Comments on: The Value of Marketing Departments http://andyhoward.id.au/2006/04/01/the-value-of-marketing-departments/ WRITER / EDITOR / DESIGNER / ARCHITECT Tue, 13 Sep 2011 18:10:25 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.4 By: Andy Howard http://andyhoward.id.au/2006/04/01/the-value-of-marketing-departments/comment-page-1/#comment-9 Andy Howard Mon, 03 Apr 2006 08:20:29 +0000 http://andyhoward.id.au/?p=7#comment-9 Marketing is evolutionary by nature, but typically not revolutionary; it will change slowly with time as Rob as indicated and will do so of its own accord, following the most proven techniques. It's comments and ideas like Kevin's that lead revolution and change, and will prove to marketers they need to become more conversational in their strategy and hence encourage evolution. At the present marketing may well be irrelevant, but in due time as it evolves (following the conversational cluetrain-inspired revolution ;)) marketing will find relevance again. I do also agree the 'marketing is irrelevant' line is a type of marketing in itself, as a lot of things are... that's the beauty of it! :) Great comments guys. Marketing is evolutionary by nature, but typically not revolutionary; it will change slowly with time as Rob as indicated and will do so of its own accord, following the most proven techniques. It’s comments and ideas like Kevin’s that lead revolution and change, and will prove to marketers they need to become more conversational in their strategy and hence encourage evolution.

At the present marketing may well be irrelevant, but in due time as it evolves (following the conversational cluetrain-inspired revolution ;) ) marketing will find relevance again.

I do also agree the ‘marketing is irrelevant’ line is a type of marketing in itself, as a lot of things are… that’s the beauty of it! :) Great comments guys.

]]> By: Rob Irwin http://andyhoward.id.au/2006/04/01/the-value-of-marketing-departments/comment-page-1/#comment-7 Rob Irwin Mon, 03 Apr 2006 03:50:49 +0000 http://andyhoward.id.au/?p=7#comment-7 Well, whatever... as a journo it's not like I'm defending my own turf anyway. What I was pointing out, however, is that a marketer can just as easily buy into the concept of the conversation and harness the conversation -- after all, there has to be some way of doing this... isn't it what your social software is all about? -- and, in doing so, can still call themself a marketer. Because, in doing so, they're just a marketer using new techniques, as marketers have done for years and years. I know if doesn't play well to the whole militant "marketing is irrelevant" thing (which itself is a great piece of... er... marketing ;-)), but it's the truth. It reminds me, is this the thing you were going to say at the recent H&K Breakfast Bytes, but stalled on (or seemed to stall on)? The audio doesn't give a clue as to what happened after you asked the marketers what they thought about being irrelevant. See my comment here: http://www.robirwin.com/iliketowatch/?p=53 Well, whatever… as a journo it’s not like I’m defending my own turf anyway. What I was pointing out, however, is that a marketer can just as easily buy into the concept of the conversation and harness the conversation — after all, there has to be some way of doing this… isn’t it what your social software is all about? — and, in doing so, can still call themself a marketer.

Because, in doing so, they’re just a marketer using new techniques, as marketers have done for years and years. I know if doesn’t play well to the whole militant “marketing is irrelevant” thing (which itself is a great piece of… er… marketing ;-) ), but it’s the truth.

It reminds me, is this the thing you were going to say at the recent H&K Breakfast Bytes, but stalled on (or seemed to stall on)? The audio doesn’t give a clue as to what happened after you asked the marketers what they thought about being irrelevant. See my comment here: http://www.robirwin.com/iliketowatch/?p=53

]]> By: kevin http://andyhoward.id.au/2006/04/01/the-value-of-marketing-departments/comment-page-1/#comment-6 kevin Mon, 03 Apr 2006 01:21:01 +0000 http://andyhoward.id.au/?p=7#comment-6 Rob. WEB TWO POINT 0H! has nothing to do with it. <strong>OUR MANTRA's</strong> <strong>Technology is the enabler of business not its purpose</strong> <strong>You have to lead in search or be part of the conversation</strong> <strong>markets are conversations conversations are held by people you can not own or control a conversation its the conversation marketing is bullshit marketers are irrelevant</strong> I say this with all respect and love Rob: <strong>its the conversation stupid</strong> -<a href="http://www.pandorasquared.com/pages/whoweare" rel="nofollow">Kevin Leversee</a> <a href="http://www.cluetrain.org/" rel="nofollow">http://www.cluetrain.org/</a> A powerful global conversation has begun. Through the Internet, people are discovering and inventing new ways to share relevant knowledge with blinding speed. As a direct result, markets are getting smarter—and getting smarter faster than most companies. Rob.

WEB TWO POINT 0H! has nothing to do with it.

OUR MANTRA’s

Technology is the enabler of business not its purpose

You have to lead in search or be part of the conversation

markets are conversations

conversations are held by people

you can not own or control a conversation

its the conversation

marketing is bullshit

marketers are irrelevant

I say this with all respect and love Rob: its the conversation stupid

-Kevin Leversee

http://www.cluetrain.org/
A powerful global conversation has begun. Through the Internet, people are discovering and inventing new ways to share relevant knowledge with blinding speed. As a direct result, markets are getting smarter—and getting smarter faster than most companies.

]]> By: Rob Irwin http://andyhoward.id.au/2006/04/01/the-value-of-marketing-departments/comment-page-1/#comment-5 Rob Irwin Sun, 02 Apr 2006 13:25:08 +0000 http://andyhoward.id.au/?p=7#comment-5 It's a shame people like Hans can't see that "marketing" is a malleable term in itself. You don't actually need to rename things to the Web 2.0 phrase of the week to bring about change. Marketing can, and will, evolve on its own. It already has in the past... it will again in the future. This doesn't make the kinds of things being done under the Web 2.0 umbrella this week (a new umbrella term coming soon, of course), wrong, per se... infact, they are probably the things that marketeers will adopt, to some degree, in the future. I have no doubt of that. It’s a shame people like Hans can’t see that “marketing” is a malleable term in itself. You don’t actually need to rename things to the Web 2.0 phrase of the week to bring about change. Marketing can, and will, evolve on its own. It already has in the past… it will again in the future.

This doesn’t make the kinds of things being done under the Web 2.0 umbrella this week (a new umbrella term coming soon, of course), wrong, per se… infact, they are probably the things that marketeers will adopt, to some degree, in the future. I have no doubt of that.

]]>