Direct connection with customers is desirable for most companies. So why is the term direct marketing often used as a pejorative? The answer exists in the complexity of relationships between customers, companies, and marketing/PR groups. Let us examine the historical foundation of direct marketing to discover where "direct" lost its mojo.
Early direct marketers such as Montgomery Ward and Sears & Roebuck connected with customers through mail-order catalogs beginning in the late 19th century. The minimal cost of delivering a quarterly or bi-annual catalog to rural Americans established a predictable sales channel for the retailers and also a communication channel for customers. With early direct mail, even a disconnected rural Illinois resident could enjoy the luxury items available to distant Chicago city dwellers.
The success of mail-order catalogs, however, resulted in greed. And the influx of greed created an overwhelming amount of mail for the average American prompting the current conception of direct marketing as a negative term. Direct marketing professionals continued to innovate though and moved online - first through the addition of email and more recently with the explosion of targeted social shopping. Love it or hate it - direct marketing continues to produce results by connecting personally with customers. So why is the term used in a negative tone?
Marketing Gurus like Seth Godin might link the negativity to a breech in permission based marketing standards. The customer must begin the intimate relationship by accepting personalized and relevant messages. Godin and other experts are correct, but their analysis excludes further introspection into the complex relationships formed to directly interact with a customer through blogs, social networks or any other online content site. The diagram below represents a potential path for "direct marketing" online:
To spread direct messages in the blogosphere or social networks, a company contracts a Marketing/PR firm. The service provider analyzes the product and identifies potential evangelists of the company's product. Once evangelists are engaged, the message is ready for distribution to average customers. After the engagement, the marketing term re-enters the picture to provide progress updates to the company.
Wow! A lot of intermediaries for the supposedly "direct" message. Here is a streamlined revision of how the relationship could function online:
Permalink
| Comments ()
|
Early direct marketers such as Montgomery Ward and Sears & Roebuck connected with customers through mail-order catalogs beginning in the late 19th century. The minimal cost of delivering a quarterly or bi-annual catalog to rural Americans established a predictable sales channel for the retailers and also a communication channel for customers. With early direct mail, even a disconnected rural Illinois resident could enjoy the luxury items available to distant Chicago city dwellers.
The success of mail-order catalogs, however, resulted in greed. And the influx of greed created an overwhelming amount of mail for the average American prompting the current conception of direct marketing as a negative term. Direct marketing professionals continued to innovate though and moved online - first through the addition of email and more recently with the explosion of targeted social shopping. Love it or hate it - direct marketing continues to produce results by connecting personally with customers. So why is the term used in a negative tone?
Marketing Gurus like Seth Godin might link the negativity to a breech in permission based marketing standards. The customer must begin the intimate relationship by accepting personalized and relevant messages. Godin and other experts are correct, but their analysis excludes further introspection into the complex relationships formed to directly interact with a customer through blogs, social networks or any other online content site. The diagram below represents a potential path for "direct marketing" online:
To spread direct messages in the blogosphere or social networks, a company contracts a Marketing/PR firm. The service provider analyzes the product and identifies potential evangelists of the company's product. Once evangelists are engaged, the message is ready for distribution to average customers. After the engagement, the marketing term re-enters the picture to provide progress updates to the company.
Wow! A lot of intermediaries for the supposedly "direct" message. Here is a streamlined revision of how the relationship could function online:
The revision provides a noticeable change by drastically reducing bureaucracy. Transforming a "conversational" chain into an actual discussion allows each participant to possess an equal voice, which clarifies the overall brand message. Imagine sending your desired content through a game of telephone. "Buy our new cheesy doodles" transforms to "Guys like squeezing poodles." Seems like an absurd example, but convolution is possible (and plausible) when too many people handle your message.
I would like to leave readers with the following paraphrased advertisement: How many people does it take to connect with a customer? The world may never know.
I would like to leave readers with the following paraphrased advertisement: How many people does it take to connect with a customer? The world may never know.
