Usually.
Lately he’s been on a crusade against “marketing.” Now, after nearly two decades in sales and marketing, I have a pretty thick skin when it comes to criticism of my profession. Not infrequently, I agree with the criticism. Some sales techniques are deceptive. Some marketers do lack solid business credentials, and some marketing doesn’t measure up in terms of ROI. But Brodsky’s criticism isn’t directed toward deceptive or ineffective marketing — he appears to be crusading against all marketing. Worse, while his October and November “anti-marketing” columns contain a few of the insights we expect from him, they’re eclipsed by an oversimplified and misleading definition of “marketing.” The net result isn’t just bad marketing advice — it’s bad business advice.
In October’s “Marketing for Dummies,” Brodsky defines marketing as “using advertising, signage, design, packaging, brochures, stationery, business cards, and so on to manufacture an image of your company for the ostensible purpose of making customers and prospective customers more interested in buying whatever you sell.” He doesn’t object to advertising, signage, etc. per se, he explains — just the use of such tools to manufacture an image that isn’t “based on who you really are and what you really do.”
On that point, we agree. The first phase of Kolbrener’s Brand Evolution Process™ puts extraordinary emphasis on understanding “who you really are and what you really do” — and we explicitly tell clients that any image they project and promises they make must align with their real culture and market offerings to be effective. Understanding “who you really are and what you really do,” studying how that distinguishes you from competitors, aligning it with everything from internal communications to sales processes, deciding how best to present it to clients and prospects — that’s all marketing, by my definition, and also by Webster’s Unabridged, which describes marketing as “the total of activities involved in the transfer of goods from the producer or seller to the consumer or buyer, including advertising, shipping, storing and selling.”
Brodsky narrows that definition considerably. Transferring marketing activities that support sales to a new definition of “sales,” he adds that his employees “don’t market: They sell.” Then he redefines “marketing” to mean only those activities that don’t truly support sales — what I refer to, with derision equal to Brodsky’s, as marketing-for-marketing’s-sake.
Coming from a sales background myself, I understand how seductive it is to align all good activities with the word “sales.” Corralling all bad practices under one word is tempting, too. I mean, it would be damn convenient if Kolbrener could distinguish itself from mere image-conjurers — as we have a right to do using Brodsky’s definitions — just by saying we’re a “Sales Communications Agency” and striking the word “marketing” from our vocabulary.
More practically, in talking to clients and prospects, I often set the M-word aside if it seems to be an obstacle to discussing the real issues: does everyone in your organization understand “who you really are and what you really do”? Are different departments united by a common set of goals and strategies? Are you communicating effectively with your audiences? Whether you call that “marketing,” “sales,” “growth directives” or “zizzer-zoofing,” those areas are integral to your ongoing success. And, definitions aside, one problem with an anti-marketing stance like Brodsky’s is that it can lead to less-than-optimal commitment in these areas. What starts out as an aversion to “marketing-for-marketing’s-sake” becomes a too-easy rationalization for shortcutting or avoiding a whole range of activities related to strategy, market research, communications and relationship management.
A related trap for those drawn to anti-marketing rhetoric is that they start to devalue even the areas they admit are important to sales, becoming especially unwilling to admit that specialized or outside expertise may improve results. Don’t get me wrong — depending on the size and nature of your business, and the multi-tasking talents of your staff, it may make sense to have senior executives or sales personnel handle marketing activities. Of course, it might also make sense to handle accounting in-house, make your own deliveries, manage your own technology needs and so on. But as companies grow, it becomes more important for staff to focus on what they do best — which may mean hiring other specialists (internal or external) to do what they do best, including marketing tasks like monitoring competitors, adapting brand messaging and producing sales collateral. Good marketers — whether that’s a couple of entrepreneurial partners, a set of senior executives, an entire in-house department, or an outside agency — handle what Brodsky himself identifies as crucial functions: “to locate, land, delight, and serve customers.” That necessarily includes communicating with them. The better those functions are handled, the better the bottom line. In short, good marketers sell.
Ultimately, I’m not attached to the M-word, but I like the dictionary definitions of “sales” and “marketing” better than Brodsky’s because they help us remember that, even if the same personnel handle both, these are separate disciplines. They are also interdependent — to focus too exclusively on either one runs the risk of doing neither well.
As for Brodsky’s contention that “much of what passes for marketing these days is a waste of time and money that has nothing to do with building a good solid business,” he’s right about “some of what passes for marketing.” But the same could be said for “some of what passes for R&D” or “some of” a host of other business activities. The point, with marketing as with any other area of business, should be to seek out best practices and continually improve performance. And best practices in marketing — in defining your market, highlighting key strengths that distinguish you from competitors, bridging gaps between market offerings, sales claims, and outside perceptions — have everything to do with building a good solid business.
It’s interesting that, in Brodsky’s November column, “The Name Game,” he relates giving advice to a young businesswoman which, like advice he’s given in the past, matches exactly what you’d expect to hear from a good marketing consultant: focus on what you do well, clarify your understanding of your business, then communicate that to your market. So, his antipathy to “marketing” notwithstanding, I’ll continue to believe that if Norm Brodsky and I sat down to discuss business we’d agree on most issues and I’d usually learn something valuable when we didn’t. But as for the recent anti-marketing rhetoric and advice — I think he’s dead wrong. Or maybe, to paraphrase Dr. Seuss, his dictionary is just one size too small.
Feel Free to share this article with others. Simply copy and paste the text below into your webpage or blog.
