Why I hate “Campaigns”
Much of the work we have done with agencies has been under the guise of a ‘campaign.’ This irks me somewhat, as I think it is a perfect example of old terminology and practices being used in a radically different environment, which renders them redundant.
I know it’s all just semantics, but the words we use do define our actions. And by not calling a spade a spade, it becomes very difficult to do a good job of digging the garden…
For me, campaign implies:
- Shouting at, not listening to
- Repetitive activity, not learning and changing
- Short-term, not focused on long-term relationships
- Forceful and interruptive, not earned through trust
fabio2005 @ flickr
Dictionary definitions of campaign include “a systematic course of aggressive activity for a specific purpose” and “military operations for a specific objective”. Ouch. But yes, that does remind me of most of the marketing emails I’ve deleted over the last week.
There are lots of vendors that happily define themselves as “multi-channel campaign management” providers. And that is exactly what most of them do. The trouble is, not every person is at the bottom of the funnel, ready to purchase. Some are just tangentially interested, some want information, and some are not even in the market, but might refer their friends if the proposition is attractive.
No, I don’t have a new term to plug. Call it what you will. Perhaps “Communication” is a better word – at least it implies engagement. I like the TMW approach of “Relationship Marketing” – where the relationship comes first, and the marketing second.
The underlying platform and processes are much more important than the campaign.
When the campaign has gone, the customer data only remains in a new silo never to be touched again, the campaign microsite exists only on the designers resume, and the customer’s fading memory is of the fun joke, the celebrity endorsement, the “hook”, but not the value you bring to their life.
Think long-term. Think direct, measurable, relationships.
Rant over.
Hi Andrew
I agree. I’ve been thinking about this a lot recently, that in actual fact I’m guilty of this. I’m only interested in the relationship when I have something to market, which is really bad. Because not only is it using people (and making them feel used), but it is also not nearly effective as continual engagement.
Robert Cialdini talks about the law of reciprocity – the law of sowing and reaping – that when you invest in a relationship and continually pay it forward, people pay it back to you in far great dividends that one off marketing shots.
Scott
There is still a place for campaigns – campaigns are just the marketing response to short term strategic business objectives that they are obliged to fulfill. Within the context of annual business plans, budgets and targets, marketing is always going to be obliged to structure a lot of their activity so it is contextually meaningful. Trying to justify an ongoing unstructured commitment to ‘communication’ or ‘engagement’ is very hard to build a business case for. Especially when marketing professionals see crafting and managing the message as their raison d’etre, as opposed to fostering positive ongoing genuine engagement.
@James – there is a place for campaigns. Of course ” trying to justify an ongoing unstructured commitment to ‘communication’ or ‘engagement’ is very hard” – which is why it should be *structured* and measurable. I’m not talking about speculative investments in ethereal concepts, but about a perspective that treats prospects as people, and understands that volume of messaging does not constitute effective marketing in most instances.
When a company sees diminishing returns on the constant bombardment, then the value of a longer term perspective emerges.
wonderful points altogether, you just received a new reader. What would you recommend in regards to your put up that you simply made a few days ago? Any certain?