Comments on: Marketing 2.0: What’s In a Name?

By: Jeff Paul internet marketing

Jeff Paul internet marketing — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 16:54:19 +0000

I found your post really interesting. I found Internet marketing a really a great way of promoting a website. I found good results when I started internet marketing my website.

By: Jeff Paul Internet Millions

Jeff Paul Internet Millions — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 06:41:24 +0000

Jeff Paul also goes on to state that there are no ‘weasel clauses, if you don’t like what you see just send it back for a complete refund, no hassles

By: hugh macleod

hugh macleod — Thu, 05 Apr 2007 14:38:48 +0000

Hmmmm… not sure how “new” or “2.0″ Hughtrain and “Global Microbrand” are…
“Hughtrain” was coined as a joke. Tongue in cheek etc.
And as I have said many times before, Global Microbrands have existed long before the internet was ever invented. However, yes, the internet makes them cheaper and easier than ever before to get off the ground.
But point taken. We marketing bloggers all want our own wee term that we “own”. Profit!

By: Mack Collier

Mack Collier — Mon, 05 Jun 2006 22:59:10 +0000

“IMHO marketing 2.0 is recognizing that the fundamental structure of business and the way businesses create value is changing, to include the customer as a producer of value as well as consumer of value.”
Sounds like we are picking different ways to say the same thing. The marketing reality is today that you can’t sell TO your community/market, you have to sell WITH them. People are way too connected and have far too much control and too many options today to settle for a company that won’t do this.
Join them, embrace them, empower them.

By: Karl Long

Karl Long — Mon, 05 Jun 2006 20:49:19 +0000

I’m not sure I agree its “all about communities”, if that is the case then NetGain circa 1997 is all we need. IMHO marketing 2.0 is recognizing that the fundamental structure of business and the way businesses create value is changing, to include the customer as a producer of value as well as consumer of value. Community is an aspect of it, for sure, but it’s not the answer. I think there is more to it.

By: Mack Collier

Mack Collier — Mon, 05 Jun 2006 17:56:04 +0000

‘Marketing 2.0′ is all about the community, our ability to embrace our communties, join them, and empower them.
That’s it. You don’t need a fancy name, that’s where we keep getting ourselves in trouble. Cluetrain….hughtrain…..markets are conversations…..pinko marketing…..soon everyone is repeating the labels, and not everyone is understanding the concepts behind them.
Stop selling TO communities, start selling WITH them.
The rest is details.

By: Karl Long

Karl Long — Mon, 05 Jun 2006 17:38:00 +0000

It depends what your definition of marketing strategy is but, If, for arguments sake, marketing strategy is to “identify, make aware, aquire, and retain” customers then it has changed. In that case I would suggest that marketing strategy has changed at a fundamental level for companies that want to “engage” customers, and want to “co-create” value with customers. Youtube, flickr, google, and 37signals, marketing is a “co-creative” process, its part of the business model. Maybe coke’s strategy hasn’t changed, and I know Ford’s strategy hasn’t changed, with their inane “bold moves” campaign.
As an example of differing marketing strategy how about walmart bowing out of the DVD rental market? They dove in using traditional marketing strategy, and what they didn’t understand the co-created value of all the millions of movie reviews, and netflix’s engagement strategy.
http://blog.experiencecurve.com/archives/the-hidden-value-in-netflix
Cheers,
karl

By: David Armano

David Armano — Mon, 05 Jun 2006 15:10:56 +0000

“but at a slower pace than marketers want to believe”
Do people buy cars the way they used to? Bank the way they used to?
Do people watch TV the way they used to?
Do people do research/consume media the way they used to?
Do people interact with brands the way they used to?
Peter, I agree about the Marketing Strategy not fundementally changing. But to say the discipline is evolving at a “slower pace”? I would say this statement would have been more accurate in the context of two years ago or so.
The past year alone has shown much change in consumer behavior etc.

By: Peter Kim

Peter Kim — Mon, 05 Jun 2006 14:10:48 +0000

Marketing strategy hasn't changed, but marketing tactics certainly have. This terminology proliferation is happening even in niche channels like WOM: http://blog.bzzagent.com/?p=96 . Marketing as a discipline certainly evolves - but at a slower pace than marketers want to believe when trying to make a quick buck off of coining new phrases for tactical executions.

By: David Armano

David Armano — Mon, 05 Jun 2006 13:59:22 +0000

It’s a good day for 2.0 (BL had a 2.0 post as well)
Seriously, you’re making a very good point here Karl. The phrases we are using are just “shorthand” to describe a very real movement that is not going away and will only evolve over time.
Though the more popular “2.0″ lable can sound buzzy at times because we see it used so much (and sometimes in the wrong context)–we should all do ourselves a favor and think about our own definition and take to heart what our position is in the ever-changing landscape.
Whatever we want to call it– marketing is rapidly evolving for a variety of reasons. In my opinion–for the better.