (marketing/digital marketing, once the market opportunity has been understood), on the one hand no brand can survive without digital (unless they target solely ‘refuseniks’ or ninety years-olds) but on the other what does an expert TV planner (important) know about SEO (equally important), and vice versa? All marketing should report to one person, and so the real question is whether marketing owns ecommerce (no, it's a P&L i.e. a store) and IT (no, it's a different skills-set, but exists to deliver both ecommerce and marketing) or at minimum has a seat at the top table. Many brands are set-up oddly i.e. in an old-fashioned manner. And what about mobile? Is there nothing special about mobile marketing that requires the use of experts? Do we just lump that in with everything else? If I told you that a major airport in the UK sees 50% of its traffic from mobiles would you give the job of optimising this to a generalist; to someone who has never done it before? Experience is where the value-added comes in. The principles are the same, whether offline, digital or mobile ... but the rules/the detail massively different. There are lots of expensive mistakes to make and no need to make the old ones anymore. Don’t ask me to plan and buy TV – I’d get it wrong – but I wouldn’t tell you to junk it. The marketing director must be neutral, but also must employ experienced tacticians in each of the media that he/she determines is part of the tactical mix. More importantly the marketing director must be a business strategist as well, around the boardroom table advising their colleagues about the threats to their business model that digital changes bring. Are estate agents the next group to become extinct? In this digital age do they do much more than hold your key and let a few people in to look around? Couldn’t that we done by the key-holder at your alarm monitoring company? Strategy is not TV vs. online vs. mobile – it’s about asking (and answering) which market should I be in? “Marketing” is the art of exploiting a market. Wikipedia’s definition is wrong, as a lot of other digital things are. Let’s move this debate to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marketing!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Greg | Thu, 10 Jan 2013 2:10 pm
Enhanced Message experience is the key whether it be online or off-line. My experience is that they complement each other and depending on the client's situation one can be better than the other.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Nigel T Packer | Thu, 10 Jan 2013 3:03 pm
The drive for customer attention to increase sales has led many CMOs’ to panic. Throwing resources and money at the latest digital medium guaranteed to make the “big hit” and boost sales.
Before making a decision to spend your budget on a particular digital channel it is important to understand the customer, their needs and their touch points with your organisation. If you do not sort out this riddle then CMOs’ will continue to seek the latest fashion in marketing, spending budgets on a fashion trend not knowing if this is the right direction.
By identifying user needs and the scenarios in which they seek your product or service will help to identify the most suitable medium to invest in and advertise on.
A unified multi-channel strategy is the only way forward and Foresters' report has merit. If it happens is up to the CMOs’ and their willingness to learn.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
will novosedlik | Thu, 10 Jan 2013 3:14 pm
I'm with Anonymous #2. marketing is just marketing. Calling it 'digital' only serves to maintain the wall that digital has thrown up to separate itself from 'traditional' channels. Within organizations, this leads to very unproductive results and totally wasteful power struggles. Get the hell over it, and integrate the channels. Digital vs analog is SO over.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Guy Douglass | Thu, 10 Jan 2013 3:55 pm
As Nigel has implied, marketing is about touchpoints with the consumer. What greater touchpoint than the product itself and the packaging that protects it (at least in packaged goods marketing!)? It must not be forgotten that regardless of the other marketing activity floating around a brand it is the product and its packaging that must be right for a long term relationship with the consumer to be built.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Devan | Thu, 10 Jan 2013 3:55 pm
I totally disagree. Digital marketing is completely different than off-line marketing. The two should remain separate because they are two different forms of marketing. Companies are just investing more into digital marketing (as they should), but it has nothing to do with what "marketing" and "digital marketing" should be called.
If you were to hire a new marketing person to do digital marketing, the job title would be something like "Digital Marketing Manager." That's how you attract the right applicants for the job -- the people who apply will have digital marketing focuses. People with out digital marketing experience are less likely to apply. ... because they're two different things!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Lauren | Thu, 10 Jan 2013 4:30 pm
Completely agree with Anonymous #2 and Will. Digital is just another channel/part of the mix; all strategies need to be integrated and for that to truly happen, any all-round marketer should be disciplined in 'marketing' and 'digital marketing'.
Personally, I have never differentiated between the two (except for targeting) and don't understand why companies fragment the disciplines.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | Thu, 10 Jan 2013 5:04 pm
I agree with Jonathan Bass. All sound points.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
David Moon | Thu, 10 Jan 2013 5:40 pm
It's certainly not budgeted with traditional marketing in most companies. As someone else said, digital marketing is a channel. As is any segment of marketing. As long as digital continues to evolve, it'll continue to be a hot channel to explore. And even if we are due for a merge of "Marketing" with "Digital," it'll take some time before everyone gets the message.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | Thu, 10 Jan 2013 6:45 pm
Your business website, and social media, internet etc are just tools that marketers can use to attract, engage and convert prospects.
So in that sense digital marketing is just marketing. Digital marketing is such a broad term too. Pretty soon everybody will be connected online 100% of the time.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Joshua Cabe Johnson | Thu, 10 Jan 2013 7:18 pm
The problem with generic verticals in all markets for marketing is that it weakens the demand for high skill levels of expertise to market areas of marketing departments. Having a specialists in Link Building and a PPC specialist are two totally different skill levels. But, they are shoved under one roof of what the market calls "SEO". So, most of the time, you hire out for marketing in a generalized idea of "Marketing" you are going to get a generalized marketing experience with possible Brand Name Decay. Are we to just hire "Marketing" specialist now? Marketing in what? There are so many areas here that should not be generically marked.
Just saying, we as business owners AND specialists need to make sure we don't get lazy with our budgets or services.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | Fri, 11 Jan 2013 1:19 am
I totally disagree. Digital marketing is completely different than off-line marketing. The two should remain separate because they are two different forms of marketing. Companies are just investing more into digital marketing (as they should), but it has nothing to do with what "marketing" and "digital marketing" should be called.
If you were to hire a new marketing person to do digital marketing, the job title would be something like "Digital Marketing Manager." That's how you attract the right applicants for the job -- the people who apply will have digital marketing focuses. People with out digital marketing experience are less likely to apply. ... because they're two different things!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Valer Merenyi (WSI Media Consulting) | Fri, 11 Jan 2013 7:49 am
The article and the comments remind me of another article I recently read (and found worth sharing via social media).
http://socialmediatoday.com/maggiefox-social-media-group/1052366/why-marketers-will-rule-world?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=linkedin
There's an element of truth in both points of view. Digital Marketing is part of Marketing, but B2C CMOs can't afford not taking note of customers migrating away from TV, print, even email and simple websites to mobile and social.
The CMO's role is changing and those who are not comfortable, or indeed proficient working with technology, big data, analytics, those who can't bring "those skills and combine them with a deep love and passion for the marketing mix" will ultimately drag their company down.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Tim Mace | Fri, 11 Jan 2013 7:53 am
'Digital' is an amazingly capable and complex media tool, which is undoutedly the big game changer of recent times, but media is pointless without MESSAGE in marketing a brand successfully. Perhaps 10 years from now Digital will have become outmoded, but never the message.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Simon | Fri, 11 Jan 2013 10:43 am
I disagree with this ridiculous statement. Yes digital marketing is more prevalent than ever and research underpins this- but is not marketing in its entirety.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Hy Haberman | Fri, 11 Jan 2013 3:00 pm
As someone who proudly considers himself a true professional marketer, I'm surprised by this article. There is little doubt that 'digital marketing' continues to play a greater role in marketer's plans and budgets. But saying that it should lose its 'digital' prefix is somewhat foolish.
Of course it is 'marketing', but so too is advertising, sales promotion...and for that matter pricing and packaging. So should these just be called 'marketing'? What's wrong with being recognized as a specific area or discipline? Are its practitioners feeling unappreciated?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Steven Herron | Fri, 11 Jan 2013 3:33 pm
Maybe we need a new term; one that encompasses all aspects of what a VP of Marketing must be doing and be knowledgeable of. In 2005, the head of HyperDisk Marketing and well know speaker about online trends, Steven V. Seghers, related to "Fusion Marketing" in which all marketing efforts revolved around a website much like electrons in their orbits around the nucleus in an atom. Those "orbiting" efforts - direct mail, email, print, radio and television, and even exhibiting at trade shows, etc. - should be driving prospects and customers into the core (the website) for data collection, tracking and measurement.
This industry is constantly evolving as we all know. Shouldn't the term used to describe it evolve as well?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
David Burdon | Fri, 11 Jan 2013 4:41 pm
I thought "digital marketing" became "marketing" about 2003. That is the year Google and Yahoo (then as Overture) really broke through.
Seems Marketing Week is playing catch up. Yes I know they have other titles.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Dave | Fri, 11 Jan 2013 6:09 pm
Are we talking about advertising or marketing.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Tina Wascovich | Sat, 12 Jan 2013 5:33 pm
Relevant discussion, I agree with trend. Broadly stated, Marketing is many things, a tool to strategize about your business and determine who you are to customers, what unique (product/ service/ problem/need) do you provide to your customer and how do you communicate that offer to them. Within the marketing discipline there is a structure, process, people and tools...In the end, how a company determines to structure or title the (pieces/parts) will be most relevant when they keep the customer and not the organization in mind.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Alauddin H Hemraj | Sun, 13 Jan 2013 1:54 pm
I feel there is a great advantage in the points
raised by the initiator, but Jonathan Bass's comments are certainly worth studying.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Bob Quaglia | Sun, 13 Jan 2013 3:52 pm
J. Bass - do you have a blog I can follow?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Zoe Buckingham | Mon, 14 Jan 2013 1:00 pm
Good points raised above. However, digital strategies require a very high level of training and experience. Are all marketing directors ready for the challenge?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Tom Beakbane | Mon, 14 Jan 2013 3:47 pm
Marketers are naturally territorial, I suppose. "Digital media experts" are different to "direct mail" experts and so on – however what is undeniable is that digital tools are infusing EVERY aspect of marketing. And the best way to achieve success is to integrate communication together and also recognize that sales and marketing run on a continuum. See integratedbrands.org for hundreds of case studies that prove this point.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Rob Booth | Mon, 14 Jan 2013 4:14 pm
Glad to see Forrester's prediction - I mentioned this in my SocialMediaToday.com post last October about avoiding BDD 'buzzword drowning death.' http://socialmediatoday.com/boothyboy/926026/3-suggestions-avoid-bdd-buzzword-drowning-death
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Joanna Vaiou SEO Director | Mon, 14 Jan 2013 7:09 pm
It is funny how there are still so many businesses that know so little about how important it is to have a digital presence. Online marketing is a multi-dimensional process and requires time and the smooth cooperation and mutual understanding of many departments in an organization. This is usually very challenging especially because each department sees things its own way.
The CFO will worry about his ROI from investing in online new media, the IT Dep will worry about the work that will need to be done in the source code of the website and so forth.
It ain't no lie. the world of businesses is becoming digitalized and along with the offline and traditional ways of building a business, it is an essential combination to achieve maximum results.
To the digital world evolution! To all these that have yet to come!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | Mon, 14 Jan 2013 7:32 pm
Agree with Lauren and practice the same way.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Diane | Tue, 15 Jan 2013 3:19 am
I doubt that you will convince the baby boomers who hold much of the disposable income that digital marketing is marketing. For these folks, marketing comes in many forms, all of which lead to profit for the marketers and the companies represented.
Facebook is still struggling with profitable digital marketing. The bulk of followers are minors with limited spending capability.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Marcel Huijsmans | Tue, 15 Jan 2013 7:16 am
Offline, online, digital, spatial: many channels to choose from to create a customer experience through customer touchpoints. But in the end it is all about the customer and the customer defines the channel to use and they determine how they want to be reached by marketing. If you are not 100% sure that your target customer can only be reached by one channel you better choose to use a mix of channels. One consumer configures its new car online with the nice car configurator, the other one wants to read the brochure (offline) and look at the options and a third demands a test drive (spatial). One channel does not exclude the other. As a marketing manager its your job to determine the right channels and an optimal return on investment from the chosen mix. Once decided you use experts to engage the customer.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Hannah Jones | Tue, 15 Jan 2013 12:39 pm
We treat digital marketing as an arm of our overall marketing strategy & therefore will continue to use both terms.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Stuart McDowall | Tue, 15 Jan 2013 12:50 pm
In my opinion Marketing is a concept, wider than Digital Marketing. Digital Marketing is a channel to deliver this concept!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | Tue, 15 Jan 2013 1:09 pm
I have had responsibility for digital marketing in many of my roles and I agree that digital marketing will integrate more within traditional marketing roles. It is part of the communications mix now,so should be embraced at least on some level by marketers and it will always be a distinct advantage to understand how offline and online work in integrated campaigns.Where I think organisations are failing in the digital arena is when they employ the IT team to look after it.The approach needs to be closely aligned to brand personality and therefore should always sit within marketing teams.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Chris Manning - CEO, SearchEngineOptimizationInAtl | Tue, 15 Jan 2013 3:15 pm
I am going to have to say that there is still a pretty significant distinction between "Traditional" and "Digital" media.
Every day I see companies loosing large buckets of money to traditional firms who say they are "PR or Marketing Firms" that barely scratch the surface of "Digital Marketing" and are simply trying to do their traditional marketing in an electronic way or they are a broker for a 3rd party provider driving up the cost of media buys.
The challenges that traditional businesses are experiencing today is that they are "hiring" traditional marketing experts and firms in positions and for projects where a solid "digital strategy" needs to be implemented.
This is being done under the notion that "Marketing is Marketing" and they have a proven PR track record over the last 20 years so they must be good. This is simply not the case with the syndication of Digital Media...
A good example would be to say that an analog T.V. repair guy that has been the best for the last 20 years could repair a 3-D LED T.V. which is like night and day in terms of technology.
There are very good uses of "Traditional" and "Digital" media and in many cases a blended campaign of both can meet the needs of today's corporations.
The key is not simply spending but Strategy!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Philip | Tue, 15 Jan 2013 4:34 pm
I agree with Lauren, Anonymous #2 and Will. I use Direct Mail to market businesses and realize there is a difference between the two. However, you must use the two in marketing to be effective. While my strategy began using the Mail approach, I quickly realized the need to include (add to) the Digital. All in all, I refer to it all as Marketing. It's like Martial Arts. There are different styles, disciplines and facets but it's all Martial Arts. The same is true of Marketing in my opinion.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Iuliana Alexandrescu | Wed, 16 Jan 2013 9:55 am
Why does digital marketing strictly mean online and mobile? I'm curious to get your take on where new technologies fit in, such as digital interactive screens which can export the online experience directly into the mall/cinema/street/etc. and actively engage the user in a fun and memorable way - something that a static poster can't accomplish. I'm referring to this technology: http://www.atramedia.com/ (full disclosure: it's my own company, but I think the discussion is valid).
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | Thu, 17 Jan 2013 0:18 am
What do you think about Colleges now offering degrees in social media vs. a traditional marketing or communications degree?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Alan Kittle, Creative Director, Mason Zimbler | Thu, 17 Jan 2013 8:15 am
I wholeheartedly agree with Jonathan Bass’ commentary, particularly “Experience is where the value-added comes in. The principles are the same, whether offline, digital or mobile ... but the rules/the detail massively different”. Integrated marketing has been around for a long time – you would think we’d all understand the benefits by now. The best integrated agencies added a strong digital offering a long time ago and truly integrated creative thinkers don’t think about channels at the conceptual stage. So I say, don’t stop with removing marketing prefixes – dispense with client and agency labels too – make 2013 the year outdated tags were resigned to the history books.
My first creative director, who’d trained as an architect, encouraged me to follow the “form follows function” principal. If you combine that with the proven benefits of creative driven by audience insight, then you don’t need to label marketing as digital, traditional, mobile, ambient or direct.
I’d be genuinely disappointed if, when talking to a client, they were determined to ring-fence their marketing channels and failed to see the value in joined-up strategic thinking. Because audiences don’t act in a neat, vertical way – they are using their smart devices while watching television and sharing social content while reading newspapers on the bus. Chief Marketing Officers may have appointed rosters for each channel to gain from specialist experience. Therefore, they need to encourage those roster agencies to work together by embracing divergent thinking, then converge the best ideas so that audiences benefit from a consistently strong experience. Rather than getting hung up on prefixes we should be pursuing the perfect way to engage…find your audience’s story and show them where your brand fits in.
Inspire audiences, don’t pigeon hole them.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | Thu, 17 Jan 2013 3:37 pm
To be an effective internet/digital marketer you need to know:
Web design
HTML
CSS
SEO
UX
UI
Social Media
Content Marketing
Email marketing
Analytics
Conversion optimisation
etc...
Traditional marketing people just do not have these skills. Not ones that I've met anyway. Most traditional marketing people just blag their way into digital roles without knowing anything and then get the wool pulled over their eyes by "specialist" agencies whose only interest is to make as much money as possible. Results aren't their priority because 95% of marketers don't even know what results to look for and that's even IF they're looking at the results.
Even people that I've met with QUALIFICATIONS in digital marketing do not even have the skills to make their own website... not even using a CMS (most don't even know what a CMS is).
Saying that digital marketing is to become marketing may be right (due to ignorant people hiring ignorant people), but will ultimately mean that the industry is -- even more so --- full of people who don't know what they're doing, wasting their company's money and who are even too ignorant to realise that they're doing it.
No wonder there's so many new start-ups in London; digital marketing people (who actually know what they're doing) are jumping ship and taking the risk to start up their own companies... and leaving people who don't know what they're doing to rot in their ignorance.
"Better dead than smeg"
Arnold J Rimmer
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Jeremy Heilpern | Thu, 17 Jan 2013 3:40 pm
It's easy to say "digital marketing is just marketing", but harder to determine how best you give a specialized medium the treatment within an organization that it needs to be successful. Because at the end of the day, you're fighting with pure play digital organizations for the same talent (like Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc). If you don't use proper titles, do you end up downplaying your ability to execute against that discipline? For example, calling a UX Designer an Art Director. Each comes with preconceived expectations of what the role does.
Pushing the idea further: is marketing just marketing because digital marketing should be synonymous with what traditional marketing was? Or has digital marketing become the norm, and subsequently has become simply "marketing" with the traditional pieces now being the anomaly?
I think the big take away is this: digital people need to understand marketing, messaging, and concepting. And those with the more traditional creative/marketing experience need to understand digital. It stops being seen as to separate disciplines, when people start having both of them integrated in the way they think.
A good example would be: you don't have an Digital Creative Director, you have a Creative Director with digital experience.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | Thu, 17 Jan 2013 4:08 pm
@Alan Kittle
"Inspire audiences, don’t pigeon hole them."
It's exactly those kind of comments (even when punctuated properly) that are unhelpful to our industry.
It's not about inspiring people; it's about making money.
Have you ever had a return on investment on anything you've "inspired people" with in your life? I doubt it.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Nikhil Narayan | Fri, 18 Jan 2013 3:11 pm
At UnifiedM we believe digital is at the core of all marketing. Budgets are being spent on brand visibility but equally to get consumers onto websites and social media platforms.
We think marketing strategy should be spread commonly across all forms of marketing but inherently think digital. Real world marketing needs to be oriented to direct into digital.
As real-world marketing becomes more digital driven, campaigns will have ideas that drive commonly and synergically across all channels. Digital then does become just a channel among several but the thinking places digital at the centre of strategy and creative.
While in the past we have conceptualised campaigns for the real-world and adapted for digital, it will be inverted going forward. All campaigns will base their thinking for the digital medium and extend these into real-world campaigns (print, television, outdoor, etc) so that they become digital centric.
I am only surprised by the speed with which Forrester thinks this will happen. It means that marketing and brand managers are adapting and transforming their marketing faster than we would have imagined.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
James Trezona, MD, Mason Zimbler | Mon, 21 Jan 2013 1:18 pm
We are already seeing innovative and leading brands such as P&G and Microsoft reorganise themselves to have Digital as a horizontal capability across their marketing teams. They are working hard to make sure it permeates everything, as offline activity can be strengthened and made more effective with digital integration.
At Mason Zimbler, we integrated our online and offline teams 5 years ago. We realised that our clients’ customers did not see the world through the lens of channels, and for us to provide REAL insight and strategic direction, we had to understand consumers’ relationships with brands and the rich stories that exist, which digital enables us to enhance. This is impossible in falsely segregated and heterogeneous channel-centric marketing models.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Siodhna McGowan | Mon, 21 Jan 2013 4:25 pm
I think the informed comments on this piece make it all the more interesting. I predict the digital revolution to continue to disrupt, morph and adapt over the coming years. The ensuing fuss, I suspect, will not subside for years yet. However unhelpful, the distinction between online and offline options will probably continue over the coming years.
Digital marketing descriptions are too broad covering Paid, Search, SEO, Email, Content, Viral, Blog etc but so was Traditional Marketing covering formats like TV, radio, outdoor, PR, press, guerrilla, direct – can all do quite different jobs.
My background is FMCG marketing and I’d easily say traditional marketing had wallowed overly much in its glory days and at times lost its creative, storytelling way. Marketing should be all about bring a business story or brand to life for its audience. It strips away the facts and features and connects emotionally with its target.
The big positive of the digital revolution – giving every small business a voice - has been its one big negative too whereby SMEs focus on the free voice and not on what should be said.
Unchallenged traditional methods of marketing had sometimes ended up a numbers game that the larger businesses won. Digital, mobile, social media and content marketing has changed all that and for a time they will remain in different spaces in SME mindsets.
But I wholeheartedly agree with the comments that it's the strategy that needs focus. The smoke and mirrors and mystifying new wizardry should settle more so that all that's left are the basic questions of who, what, when, were, why.
Dgital needs to work across all the elements to make the end result more effective, efficient.
Digital can’t change bad planning. Nor make the marketing plan.
What's your elevator pitch? What problem does your business solve? Who are you aimed at? How are you really different from those who say they do what you do? How can you connect more meaningfully with your audience? How can you sell without being perceived as selling?
Marketing is everything you can do to understand your market, and using that knowledge to tell your story better to your customers … in a language they understand and a place they can find.
Online or offline needs less distinction, and ‘what’s your story’ more.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | Wed, 23 Jan 2013 1:49 pm
I have worked in digital marketing for the past 19 years todate , as a senior digital marketer specialist and as a senior IT project contractor.I have both combined skillsets and experience.
I have worked across 80 UK and Global brands, to fully understand the essence of this debate..
Although, I have traditional off-line marketing skillsets and expertise.I also studied Information Technology combined with Marketing many years ago.
With the above combined skillsets..I went on to specialise in DIGITAL MARKETING.
As contractor with 19 experience, I only take on digital marketing projects only.
Why ?
Businesses today, need a specialist digital marketer with both skillsets, a candidate who speaks both languages,( i.e. marketing and digital technology = digital marketing) who have proven track record to support their business moving forward.
Digital marketer specialist drive the UK and Global economy right now and in the current triple - dip global recession.
We are all slowly watching the DEATH OF THE HIGH STREET RETAIL STORES disappear, this proves my point.
As consumers prefer to shop more online with access to mutl channels web mobile social media etc all digital driven platforms.
With weak brands/businesses set up prior to the DIGITAL AGE, who refused or failed to embrace DIGITAL TECHNOLOGY fully now going bankrupt on the high street.
Whilst stronger brands/businesses are booming and expanding using cutting-edge digital technology and savvy digital marketing strategies and, techniques to gain market share.
2011 todate proves my point ,as consumer buying habits are ever changing and constantly evolving with advancement in new digital technology i.e..yesterday's mobile phone is today;s smartphone turned into digital tablets, your ipad, kindle, samsung galaxy all the current consumer rave now but not for long ? and so on etc..
Businesses can no longer ignore or depende on " bricks and water" business model and traditional marketing to expect to be profitable, The old traditional marketing rules no longer applies in today's digital age market..
Digital marketing needs to retain its true IDENTITY and DEFINITION to remind businesses that to survive in today's global market, they need to invest in digital marketing and digital technolog in an agressive market condition.
THIS IS WHY I AM HIRED AS A " TECHNICAL DIGITAL MARKETiNG SPECIALIST TO HELP BUSINESSES
BECOME MORE PROFITABLE ONLINE,
Some traditional marketers shy away from digital marketing because they are technology shy i.e. they dont like computers, they lack confidence and due to lack of qualification .training, skillsets and experience.i.e. they may have needed worked in digital marketing.
Others like me i.e. techncial digital marketing specialist are PASSIONATE ABOUT ALL THINGS DIGITAL..
Therefore, there has to be a distinction made between "traditional marketing" and "digital market" for clarity.
If a business is sending out direct mailshots through the post that is "traditional marketing"
and
if a business is sending out an email campaign via web social media mobile that is "digital marketing" is my point here.
Its the way ROI and KPI analysis are traced and measured ? the question for most business today is ; which type of marketing discipline is making us the most money to secure the business future ?
Finally, to combine the above 2 examples under the use of a generic term "marketing" is totally unacceptable and unprofessional.
Its all about clarity for businesses to invest in which channel or multichannels that is profitable for their business - this is the key factor for this debate: its either marketing or digital marketing but not "generic marketing".
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Ahmed Ansari | Wed, 23 Jan 2013 4:16 pm
Mixed comments and all debatable. My definition of Digital Marketing is any form of marketing that can be implemented and monitored digitally. While some of us are separating TV, Print, Outdoor etc from digital but one must realise that all of these channels can and do function digitally and can be measured.
Secondly, as Jonathan Bass has indicated, the opportunities. Marketers must remember that now, with just one click, their brand can go global, which means new markets and opportunities.
Until late 80's and early 90's most advertising agencies were functioning as 'full service' agencies. After that era new agencies, specialising in specific areas started to emerge e.g. media buying, planning etc. Similarly in marketing the trends will need to change and instead of a CMO trying to do everything we should start employing specialists to head specific areas.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Gray Sycamore | Wed, 23 Jan 2013 6:18 pm
The massive increase in mobile device usage has made much of what we know about "digital marketing" redundant in a fairly short space of time. Mobile is neither on or offline, so will blur these no longer relevant, channel specific terminologies even further. The tipping point will be when brands realise that more than %50 of their web traffic comes from mobile and tablets, traffic that will by then relate to both on and offline consumer behaviour. On the current trajectory that tipping point is only months away. So yes, all digital marketing will effectively become just “marketing” by default. It won’t mean everyone will be any good at it though.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment