Web Designer, Web Developer, SEO and Google Adwords Qualified Internet Marketing Consultant in the St. Lawrence Seaway Valley and Northern New York

How do we define marketing success? Most smaller businesses have little discretionary spending in their budget, and as a result find themselves trapped in short-term, bottom line thinking. We tend to think that any marketing (by which we usually mean promotional spending) we do must pay us back almost immediately or else the effort has failed. But perhaps immediate payback isn’t the best definition of marketing success. If it’s not measured by immediate return on investment in the form of sales, how exactly should we measure our marketing success?

Since our slogan is online marketing success outside the box, it seems that the appropriate place to begin is by discussing what we mean by “success” and “box.”

Success: This excellent definition of marketing success comes from Sergio Zyman at the Zyman Institute of Brand Science blog: “Sell more stuff, to more people, more often, for more money, more efficiently.” The real purpose and success of marketing is getting your product to the market.

I asked for definitions of marketing success on Twitter, and received this excellent reply from @nullvariable:
“I’d say a measurable increase in sales or conversions would be successful. Particularly when marketing cost is paid by new sales.”

Box: As defined by Princeton’s WordNet Search, a box is “a (usually rectangular) container.” Boxes are limiting and constraining. While they are convenient for storing our valued possessions from the past, boxes are not dynamic. A box in the context to which I refer is a paradigm, a way of viewing the task of marketing.

Marketing from On High

The old paradigm of marketing is discussed thoroughly in The Cluetrain Manifesto by Rick Levine, Christopher Locke, Doc Searls, and David Weinberger. If you’re interested in more information than I present here, read the book. To summarize: marketing in the industrial age has been driven by economies of scale. Manufacturers created large numbers of widgets then convinced large numbers of “consumers” that theirs was the widget of choice. Newspapers, then radio, and finally TV, delivered the one-way broadcast messages that touted the merits of a particular widget … and consumers bought. It was wonderful … for the manufacturers especially. All the power was on the producing side of the equation. The consumer simply consumed.

This paradigm is at least partly dead, and certainly dying. And, the Web is largely to blame. What was missing from the old marketing paradigm was the voice of the market. Communication was mostly one-way, devoid of real conversation. Now, via the Web, a disgruntled or happy customer can tell thousands about your company. Since word of mouth is such a potent marketing force, we all need to adapt to this reality. The consumer’s voice is finally being heard. In fact, it is becoming dominant. If the old box of top-down message control won’t contain the new reality, what are we to do? We need a more dynamic paradigm.

Marketing as Conversation

The old tactics of broadcast media still work, and successful businesses, especially in more traditional spaces (like retail), shun them at their peril. New broadcast tactics like search engine marketing through pay-per-click advertising can be effective if used with understanding. I want to assure you that I’m not advocating throwing out all the old methods, but I am echoing others who have proposed that we embrace a new paradigm: marketing as conversation.

Is your company spending many thousands of dollars on conventional forms of advertising but neglecting social media tools like blogs, forums, and social networks? You do so at your peril. The new market reality means that consumers buy from those they trust, and trust is built on conversation. What happens when a potential customer visits your website as the result of a broadcast message but sees no way to engage you with a question? They leave.

But what about the risk that someone might say something bad about your business? It’s hard to imagine a business that has offended absolutely no one. We can take it for granted, I think, that negative messages are being spread about all of us. As a business owner, wouldn’t it be better that I provide a place for customers to air grievances so that I can respond to and correct their problem? Especially if doing so meant that I engaged customers and learned more about them and what they really want?

Businesses who present themselves authentically and engage thier customers will reap rewards from their efforts. I want to be one of them. Don’t you?

Let’s apply this new paradigm to our discussion about how we define marketing success. Our drive to measure return on investment is a prerequisite to doing business, so it needs to continue. However, it’s easy to become fixated on broadcast media, and in the face of declining returns, to spend more without evaluating our larger strategy. We can’t let our old media marketing efforts supplant completely the focus on new methods aimed at engaging customers simply because it’s hard to measure the return on our investment.

If I’m right about marketing as conversation, the result of a long-term investment in social media will result in an increase in sales. It will not be as immediate as the payoff from traditional marketing tactics, but it should be measurable over time.

In order to assess your attitude toward marketing, ask yourself the following questions: How exactly are we engaging our customers in conversation? Are we learning from them? Are we speaking honestly, or are we trying to control all aspects of the message for fear we might look bad?

I’ve done my best to raise some tough issues regarding marketing success. What are your thoughts? I’d like to hear from you, please comment below.