Root wisdom

Electric cars haven’t changed the need for a highway code. The ability of AI to scan medical imaging hasn’t altered the basics of clinical practice. Should digitisation change the core principles of marketing?

A tree needs deep roots to deal with strong wind, as well as the ability to flex to the new. In the same way, marketing needs a mission (or definition) that is robust enough to guide its thinking, practice and skillset through intensifying change.

1 – Parole parole – the quest to define marketing

And so to the first question: what the heck is marketing? How, if at all, are leading think tanks changing root definitions? And how well are marketers prepared to deliver?

Marketers are struggling with our own elevator pitch

The UK-based Chartered Institute of Marketing (CIM) has been a leader in marketing standards for over a century. Its 2020 survey of marketing professionals [1] revealed a finding that may surprise some more than others:

Not surprisingly, only around a quarter believed their colleagues had a clear idea of what they did.

Marketing has always been a demanding blend: strategy, analytics, creativity and technology. When it comes to tech, digitization has opened up a dazzling array of channels, content formats, SEO, pay-per-click, all against a backdrop of algorithm-driven marketing.

The CIM findings confirm that stakeholders are finding it difficult to see the wood for the trees. Ironic, for a profession that involves communicating value. (Or does it? I’m already lost). Let’s go on.

So, what is marketing?

In 1976, the CIM forged the following definition:

In 2007, after a serious examination of the changing role of marketing, it proposed a new version [2]. The idea was to reflect marketing as embedded, strategic, and customer-centric. Adding value not just to business, but (vitally in my view) to wider society:

However carefully-conceived this definition was, marketers were unconvinced. Campaign Magazine sniffed that it swapped “brevity for verbosity” and didn’t represent any real improvement on the original formulation.

The CIM has since reverted to its original core definition. Even so, in its own elevator pitch the CIM incorporates the all-important societal dimension of its role:

Meanwhile the American Marketing Association has been supporting the profession since 1937. Its definitions of marketing (and market research) are reviewed every three years. In 1985:

In 2004 the AMA issued a new proposal [3]. Like the CIM 2007 equivalent, this emphasised customer focus. However, it didn't extend to society at large.

Whilst the proposal met positive feedback, there were also rumblings of discontent by practitioners and scholars regarding its narrow scope. The AMA 2007 re-definition, (re-affirmed in 2017), extended to a ‘set of institutions and processes’, creating value not just for customers but for 'society at large'.

The Association Française du Marketing (AFM) was founded in 1984. Its current definition of marketing [4] was ratified in 2016. This also emphasises value creation, (without widening the scope to ‘society at large’). It also takes into account negative perceptions of marketing (such as ‘manipulation’, or ‘hot air’). This could explain the inclusion of ‘equitable’ in its formulation :

Profit or value? And for whom?

We therefore land with these 3 definitions.

1. CIM (UK): "The management process responsible for identifying, anticipating and satisfying customer requirements profitably."

2. AMA (US): “The activity, set of institutions, and processes for creating, communicating, delivering and exchanging offerings that have value for customers, clients, marketers and society at large.”

3. AFM (France): “A specific vision of exchanges. These must be equitable, and imply the creation of value for each of their stakeholder groups (individuals, organisations, institutions)."

After much thought and many expressos, I still love the succinctness of the CMI version. I learnt it when I started out. And I’ve been pompously citing it to colleagues ever since.

However, I’m going to land with the AMA mantra. It combines:

• A ‘set of institutions’ rather than a silo

• The specific reference to the ‘creation’ of offerings

• The emphasis on ‘value’ rather than ‘profit’

• The widening of the scope to ‘society at large’.

This last point is essential. It is fully in step with ESG thinking and positions marketing as a vital driver of responsible business activities.

It’s important to recall that the CIM’s 2007 re-work stated that marketing: “contributes to positive behavioural change and a sustainable business future." And that the CIM positions its own role as: “Creating marketing advantage for the benefit of professionals, business and society”. Who knows, perhaps societal value will one day be (re) incorporated into its core definition of marketing?

The channels may have evolved. The fundamentals still stand.

None of these three definitions mentions digitisation (or ethics linked to, for example, the use of data in digital marketing). Understandably so. The CIM, the AMA and AFM have a separate Ethical Code of Conduct for members. And we could see core definitions as missions, with a timeless quality. Again, these are the roots that stabilise a tree in changeable weather conditions.

So where does this leave digital? Even if it’s not included in today’s core definitions of marketing, it’s hardly a passing phase.

The Digital Marketing Institute was founded in 2009 to offer a global certification to practitioners. It offers a rich online library of thought leadership in the arena. Interestingly, the DMI partners with the AMA to offer dual certification on – nota bene - ‘core course content’.

The DMI recently published an article on social media strategy [5]. The author links a social media marketing strategy with a social media content strategy and differentiates the two.

Elements of the strategy include factors that a marketer working in 1976 would probably recognise: set business goals, research the audience and competitors, choose the platforms and create target audiences. I couldn’t agree more.

2 - Drilling down to skilling up - the erosion of root marketing skills

In his foreword to Part 2 of the CIM report: ‘The Impact of Marketing’ [6] CIM Chief Executive Chris Daly raised a widespread view among the marketing community that core skills continued to be sacrificed due to the focus on digital (according to 60% of the people the CIM spoke to).

He warned:

The gaps in root competencies revealed by the report are striking. For example, 59% didn’t feel copywriting skills were common in the sector, 61% saw data analysis as a gap, and a third even cited a lack of communication skills. Without these skills, any digital communications initiative will fail to fulfill its marketing mission.

Are these the grumblings of digital dinosaurs?

The belief that a focus on digital skills comes at the expense of core marketing skills “was felt significantly more keenly amongst 25-44 year olds than those over 45”. Even so: “Those over the age of 45 were also more likely to feel their organisation lacked the processes and knowledge to equip them for the future.”

No wonder 28% of respondents felt under-equipped to perform their role. Equally worryingly, 35% of the marketing professionals surveyed had received zero training over the past two years.

Commenting on the findings in the report, Clare Kemsley, Director of Hays Marketing, said: ”I’m looking forward to seeing how marketers responded to this blended approach – utilising technology whilst retaining the essence of marketing is. Continuing to pioneer in a new era of work while staying true to what makes us different will put marketers in pole position to thrive through changes and the inevitable challenges the future will bring.”

The report concludes:

Conclusion: An organisation needs a mission around which it assembles the skills it needs. So, too, does marketing. As the storms of digitisation shake the marketing tree, strong roots have never been more important. Fortunately, thanks to the intelligence and diligence of thought leaders and practitioners, the roots are there, (even if we can’t always see them). Rather than being overwhelmed by storms, a clear sense of why we’re doing what we do (and how) will enable us to draw on this fresh energy, and grow stronger and more relevant than ever.

SOURCES

1 ‘The Impact of Marketing, Part 1, The Mission for Marketing’, Clapperton, G., Butler, G., Delves, J., Ralph, J., Opinium (2020), The Chartered Institute of Marketing (CIM).

2 ‘Shape the Agenda paper, Tomorrow’s Word: Re-evaluating the Role of Marketing’, Thorp, D., (2007), CIM.

3 ‘The American Marketing Association’s New Definition of Marketing: Perspective and Commentary on the 2007 Revision’, Grundlach, G.T., and Wilkie, W.L., (2009), The American Marketing Association (AMA).

4 Le marketing souffre d'une image negative aupres d'un tiers des francais. Beji-Becheur, A., Decrop, A., Nabec, L., (March 1, 2023), The Conversation.

5 ‘How to Develop a Social Media Strategy That Drives Brand Awareness and ROI’, O’Brien, C., (2022), The Digital Marketing Institute (DMI).

6 ‘The Impact of Marketing, Part 2, Digital Vision, Living on the Cutting Edge’, Clapperton, G., Butler, G., Delves, J., Ralph, J., Opinium (2020), The Chartered Institute of Marketing (CIM).

Notes:

• I’ve taken the CIM, AMA and AFM as examples. Other notable examples include the Academy of Indian Marketing (affiliated with the AMA) and founded in 2009. The Australian Marketing Institute was founded in 1933.

• The AFM distinguishes marketing as a concept, from marketing management and research. The AMA distinguishes marketing as a concept, from market research.