24. November 2003

[ English , Marketing , Zitate ]

"What is Marketing?"

John Moore puts it beautifully:

"Marketing is the process of getting stakeholders to engage in relationships that create value."

Trackbacks sind Links von anderen Weblogs auf diesen Eintrag.

Interesting comment - and my riposte - over at Martin Roell's blog, relating to my recent post on what is marketing?...

The Ourhouse Weblog: What is marketing? (cont) (26.11.03 12:48)


i very much prefer the AMA definition, which is "planning and executing the conception, pricing, promotion, and distribution of ideas, goods, and services to create exchanges that satisfy individual and organizational objectives"

[see http://www.marketingpower.com (AMA site]

with your definition, marketing can be anything where there is someone "getting" (?) stakeholders (very broad) to engange in relationships (extremely broad) that create value (metrics? perspective).

so, while it may be beautiful prose, i find it pretty useless as a definition.

Max Niederhofer am 26.11.03 11:06 #

Interesting comments, and let's be clear, anyone can define marketing to suit their purpose. I'm sure the AMA's works for them.

But I don't like it. Partly because it so dreadfully dull and uninspiring.

I increasingly view human systems as complex, and therefore best understood with rules of thumb and principles that are, intentionally, imprecise. I'm biassed against trying to exert excessive control and I'm fed up with what are often very bogus and context-less metrics.

I think that most marketing is dishonest and wasteful because it fails to acknowledge its wider impact on society; I use the term stakeholder to remind us that marketing impacts on a great range of people other than direct consumers. I use relationships in the same spirit. And I am weary of the obsession with metrics; many thingks of value - perhaps the most valuable things - cannot be measured.

I'm glad Max thinks my definition "may be" beautiful prose; not least because he demonstrates a willingness to embrace ambiguity, which I'm all in favour of :)

John Moore am 26.11.03 12:33 #

True, anyone can define "marketing" to suit their purpose. Then again, anyone can define "tree" to suit their purpose. That doesn't make trees terribly different to what they were before.

My point is that we just may have slightly different feelings towards what a definition should be. My feeling is that definitions should add value by being useful in many different contexts. By nature, definitions narrow a meaning. The balance between these two - useful beyond time/space/politics yet sufficiently narrow - makes for good definitions.

While I admit that human systems are complex, heuristics and "imprecise" principles are often just an excuse for voluntary unconsciousness: not thinking. When anyone proposes a definition, they exercise control. Your advocating a bias against control while trying to exert it seems slightly hypocritical.

But I think we are just different. Most things of value - and the most valuable things - can surely be measured. Perhaps not metrically, but surely ordinally...

Just to sum up: the "may be" in my statement is not a conditional - I mean it is.

Max Niederhofer am 14.12.03 17:05 #

Oh dear, I thought about this overnight. I worry that these abstract debates go nowhere and only result in hurt feelings... but this morning I feel an urge to respond.

Max tells us, "When anyone proposes a definition, they exercise control. Your advocating a bias against control while trying to exert it seems slightly hypocritical."

Well, this is turning into a Punch and Judy fight. But what I said was I am biassed against EXCESSIVE control. Proposing a definition and acknowledging that others will have different ones, and making clear my own preferences does not feel like very controlling behaviour to me. Some people would call it debate, but hey, each to his own!

For sure, people can use complexity as an excuse for carelessness just as others can use numbers as an excuse for avoiding challenging paradoxes.

What I personally take from complexity theory (if it's not too controlling of me to state an opinion here) is that a good way to value an intervention is to look at its actual impact rather than analyse to death. The definition I proposed seemed to appeal to the group I was talking to - schools which are non-profit and deeply concerned with marketing ethically. They got it and I think they found it helpful. I even got a metric from them for my seminar, Max will be pleased to know. About 9 out of 10.

And I think that's enough of this for me!

John Moore am 15.12.03 11:23 #

Hey John,
just wanted to let you know that I'm all for debates - but that I take marketing definitions pretty personally. I hope my statements weren't too crass.
I think we should leave at that :)

Max am 16.12.03 23:02 #