The End of Digital Marketing
Does the term “digital marketing” ultimately hurt the marketing industry at large?
Earlier today I watched a video in which BBDO CEO Andrew Robertson discussed the importance of digital marketing, and how he was attempting to ensure that everyone in the massive organization that he oversees is thinking about digital.
Robertson states:
Everything has a digital component to it…Everyone is having to learn about the ways in which digital can enhance the quality of the programs we create…it is not optional
If digital is a component of all efforts, and everyone is required to possess digital marketing skills; what then is a digital marketer?
Ultimately, aren’t we all just marketers with a variety of tools at our disposal?
Unfortunately this is not a new conversation and there is no easy answer. That said, I am not sure that large ad agencies are working fast enough to help solve this conundrum.
Some agencies have begun to take a more integrated approach in organizing their workforce, but is it enough?
We still see campaigns that begin telling a story that leverages out of home tactics, with little, to no digital follow up. In my opinion, such campaigns are incomplete; and no matter however creative the “creative” is, the campaign will ultimately fail-as more and more consumers have come to expect that the next chapter of the story will occur online.
So what is the answer?
Let’s look at the pro’s and cons to moving toward a model where we are all simply play the role of marketer;
Pros
- Easier to ensure that strategy is central to all marketing efforts, as the strategic vision would come from one “nerve center”
- All marketers would be held accountable for attaining a base knowledge of all channels
Cons
- Difficult to decide who is going to focus on what areas of execution, of a campaign
- Many marketers are still not savvy when it comes to digital, and if they were forced to manage any piece of the digital portion of the campaign, things could get messy
There are obvious benefits to each way of thinking. Ultimately, I do not think we are ready to switch to a model where all marketers are responsible for all media types. That being said, what will happen in 5 years, when recent college graduates will have digital media in their DNA? Will we then be ready for the type of change that I am proposing?
I would love to hear some thought from you.
Related articles by Zemanta
- Stop Stressing Strategy … Champion Ideas (t4w.blogs.com)
- The Dramatic Shift In Marketing Reality (viralblog.com)
- Digital Media -….and almost scary search engine capabilites (activerain.com)
Tags: Andrew Robertson, bbdo, digital, Marketing and Advertising, marketing strategy
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=57a9616a-55e7-483d-9e21-9c42a890e2e4)






Apr 29, 2009
I think this is such an interesting topic and you make some really good points.
I see digital marketing as essentially an area of “marketing”. Within digital marketing there are tons of subgroups and tools but I don’t think it’s a separate industry altogether.
For example, the best success stories seem to tie in all elements of marketing. Granted, there have been some great digital marketing initiatives that have lived solely online but as a long term concept, digital marketing must flow with the offline work as well.
Apr 29, 2009
The word ‘digital’ should come after the word marketing. Digital, just like Online Video, is a means to an end. The end is a better message, with far greater rates of engagement and measurable analytics that prove the effectiveness. This ensures a marketing ROI. The big advantage with digital (including video) analytics is that everything is measured and there is no more debate about whether it is working or not. The emotions are gone and we continue to tweak the medium in order to get the results we are looking for.
Apr 30, 2009
Thanks for the comments scott and caitlin.
Scott, you are saying we should call people, The Marketing Digital Director; not bad.