The demise of old marketing: “I’m not dead yet!”
It’s a classic scene from Monty Python and the Holy Grail: A character played by John Cleese answers the call of “Bring out yer dead!” by trying to deposit his still-alive elderly ward (“I’m not dead yet – I feel happy!”) with the traveling undertaker. In some ways, I get the same feeling from many new media advocates who would prefer traditional mass advertising be dead and buried. Our compadre in healthcare marketing opinions, Keith Jennings, had a great post last week on Old Marketing vs. New Marketing, based on an encounter with author David Meerman Scott. As way of synopsis, Keith wrote: “Per David Meerman Scott (and many others), the old way of earning attention and trust no longer work.”
Of course, we’ve spent a lot of energy in our blog, podcasts and speaking engagements trying to make the case for why healthcare marketers should move away from the reliance on “old marketing” (and its various forms such as “above-the-line marketing” or “outbound marketing”), and pursue strategies such as building authentic brand experiences, embracing transparency, leveraging social media, expanding interactive engagement and more. However, despite our advocacy for embracing these new methods, I’m not sure I’m quite in agreement that “old marketing” is no longer effective.
It seems a lot of people are saying “old marketing” – as defined by traditional paid advertising – is dead in large part because consumers say they no longer want to be sold to or interrupted, that they want to have authentic engagements with brands, and that they want to have a voice when it comes to engaging the companies they buy from. Therefore, because consumers say they don’t like the “old” methods that rely on interruption or selling, and because they have the means to avoid those methods, “old marketing” is no longer effective. And certainly, research has shown the migration away from these approaches, such as in the drop in network television viewing – and the resulting drop in ad views – thanks to the proliferation of segmented television content, online content, technology like TiVo, and more.
But here’s the thing. I don’t think people ever wanted to be sold to or interrupted (for the most part). It’s just that during the rise of advertising and mass media from the 50s through the 80s, there was no other way for marketers to reach them, so that’s what they did. Yet even though consumer really weren’t thrilled with it, because they had no choice but to engage it, it was effective in many ways.
Today, “new” marketing offers a myriad of options for reaching consumers, through new technologies and new permission-based strategies, which I agree are often much better than mass interruption marketing. BUT, while new marketing is often more effective, that doesn’t mean old marketing doesn’t work anymore. People say they don’t want to be sold to, and they say they don’t want to be interrupted, and research shows how they’re avoiding this wherever they can. But whether they believe it or not, whether they would admit it or not, whether they would even know it or not, mass media still does impact consumers when it reaches them. It may not be the preferred or most effective method in many cases, but this stuff still has an effect.
So is “old” marketing dead? No, probably not dead. Severely wounded? Sure. Maybe even dying a long, slow death. Most likely not nearly as effective in many cases as “new” marketing. But a mass ad campaign from Apple or Coke still has the power to move product, especially when integrated with “new” marketing tactics. And hospital preference can still be affected by traditional advertising methods. The trick is finding the right balance between “old” and “new,” using each to support the other, and mixing the spend and effort in a way that maximizes impact.
Is that a “hey, the world is flat,” clinging-to-the past kind of answer? A realistic answer? I’ve never read David Meerman Scott or heard him speak: would he convince me to go ahead and club “old marketing” over the head and be done with it once and for all? What do you think? What would Monty Python say?
Nice post, Chris! I love the challenge and the dialogue!
A few random thoughts…
1. What if “old” and “new” didn’t refer to the media chosen, but the way in which the media was used? That would make “old marketing” like an attempt at a one night stand and “new marketing” like an attempt at a relationship. Doesn’t mean a one night stand isn’t possible. However, for many community hospitals charged with improvement community health and fixing their 8+ hour ED wait time, it seems they have an ethical and moral obligation to spend their money in better ways than advertising. In other words, instead of trying to convince people they’re great by spending money, why not invest in being great and using word-of-mouth and word-of-mouse to share successes?
2. As you and I both know, some use new media in an attempt to have a one night stand. So new media doesn’t always equal new marketing.
3. What if marketing partners (i.e. agencies, freelancers, etc.) were paid strictly on the results of their work (i.e. call center calls, subscriptions, new appointments, etc.)? How would their approach to marketing plans and media mix change if this were reality? Would this expedite or slow the move to “new marketing” tactics? I believe agencies should share in the successes and failures of their efforts with their clients. Although that can be interpreted negatively, I actually mean that agency work is tough and truly great work should be truly rewarded (above and beyond the norm).
4. I believe marketing agencies like Interval could have a huge impact on a hospital’s overall experience if they were allowed inside to be more than advertising and “brand” vendors. I’m on the hunt for agencies who are helping with patient experience design.
5. I look forward to future Interval posts!
What if “old” and “new” didn’t refer to marketing itself, but to the attitude with which we approach the tactics themselves?
Maybe we approach “old school” advertising or direct mail with “new school” interactive methods. Return cards become PURLS, advertising budgets include Facebook social ads.
Particularly with healthcare marketing, are we really ready for an either or mentality? We are speaking to/with people who fall on all points of the spectrum – so using only the “new” would certainly miss a large section, some of whom we probably need to target the most.
So no, I say it isn’t clinging to the past so long as we’re working to create a true marketing “mix.”
Great comments, Keith and Meigan. Keeping in the Holy Grail theme, we might ask “WHAT is your favorite color?” Red, no blue, ahhhhhhhhhh. Sorry, couldn’t help myself. In this case, the color is gray. As you both state so well, the point is not to paint old vs. new, black vs. white. It’s a gray issue, with the key of finding the right blend between “old” and “new” for each effort (charcoal? taupe? smoke? slivery mist?).
Or is it grey? Gosh, even the word gray is grey.
Thanks for pointing to my stuff.
If advertising and tradeshows and direct mail and Yellow Pages are working – GREAT. Don’t change.
But for many companies they are not producing the results they used to.
Here is a recent speech where I talk about my ideas.
http://www.vimeo.com/6955359
David