Comments on: Making marketing invisible

By: Valuable, transformable, multiplied and spreadable

Valuable, transformable, multiplied and spreadable — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 22:06:50 +0000

[...] to Niko Herzeg for asking some great question on my last post “Making marketing invisible” this is to some extent an answer to [...]

By: helgetenno

helgetenno — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 10:52:41 +0000

Hi Niko, thanks a lot for that comment. First of all because its a critique – and I really appreciate that.

But secondly, because I’ve been trying hard the last days to get this related idea out of my head, and answering your question helped me articulate it a lot better. :o)

The answer I wrote, is – to me at least – so important I’ve decided to ad it to an own post entirely – but there are two questions it doesn’t answer, which I thought I’d write down here in stead:

1.”Like it or not, we still get paid in the majority by people who wanna get other people to buy their stuff.”
- You are right, both our ability to measure the value of value and the slow “reaction time” of the stuff I’m talking about makes it a lot harder for clients to invest in. This will get better.

2. “Borrowing of interest”.
- These activities needs to be timeless. It’s not a sponsorship or a campaign. it’s something constant. You build a service or a tool so that it would exist for a long time. In this sense you don’t borrow anything, but gain more ownership of the situation.

Hope that was two of the answers you where looking for, Ill give you a heads up when I publish the post itself.

Best
Helge

By: niko

niko — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 21:17:22 +0000

Helge

Marketing has never been about exclusive attention, but about selling and buying stuff.

So if we allow ourselves to become invisible, should we not always make sure that the context is one of either purchase or post purchase behavioural confirmation as to not overplay ur importance, allow for value adding of consumers without getting in the way and to make sure we satisfy tangible goals of clients?

Hence getting back to my point about mandetory behaviour before voluntary creation by consumers.

Like it or not, we still get paid in the majority by people who wanna get other people to buy their stuff.

otherwise brands run the risk of slipping into “borrowing of interest” for the sake of tailgating something that people like to do but not perse with a brand or product (something your slide of the carnaval seems to suggest. the carnval could have another sponsor tomorrow, and the people would not care vastly that it changed. they just love the carnaval).

Hope to read our thoughts..