John A. Deighton and Leora Kornfeld puts marketing activities on a x/y two dimensional graph visualizing “Information towards Meaning” and “Access towards Identity.” Is this also a useful tool when defining an activities branding and loyalty building abilities?
Smart technological innovations are able to “steal” small sets of data (information) from our behavior online and use this in order to present (accessibility) more “relevant” advertising and marketing in front of our eyes. But is this useful messaging, or does it fall into a category of traditional advertising that we are getting better and better to ignore?
The central purpose of marketing is to create meaning, and meaning arrives through cultural ideas. Presenting it in a context, which makes it relevant to our identity
sexual performance are common contributing factors toPresentation viagra for sale.
Smart technological advances in marketing technology like search or contextual marketing, create nothing but attention and interest, this is a direct marketing model which Deighton and Kornfeld claims to be non-appropriate as a ur-model for interactive marketing.
Brands should look at new possibilities, not through a lens of technology or intrusion, but by understanding the rules that govern social and cultural exchange through ubiquitous connectivity.
The web is more and more becoming a social platform, and if we start understanding people instead of just interrupting them we have a lot to gain.
As always: Hart first, then brain, and at the end; technology.
The report researches what it claims to be the faulty assumption that interactive marketing should be based upon the direct marketing models. The reason for this is that while marketers have done almost nothing with the new possibilities the customers have used the tools extensively to create more sophisticated tools to avoid unwanted marketing
From the report “Digital Interactivity: Unanticipated Consequences for Markets, Marketing, and Consumers” accessible from here.