This lengthy video posted on FORA.TV is from the The Argyle Executive Forum. It features four marketing folks from different backgrounds discussing the recession and its impact on marketing. It’s interesting that there is so much talk of software and social media. This trend seems to have coincided with the worst economic environment in decades. Does social media and online marketing shield us from an ugly reality that people are buying less? It seems that marketing could use at least some kind of historical lesson on how companies succeeded in past economic hard times without Twitter and Facebook? Some of the world’s most enduring brands, after all, survived and thrived during the Great Depression.
Social media is a powerful tool and it’s changing marketing — but so did radio, television, highways, and jet travel. Aren’t there lessons to be learned from past companies that have succeeded in tougher times without Twittering?
Summary
Austin Bankhead leads a panel of experts discussing how marketing has changed since the financial crisis. They focus on two main areas: how to retain old customers while still attracting new ones and how to leverage social media to stay competitive.Austin Bankhead – Austin Bankhead is CMO Programs Director at Omniture.
Grant Johnson – Grant Johnson is Vice President of Marketing at Guidance Software.
Bryan Srabian – Bryan Srabian is Vice President of Marketing for the Sacramento River Cats and Raley Field.
Ellen Taverner – Ellen Taverner is Chief Marketing Officer for Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP.
In addition to creating and building custom branded environments, The Rogers Company is also a full service trade show and event implementation partner providing turnkey services and support for its corporate clients throughout the country.
Interesting premise – I am an old goat so communication changes are hard to fathom. But things I’ve read and experts I’ve met (2) say that the “old” ways still are perfectly valid – however there is increasing use of internet portals (?) to validate and sense the worth of a given person, product, or company. In other words, media
reaches people a lot of ways – and even if the methods are”ancient” they work – and often cause people to check us out online. I’ve seen plenty of “surveys” which say 80% business folks find and decide on products/services to buy – but that doesn’t say they do it for everything – and it doesn’t mean that the purchasing process for hard goods, expendables, and a lot of services isn’t a function of many people, many issues, and some way to make thoughtful decisions using all possible input, online or other. Trade shows, for instance, are said by attendees to hugely influential or even decisive in choice of product or service. This is not a statement that all products are purchased that way – it is conclusive statement that folks who go to trade shows find them very useful – usually. As to print media and TV, the numbers of viewers/readers and “pass along” readers has always been known – and the types of readers. In some cases, these media are simply wonderful – in some cases they’re horrible. Does online “social” stuff take over from here – not if you’re selling to GE, 3M, and the US govt. But it has its place. And it can be a fairly effective and low cost way to get the story out – or provide support/validation. As to getting a “virus” message starting around the world to sell hula hoops, those are fun to know about – but silly to plan for – or try for. Internet programmers were charging $100,000 for a routine web site 7 years ago – I can get one now for $1,000. That tells us a lot.