Comments on: marketing exists…

By: Tiago Silveira

Tiago Silveira — Wed, 24 Jan 2007 16:53:38 +0000

I think that the moment you start creating illusions, you’re selling invisible clothes. Maybe no one will tell the King, but everyone will see him naked. Then a kid says something and everyone starts to laugh.
After reading this blog for so long, I believe marketing is indeed about being honest. That’s why you need to be “totally f*ckin’ amazing” in the first place.

By: KG

KG — Sat, 20 Jan 2007 12:59:10 +0000

Kimber, I view email spam and direct mail very differently. I don’t know anyone who’s ever successfully gotten off a spammer’s email list. As for telemarketing, that’s what the channel changing button or TiVo is for; I don’t let them bother me in the least, unless its 4AM, YouTube is down again, and nothing else is on.
It’s the intention behind the marketing that matters. From what I’ve seen, most email spammers’ intention is to do something fraudulent. But I’ve seen a lot of very authentic, engaging direct mail and some (potentially) helpful telemarketing products.

By: hugh macleod

hugh macleod — Sat, 20 Jan 2007 09:44:39 +0000

“If it works, does that make it bad marketing?”
I would argue with your definition of “works”, Kimber

By: Kimber

Kimber — Fri, 19 Jan 2007 21:12:12 +0000

Aaahhhh…but the reason people use spam is because it works (the same reason people use direct mail which is the low tech version of spam, oh, and telemarketing which is the audio version). If it works, does that make it bad marketing?

By: KG

KG — Fri, 19 Jan 2007 09:23:43 +0000

“Marketing”, in its basic essence, is about effectively communicating a story. Any story.
As said before, marketing can be used for good or for evil.
Spammers are an example of evil marketing. They use deception and inbox-clogging tactics in an attempt to get their stories heard (and scam us somehow).
Most non-profits and charities have marketing departments (or they outsource if they don’t have anything in-house) because they need to get their stories out, too. I regularly get direct mail from the Red Cross, Doctors Without Borders, any number of illness-solving and environmental-protecting foundations. And it’s all marketing! Without this marketing, all these important causes might completely drop off our very crowded radar screens.
A lot of marketers and marketing are doing “good” work!

By: Jim

Jim — Fri, 19 Jan 2007 07:58:58 +0000

I told my wife I was going to get laid, and she asked what marketing genius I was listening to this week.

By: hugh macleod

hugh macleod — Fri, 19 Jan 2007 05:30:06 +0000

Woody, so you can’t tell the distinguish between advertising and marketing, let alone the difference between good and bad marketing?
Next, you’re going to say “marketing” is something only done by middle-aged ex-Ivy League corporates on TV, in 30-second soundbytes. Hey, it’s not 1985 any more. Jeeze Louise
Hint: “Marketing” is not “Messaging”.

By: Woodstock

Woodstock — Fri, 19 Jan 2007 01:20:16 +0000

I know this is an odd question (and I freely admit my ignorance here): is there a basic difference between marketing and advertising I’m just not groking? Or do I need to go back and read Hugh’s posts more closely *before* I have wine?

By: Joaquín

Joaquín — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 23:35:01 +0000

Totally agree if you're trying to desribe LAME marketing. Yes, getting laid is cool and sex (acceptance, for that matter) is a human "whatever word Maslow used to define it" in the eternal journey to become more human. But anyone trying to make a living telling people an equivalent message to "you're soooo dumb that I am taking away part of your time to tell you that you can become less dumb by buying this, by the way look at this sex icon, oh yeah, you'll become more like him/her after you give me your money" doesn't deserve any respect. Totally free to do it, I agree, and there will be a target audience, but that contribution to change the world is soooo 20th century it's not even funny.

By: Woodstock

Woodstock — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 23:26:13 +0000

The driving action piece comes out of the fear mongering: if you don’t use our product you won’t get what you desire (whether that’s getting laid by the person you desire or getting the big house (which gets you laid) or getting the big car (which gets you laid), etc, etc).
Someone commented to me that if I’d said “bad marketing” the definition would be OK. Perhaps the more salient point is that there is more bad marketing (i.e.: selling of products based on fear rather than on merit (or am I just deluded?)) than there is good. Oh, and PS: Perhaps it’s a perception difference based on sex. The messages we women get have been obviously based on fear for years. I think only recently has American marketing turned the same tactic on men.

By: Kimber

Kimber — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 21:31:31 +0000

Getting laid is easy. Its getting laid with the person you desire that’s challenging.
My issue with the definition is the implication that marketing merely provides information. Any monkey (sexually frustrated or not) can do that. Good marketing not only provides information but drives action. The driving action piece is a tad bit more difficult.

By: Mike

Mike — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 21:27:20 +0000

Disagree, for a different reason. If marketing was that easy, everyone would be getting laid, and since we know this not to be true, the whole statement is incorrect!

By: Justin

Justin — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 20:31:06 +0000

Than why does it exist?
Saying you disagree is fine, but it seems kinda lame to put nothing better on the table as to why YOU think it exists…

By: Milan Davidovic

Milan Davidovic — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 19:10:29 +0000

“If marketing was that easy, everybody would be rich.”
But if everyone were rich, *no one* would be; “rich” is relative.

By: woodstock

woodstock — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 18:31:58 +0000

Can I get Jon to come write the rest of my blog for me? In all seriousness: marketing, like alcohol, is probably not inherently evil. More, how it is used is what makes the difference. Someone pointed out in comments on my site that if you substitute sales, management, or anything else in my arguement the same could hold true and that’s probably a valid arguement. Perhaps marketing suffers the same problem that a lot of web technology does: the barriers to entry are low (i.e.: done well it *looks* easy) so people who shouldn’t try it do and then end up doing it badly , and because there are so many people doing it badly (i.e.: doing exactly what I described: using fear to try to sell us something we don’t really need rather than using creativity to tell us about something that we might or might not need but might make our lives more pleasurable if we had it) that they make the rest of marketing look bad. Sort of like being a priest during the Spanish Inquisition and having people cross the road when they saw you coming. You may never haved dunked or tortured anyone for their confession and possessions but who wants to take that risk