Marketing: The View from Silicon Valley vs. Madisson Avenue
After participating on a panel on customer conversations at SuperNova yesterday I was asked to prepare a thought for the open mic attendee round table – which, while not new and totally original, I thought would make sense to put up here as well…
Following the organization of our marketing innovation conference a few weeks ago, and after seeing sessions at WOMMA and SuperNova related to marketing, advertising and customer relationships, it dawned on me (probably late – I know that others, like Max Kalehoff, have already made that observation), that there is a huge chasm between the way Silicon Valley/Web 2.0 type people look at marketing and the way Madison Avenue looks at it.
There is more than one difference, but one that deserves particular focus is how Web 2.0-centric people look at “attention” vs. Madison Avenue advertising types focus on “engagement” – and the difference is deeper than just one of perspective – i.e., customer-centric view vs. a marketer-centric view of marketing.
We look at attention as the new scarcity in the marketing value chain – and we analyze how that impacts marketing, brands, and metrics. John Hagel talks about how attention scarcity forces us to shift from the current way of doing marketing, which he summarizes by the 3I’s (intercept, insulate and inhibit), to a new way of doing marketing, which he captures in the 3A’s (attract, assist, and affiliate). With attention scarcity, many people agree that we need to move from product/company-centric brands to customer-centric brands. And with all that comes a call for new metrics based on attention and customer information. Some, like the AttentionTrust, even call for better protection and customer control of their own attention data. All cool and cutting edge stuff when it comes to marketing…
Madison Avenue types on the other hand have finally realized that the eyeballs have gone, that their current metrics are worthless (impressions, CTR, reach, frequency, etc.), and that the new prime time is 9-5. In an effort to create new relevancy they have come up with a new, if somewhat vague, metric – “engagement” (defined by ARF as: “turning on a prospect to a brand idea enhanced by the surrounding context.”)
Of course, there is no way to discount Madison Avenue just yet! While Larry Weber may be right when he says that spending money on traditional media is like pouring water into a sinking boat, instead of out of the boat, the reality is that many marketers are lazy and clueless and continue to operate in their comfort zone – increasing TV advertising in the face of declining viewership, just to name one example.
Remember – change hurts!
[Tags: supernova2006 attention engagement marketing web2.0 madison ave advertising]
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
June 22nd, 2006 at 3:03 pm
Right on Francois!
June 23rd, 2006 at 5:59 am
I still worry we sometimes create “false dichotomies” around all this. It’s not that “old media” no longer does the trick — for instance, I don’t think TV is even close to “being dead” – but it’s more of a trigger or catalyst to something even more important: the deeper involvement and “engagement.” The offline stimulus need no monopolize the marketing mix but it’s often central to getting the conversation started. Max and I were just talking about the oversimplification of the offline versus online debate re: WOM. Offline may stimulate the curiousity, but the online behavior clarifies and deepens the truth. We all need to get far better at reading the 360 mix. Listening is the most critical starting point. Great seeing you in SF, Francois.
June 23rd, 2006 at 11:50 am
Great post. I wonder if the Madison Ave. style advertising turns off the WOM/Web 2.0 tuned customer. I think if there is a call to action in traditional media (the action being to subscribe to the blog or podcast/join the forum/make your own commercial), you could leverage both and attract both types of customers, as you said Pete, the “360 mix.”
The problems with using the mix is that the WOM/Web 2.0 marketers don’t see why you should wast money with something like a TV commercial (part of their selling point), and the Madison Ave. types for the most part don’t get WOM/Web 2.0 other than to say “Google us” in their commercial.
Thinking back to the Web 1.0 bust, there were a ton of TV commercials, but probably not as many calls to action in the form of attention, just come to our site and buy from our e-commerce solution. No facilitation for discussion (maybe with message boards, but blogs are much better in allowing you to lead the discussion, features trackbacks, etc).
June 23rd, 2006 at 12:41 pm
Pete, Nick – thanks for taking the time to post thoughtful comments!
I agree with you Pete that TV is not out yet and that we need to be better at reading the 360 mix. Many traditional marketing folks do not quite get that yet, and while some are starting to pay lip service to it, they are doing it without making any commitments.
I agree with you too Nick. An unfortunate problem with the Web 2.0 crowd is that it is fairly small and has relatively little impact on mainstream marketing except for a niche in tech.
July 25th, 2006 at 7:53 am
Markets without marketing?
Doc Searls has an interesting, albeit provocative, article in the Linux Journal, tiled “Markets without Marketing” (via Horse:Pig:Cow, which has a great follow-up post on it, as does Hugh, who also disagrees). The article has a number of sweeping…