The Difference Between Old School Marketing and Neo-Marketing
I had a great lunch conversation today discussing how marketing is transforming. We got right down to the core point - (word of mouth is the most cost-effective marketing method) and its corollary (the best way to get word of mouth is to have something worth talking about). I felt the need for something a little more succicent.
Thankfully, Kathy Sierra at Creating Passionate Users put together an excellent chart comparing and contrasting traditional marketing and Web 2.0 marketing. It’s an image - convenient for printing out or making your desktop image. But that’s somewhat contradictory to the whole open/sharing attitude she describes. So, I thought I’d take the liberty of turning it into plain text.
| Old-school Marketing | Neo-Marketing |
| marketers/advertisers do it | everyone does it |
| focus on how the company kicks ass | focused on how the user kicks ass |
| marketers have the power | users have the power |
| advertising | evangelizing |
| tightly-controlled “brand message” | brand “hijacked” by users |
| one-way broadcast | two-way conversation |
| company-created content | user-created content |
| he who outspends, wins | he who out teaches, wins |
| mass markets | selective, focused users |
| one-size-fits-all | personalized, custom-tailored |
| focus groups | user feedback & contributions….betas |
| deception | transparency |
| bullshit | authenticity |
| development often independent from marketing | impossible to separate development and marketing |
| the story must be compelling, but can be fiction (”buy this and you’ll have more sex”) | the story must be compelling, and must be real (”buy this and you’ll take better pictures”) |
| 30-second spots are king | word-of-mouth is king |
| focus on branding | focus on passionate users |
| get the customer ot believe in it | YOU believe in it |
